HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
July 20,2021 Tuesday 3:30 PM
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
3:30 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 326
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
Please enter the City &County Building through the ADA ramp on the east side of the building.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled on
the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance
or availability of speakers.
Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and
durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated:17:10:50
After a year of conducting online public meetings,the Salt Lake City Council is coming
back with a hybrid meeting approach.
This approach will allow people who are joining either in-person or
remotely via Webex to fully participate in the Council Meetings.
Public Comments:The public will be able to provide comments in-person in Room
326 of the City and County Building or online through Webex.For more information,
including Webex connection information,please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-
meetings.(A phone line will also be available for people whose only option is to call
in.)
What to expect:The hybrid format allows in-person
participation and remains mindful of existing COVID-19 protocols and gathering
limits.A maximum of 24 people,including Council members and City staff,will be
permitted in a meeting room.If the capacity has been reached in the primary meeting
room,overflow space will be provided.
We are following CDC guidelines to prevent and reduce transmission of COVID-19 and
maintain healthy business operations and work environments.Per CDC guidelines:
•Face coverings are strongly recommended for all,and are required for those who
are not fully vaccinated.
•Social distancing will be maintained.
Please note -All other City offices within the City &County Building remain
closed to the public.Individuals are required to make an appointment with the
department/division they require service from.Visit www.slc.gov/city-directory
for a list of departments and divisions.
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~3:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,
including but not limited to:
•COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm;
•Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
•Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and
•Other projects or updates.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
2.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~4:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working
on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of
community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies,
procedures,budget,and ordinances.Discussion may include:
•An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;and
•Other project updates or discussion.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
3.Ordinance:Text Amendment Eliminating the Special Exception Process
from the Zoning Ordinance ~4:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would delete and eliminate the special
exception process from the zoning ordinance.A special exception is a minor alteration of a
dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures.The
purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to
accomplish the following:
•Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions;
•Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual
properties and towards updating zoning codes to align with adopted master plans;and,
•Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for
exceptions to the zoning regulations;
There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance.The proposal
addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted,permitted,or
authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance.Some special exceptions that will
become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts.Special
exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division,the Planning Commission,or Historic
Landmark Commission.Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as
part of this petition.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
4.Ordinance:Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment ~4:35 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning
ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions.Administrative decisions are those
made by the Planning Commission,Historic Landmark Commission,or the Zoning
Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance.The amendments primarily clarify
what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer,who can appeal decisions,
and when an appeal can stay a decision,modify City Code to align with State law,related case
law,and make other clarifications to the appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance,including:
•Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the
interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code,not provisions
regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code,the Utah
Constitution,Utah common law or federal law.
•Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant,City board or officer,or “an
adversely affected party”to comply with new State Code.
•Eliminate automatic stays of decisions.An appellant would have to specifically request and
justify a “stay”(a hold on further proceedings on a matter)when appealing an
administrative decision.
The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance.Related provisions
of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
5.Ordinance:Rezone at 329-331 South 600 East (Encircle)~4:55 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would rezone the property at 329-331
South 600 East from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-family Residential District)to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use District).The proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for a café eatery
within the existing building,which is not currently permitted under the existing RMF-35 zoning
designation.This property houses the offices of Encircle Family and Youth Services Center a
nonprofit working with LGBTQ+people and their friends and families.Consideration may be
given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
6.Ordinance:Rosewood Park Street and Alley Vacation at 1400 North 1200
West ~5:10 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate five unimproved City-
owned alleys and six unimproved City-owned streets,situated within Rosewood Park located at
approximately 1400 North 1200 West.The proposal would allow for the consolidation of
property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
7.Resolution:Funding Our Future:Addenda to Transit Master Plan
Implementation Interlocal Agreement with Utah Transit Authority (UTA)~5:25 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize the Mayor to enter into
two proposed agreements (the fourth and fifth addenda to date)for the City’s interlocal agreement
(ILA)with UTA.The fourth addendum continues service on East-West connecting Routes 2 (200
South),9 (900 South)and 21 (2100 South).The fifth addendum initiates mobilization on Route 1
(1000 North)which allows UTA to gather the resources needed,such as additional vehicles,to
launch the new service.The ILA is a twenty-year agreement with a goal of full implementation of the
Frequent Transit Network as described in the City’s Transit Master Plan.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 17,2021
8.Resolution:Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow-up ~5:40 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)which involves the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or
other physical structures.Generally,projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost
$50,000 or more.The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual
budget process,while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same year.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,June 1,2021;Tuesday,July 13,2021;and Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,June 8,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,July 13,2021 at 7 p.m.and Tuesday,August
17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
9.Ordinance:Campaign Finance Reporting and Personal Campaign
Committees ~6:25 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend sections of the Salt
Lake City Code relating to campaign finance reporting and personal campaign committees.The
proposed ordinance would add a new campaign finance report requirement when participating
in the Municipal Alternate Voting Method Pilot Program (commonly known as Ranked Choice
Voting).The proposed ordinance also has general campaign finance changes to align City
ordinance with current State Code.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,July 20,2021
10.Resolution:Utah Performing Arts Center Interlocal Agreement Written Briefing
The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution ratifying execution of a second
amendment to an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City,the Redevelopment Agency
(RDA),and the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA),for operation of the George S.
and Delores Dore Eccles Theater.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and
announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City
Council business,including but not limited to scheduling items.
13.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under
Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an
individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,including
any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible
terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right
or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered
for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and
g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah
Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah
Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder,
does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website
created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake
Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated
interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not
limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of options
discussed.
The City &County Building is an accessible facility.People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids
and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please
contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711.
Administrative
updates
July 20, 2021
Current metrics
COVID-19
update
•Salt Lake County is back in the "moderate transmission"
level, according to state guidelines.
•Crude rates (cases per 100K) are climbing in ALL city zip
codes, with 84101 at 315.6 and 84116 next highest at
179.79.
•Vaccinations in the Central City and West Side areas are
still behind the east side, which is about 55 -64% fully
vaccinated.
West Side vaccination rates
COVID-19
update
May 25 June 1 June 8 July 13 July 20
84101 55.8%full
15.68%partial
58.73%full
13.99%partial
60.80%full
13.11partial
68.5%full
11.66%partial
69.23% full
11.76% partial
84104 28.37%full
9.03% partial
30.31%full
9.03%partial
31.82% full
8.03%partial
37.72% full
6.19%partial
38.52% full
6.12% partial
84116 31.05%full
9.06% partial
33.74%full
8.39%partial
35.07%full
8.01%partial
41.26%full
5.96%partial
41.09% full
6.01% partial
Countywide vaccination demographics
COVID-19
update
May 25 June 1 June 8 July 13 July 20
Asian 42.58%44.53%46.14%53.24%54.00%
White 40.55%42.19%43.58%49.07%49.66%
Black or African
American
24.99%27.03%28.58%36.30%37.37%
American Indian
or Alaska Native
27.96%29.86%31.27%37.70%38.80%
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
22.08%23.51%24.74%30.09%30.84%
Hispanic ethnicity 24.21%26.14%27.70%34.59%35.51%
Non-Hispanic
ethnicity
39.46%40.99%42.28%47.37%47.91%
COVID-19
update
•The good news is that ~62% of unvaccinated
Utahns (including about 72% of Salt Lake
County residents) are still interested in being
vaccinated.
•We are working on a big back-to-school vaccine
push and will share details as soon as we can.
Update on people experiencing homelessness
Men's HRC King HRC Miller HRC Total
Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current
Shelter capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg. number of beds occupied each
night 240 238 194 190 185 185 619 613
Avg number of beds unoccupied each
night 60 62 6 10 15 15 81 87
Avg % of beds occupied each night 80.1%79.3%97.1%95.2%92.5%92.5%88%88%
Avg % of beds unoccupied each night 16.3%20.7%2.9%4.8%7.5%7.5%12.2%12%
Kayak Court’s third run was this past Friday. The
courts heard 17 cases from 14 defendants.
The breakdown of cases:
•3 rd District-4 defendants seen/4 cases heard
•SL County-1 defendant seen/1 case heard
•WVC Justice –3 defendants seen/6 cases heard
•SLCJC –6 defendants seen/6 cases heard
Homelessness
update
Abatements
The following areas underwent camp abatement on
Thursday of last week:
2234 S Highland
250 E 700 S
176 W 600 S
270 W High Ave
9 N Chicago St
17 S 800 W
Homelessness
update
2021
Community
Commitment
Program
Update
Housing/ Stability
Current unmet SL County needs:
-2950 Low-income units
-450 PSH
-85 additional case managers
Emergency
Shelters/ Resource
Centers
Current capacity:
-1100 beds
-mostly congregate
Unsheltered
Homelessness
Salt Lake City:
-300+ unsheltered
-Up to 100 vehicle
campers
Current
Homelessness
Status
and Needs
Housing/ Stability
Current unmet SL County needs:
-2950 Low-income units
-450 PSH
-85 additional case managers
Emergency
Shelters/ Resource
Centers
Current capacity:
-1100 beds
-mostly congregate
Unsheltered
Homelessness
Salt Lake City:
-300 unsheltered
-50-100 vehicle
campers
•State of Utah-Homeless Council,
Coordinator
•Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End
Homelessness
•Salt Lake County
•Salt Lake City
•Partners: Shelter the Homeless
VOA, The Road Home, Utah
Community Action, The Other
Side Village, Catholic Community
Services, Switchpoint
System Structure & Partners
Housing/ Stability
Current unmet SL County needs:
-2950 Low-income units
-450 PSH
-85 additional case managers
Emergency
Shelters/ Resource
Centers
Current capacity:
-1100 beds
-mostly congregate
Unsheltered
Homelessness
Salt Lake City:
-300+ unsheltered
-50-100 vehicle
campers
1a) 300+ new beds by Winter 2020
1b) Community Commitment Program:
•Camp Abatement Prioritization
Plan
•Revised Public Camping Ordinance
•Decreased Police Dept Vacancies/
Other enforcement support
•Increased Police Social Worker
Program
•Car/RV Camping Interventions
•Enforcement of Camping/ Parking
Ordinance
2) Salt Lake City Deeply Affordable
Housing Plan
3) State/County Deeply Affordable
Housing Plans
Plans to address current needs
Andrew Johnston, LCSW
Director of Homeless Policy & Outreach
Andrew.Johnston@slcgov.com
801.440.7822
To report camping/ street parking-
On your smart phone: slcmobile app
Email: michelle.hoon@slcgov.com
Call: 801.535.7712
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: July 20, 2021
RE: Text amendment: Eliminating the
Special Exception Process
PLNPCM2020-00606
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing July 20, 2021
Set Date: July 20, 2021
Public Hearing: Aug, 17 2021
Potential Action: Aug, 24 2021
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on a proposal to that would remove the special exception process from the
zoning ordinance. The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special
exceptions to accomplish the following:
Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions
Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual
properties and toward updating overall zoning codes to align with adopted master plans
Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to
the zoning regulations for single parcels
A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or
addresses accessory uses and structures. Common examples of special exceptions include requests for
exceptions to the maximum height requirements for buildings and fences, additions to existing buildings
that do not comply with current setback requirements, grade changes over four feet in height, legalization
of dwelling units when there is no record of the unit be permitted, and modifications to building bulk
requirements in historic districts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the
Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission depending on location/designation of the
property.
The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Page | 2
Policy Questions
1. The Council may wish to ask if this change will enable planning staff to process other
initiatives more quickly, and how this staff time would be coordinated with the positions added
in the FY 22 budget process.
2. Given the breadth of these changes and City-wide nature, the Council may wish to discuss with
planning staff how public feedback was sought and incorporated, and whether additional
public process is concluded.
Public Process
The proposed text amendment went through the required public process outlined in City Code
See pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter for details.
Early engagement period ran from August 13 to October 10, 2020
o The public information document was posted on the Planning Division website
o Notice sent to all recognized organizations, AIA Utah, and the Planning Divisions email list
Planning Commission held a work session on September 30, 2020
Historic Landmark Commission virtual public hearing on November 5, 2020
o HLC adopted a motion recommended that the City Council adopt the proposal
Planning Commission virtual public hearing on November 18, 2020
o PC unanimously adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposal
During the public process, Planning staff reached out to the Utah chapter of the American Institute of
Architects (AIA) and Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), in addition to all recognized organizations. RMP
provided suggestions to the proposal.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Definition (21A.52.020): A "special exception" is an activity or use incidental to or in addition to the
principal use(s) permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as
exceptions to the requirements of this title of less potential impact than a conditional use but which
requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or impacts to determine the
desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site.
Purpose Statement (21A.52.010): The planning commission or historic landmark commission may
delegate its authority as necessary to the planning director to make a determination regarding special
exceptions. The planning director may approve the special exceptions authorized by this title in accordance
with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter and other regulations applicable to the district in
which the subject property is located.
Budget /Staffing Impact
Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outlines the budgetary and staffing impact of the proposed amendments.
Below are some of the key info taken from that section.
If adopted, revenue from application fees would decrease approximately $43,000.00
o application fee of ($265) x average number of applications submitted annual (156)
Approximately 150 applications for special exceptions are received each calendar year.
The application fee is $265.00.
Page | 3
Eliminating this process would result in significant staff time savings. See calculation summary
in the following two sections:
Typical Special Exception Process
o The processing time for a typical special exception is about17 hours. The cost to process
the applications is determined primarily by the hours of staff needed.
the cost to the city is between approximately $460.00 and $575.00
depending on the classification of the planner processing the application.
The application fee covers between 48-57% of the cost.
Special Exception that Requires Planning Commission or Historic Landmark
Commission Review
o Average processing time for special exceptions that require approval by the Planning
Commission or Historic Landmark Commission is approximately 52 hours.
Staff hour cost is between $1,370.00 and $1,765.00 which is 5-6.6 times the
application fee.
The application fee only covers between 15% and 52% of the cost to process
which means that the rest of the cost is subsidized by the city.
Summary of Proposed Changes
Currently there are 42 special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each
special exception and results in each of them being either deleted, permitted, or authorized through a
different process in the zoning ordinance. The list below uses a color code to easily identify the proposed
changes for each item.
Process to be Permitted (see items in the list below in blue)
Most special exceptions do not generate public input and either require no conditions of approval
or require consistent conditions of approval regardless of the property location. The special
exceptions that fall into this category will be allowed by right and some of them will have
specific qualifying provisions
Processes Proposed to be Eliminated (see items in the list below in red)
These exceptions are being eliminated because they make up the bulk of denied special exceptions
requests, there are other processes to address the exception already in the zoning ordinance, or due
to the high level of controversy that are generated by the exceptions.
Proposed Changes that Generated Public Input (see items in the list below in green)
The Planning Division identified some special exceptions that have generated public input during
the process, as potentially impactful and the Planning Commission asked for more detailed
information those items. See pages 23-25 Planning Commission Staff report for full discussion on
these items:
Historic Landmark Commission would retain authority to make modifications to
dimensional requirements through existing processes in 21A.34.020 Historic Preservation
Overlay District.
Ground mounted utility boxes will be required to be on private property when serving
individual developments.
Accessory building heights would be able to increase slightly up to a district specific
maximum with increased setbacks.
Page | 4
Outdoor dining would be permitted with qualifying provisions intended to reduce the
impact when next to residential zoning districts, including a setback from the shared
property line and time limitations for outdoor music.
Front yard parking would be allowed for residential uses only when no other yard is
accessible for parking and there is no option for an attached garage.
Inline additions would be allowed to follow existing building lines in front and rear yards.
In side yards, an inline addition would be allowed to extend an existing wall that doesn’t
met setbacks up to 25% of the length of the wall.
In commercial zoning districts, building height would be allowed to be increased by up to
10% if the lot is sloped, the increased height is not creating an additional habitable, upper
level to the building, and at least 50% of the building complies with the height requirement.
Zoning districts where vintage signs can be used as art are expanding to include the
following zoning districts: CSHBD-2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA.
Vintage signs as art is already authorized in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, and CSHBD1
zoning districts.
The following is a simple summary of the proposed changes. The change for each item is identified as
either; deleted/no longer authorized, permitted with some qualifying provisions, or permitted/authorized
through a different process. (Attachment A of the November 18, 2020 staff report for the Planning
Commission)
1. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure)
allowed with increase in setbacks
2. Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory
buildings of the block.
3. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights.
4. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; standards added to
allow 10% increase on sloping lots.
5. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception
6. Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception
7. Alternative to off street parking: deleted
8. Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land
uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities.
9. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was
not deleted from the special exception chapter.
10. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process
with standards added.
11. Front yard parking: Standards added to allow front yard parking in very limited instances.
12. Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to
retain the grade change.
13. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line:
standards updated to allow equipment in additional situations when there is no impact, or the
equipment is screened.
14. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted.
15. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; allowed
in a limited manner in side yards.
16. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for
number of kids.
17. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc.
when next to residential zone.
18. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high
level of security.
Page | 5
19. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right
within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance.
20. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards.
21. Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted.
22. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water
quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets.
23. Ground mounted utility boxes: prohibited in the public right of way unless the box serves a broader
area than just a private development and with specific standards; location requirements on private
property added. Size limitations deleted.
24. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38.
Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking
standards deleted.
25. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a
vintage sign could be used as public art.
26. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass,
increased setback from residential uses.
27. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions.
28. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public
utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings.
29. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given
the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes.
30. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies
with zoning requirements.
31. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet
setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, with limited application in side yards.
32. Alteration to an existing SFD [single family dwelling] when the use is not allowed: alterations will
be permitted.
33. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted.
34. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and
screening requirements.
35. Electrical security fences: permitted with updated qualifying provisions.
36. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized
under federal laws.
37. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to
be located on private property when serving individual developments.
38. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will be allowed in
very limited instances.
39. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking
ordinance.
40. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking
ordinance.
41. Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized
through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay.
42. HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing
processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay.
Removing Special Exceptions From the Zoning Code
Or
Making Zoning Easier
Or
Streamlining Zoning Processes
Or
Removing Inequities in the Allocation of Planning Resources
Or
Removing Barriers
CITY COUNCIL
Allowed variations from a zoning requirement
•Minor in nature (although code does not cap degree of variation)
•Most often dimensional
•Can be ancillary uses
•Sometimes legalizes past actions
WHAT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION
Over-height fences
Additions to buildings that don’t meet setbacks
Mechanical equipment size
Grade changes
Historic districts
Additional garage height/size
MOST COMMON EXAMPLES
42 authorized special exceptions
HLC can modify any lot or bulk standard
Average 156 per year
2021: 120 through end of June
•Projected 240
HOW MANY DO WE PROCESS?
Fence height
•Part of companion proposal/separate transmittal
•7/14/2021: in council office
KEY ISSUES
Outdoor Dining
•Adjacency to residential uses
•Noise
Qualifying provisions
•Requires setback
•No music between 9 pm and 9 am
•Typo on pg. 16 of transmittal: should say outdoor dining is not
considered an expansion of the use for parking purposes.
•Some want an approval process for outdoor dining in smaller
zoning districts adjacent to residential(conditional use)
KEY ISSUES
HLC Authority
•Bulk/lot modifications
through H Overlay
•Eliminates the need for
multiple applications
•Supports preservation goals
KEY ISSUES
Grade Changes
•Requires a “step” between tiers
•Sets max height of each tier
KEY ISSUES
Extra building height
•Based on characteristics of block face
•HLC can still approve taller
KEY ISSUES
Inline Additions
•Allows by right up to a certain extent
•Public input: may be too restrictive
•Second story must meet setbacks
•Addressed in noncomplying chapter
KEY ISSUES
Accessory building height
•Increases allowed height
•up to 75% of principal building with a cap
•R-1 zones and multi-family/mixed use zones
•Flat roof: from 12 to 15 ft
•Pitched: from 17 to 21 ft
•*typo multi family zones: says max of 15 for pitched, should be 21. (pg. 14, section 25, C.1.b)
•SR-1 zones
•Flat roof: 9 to 11 ft
•Pitched: 14 to 15 ft
•Requires additional setback on a 1:1 basis if going up to 75% of principal height
KEY ISSUES
Use of Accessory Buildings
•Stand alone buildings, over garages
•Allows home office, hobby shop, fitness room
•No special approval
KEY ISSUES
Noncomplying Buildings
•Allowed to be rebuilt, expand meeting current standards
•Retains property rights
•Most pre -1950s buildings are noncomplying
•Unit legalizations are noncomplying issues, legalizing based on
facts.
KEY ISSUES
Front Yard parking
•Properties without access to off street parking
•Allowed in certain instances
•Historic approval required in historic districts
KEY ISSUES
Ground Mounted Utility Boxes
•Individual developments
•Not allowed in ROW
•Setback requirements (for access to
service provider)
•Screening required in front or corner side
yard
•Exception
•Adaptive reuse when there are not
private property alternatives
KEY ISSUES
Ground Mounted Utility Boxes
•When serving the neighborhood:
•Allowed in ROW with standards
•Spacing from trees
•Cannot impact other
infrastructure
•Cannot impede future planned
ROW needs (bike lanes, wider
sidewalks, etc.)
KEY ISSUES
Ground Mounted Utility Boxes
•Dimensional Standards:
•Removed from Zoning Code
•Title 14 regulates objects in the ROW (other that street trees)
•Subjects ROW permits to land use appeals process
•Limits flexibility when boxes are beneficial or required
•Approval establishes a property right in ROW
KEY ISSUES
Application fee: $265
Average staff hours: 52 hours
•Zoning review
•Review by other depts
•Noticing
•Findings
•Staff reports
Fee covers between 10-40% of staff cost
WHAT DOES IT COST?
Geographic inequities: 85% of applications are east of I-15
Staff resources forced towards expand property rights of individual
property rights, not on city goals.
WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF
SUBSIDIZING SPECIAL EXCEPTIO
Simplify the zoning code
Remove uncertainty
Neighbor vs Neighbor
OTHER REASONS FOR THE PROJ
Deletes the special exception process
Authorized special exceptions will be:
•Allowed by right
•Allowed by right with qualifying provisions
•No longer allowed
KEY POINTS
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00606 Text amendment eliminating the special exception process
from Title 21A.
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director, 801-641-1728 or nick.norris@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposal as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: If adopted, revenue from application fees would decrease approximately
$43,000.00 (application fee of ($265) x average number of applications
submitted annual (156))
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning
ordinance related to special exceptions to accomplish the following:
Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special
exceptions;
Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor
individual properties and towards updating zoning codes to align with adopted master
plans;
Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for
exceptions to the zoning regulations;
This proposal would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance and
make changes to multiple sections of the zoning ordinance to address each of the 42 authorized
1
March 18, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 23, 2021 12:47 MDT)
03/23/2021
03/23/2021
special exceptions. Each of the authorized special exceptions would be addressed in one of the
following ways:
Prohibited and no longer authorized;
Permitted by right, some with qualifying provisions;
Permitted through a different process within the zoning ordinance.
A special exception is a minor change to a dimensional requirement or to approve accessory or
ancillary uses on a property. Common examples of special exceptions include requests for
exceptions to the maximum height requirements for buildings and fences, additions to existing
buildings that do not comply with current setback requirements, grade changes over four feet in
height, legalization of dwelling units when there is no record of the unit be permitted, and
modifications to building bulk requirements in historic districts.
The Planning Division receives approximately 150 applications for special exceptions each
calendar year. The application fee is currently $265.00. The cost to process the applications is
determined primarily by the hours of staff needed. The average processing time is about 17
hours and includes application intake, review for completeness, preparing public notices, routing
for departmental review, reviewing the proposal to verify that applicable standards and other
zoning regulations are complied with, explaining the proposals to neighbors who receive notice,
determining if the proposal impacts neighbors and if so applying conditions to reduce those
impacts, and producing decision letters. Some special exceptions require approval by the
Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission. Additional tasks are required that
include preparing staff reports, scheduling and noticing public hearings, and preparing for
presentations for the public hearing. The level of public engagement increases because public
hearing notices are mailed to a broader segment of the neighborhood. Special exceptions that are
reviewed by one of the commissions require approximately 52 staff hours.
Based on this information, the cost to the city to process a typical special exception application
that is approved by staff is between approximately $460.00 and $575.00 depending on the
classification of the planner processing the application. The application fee covers between 48-
57% of the cost. If the special exception is required to go to a commission for approval, the staff
hour cost increases to between $1,370.00 and $1,765.00 which is 5-6.6 times the application fee.
The application fee only covers between 15% and 52% of the cost to process which means that
the rest of the cost is subsidized by the city.
There are some exceptions that will be prohibited by this proposal. These exceptions are being
eliminated because the make up the bulk of denied special exceptions, there are other processes
to address the exception already in the zoning ordinance, or due to the high level of controversy
that are generated by the exceptions. The following is a short list of exceptions that will no
longer be allowed:
Additional height for dwellings in residential districts unless the block face already has
buildings that exceed the current height limit or the property is located in a historic
district;
Additional height for fences, including in the front yard. Changes to fence height
regulations were initiated by the City Council in 2019. This is being processed separately
because fence height regulations impact every single parcel of land in the city;
2
Ground mounted utility boxes in rights of way unless the box serves the broader
neighborhood or community;
Grade changes and retaining walls over six feet in height that are not broken up by a
horizontal step. This change was also initiated by the City Council in 2016 after a very
tall retaining wall was built in the upper Federal Heights neighborhood.
Most special exceptions do not generate public input and either require no conditions of approval
or require consistent conditions of approval regardless of the property location. The special
exceptions that fall into this category will be allowed by right and some of them will have
specific qualifying provisions. These are detailed in the Planning Commission staff report from
November 18, 2020 (Attachment 3.a.iii).
There are some special exceptions that have generated public input during the process, that the
Planning Division identified as potentially impactful, that the Planning Commission asked for
more detailed information, or that have generated enforcement actions by the city. These special
exceptions are summarized in detail in the Planning Commission staff reports, but briefly
discussed here for reference:
Historic Landmark Commission would retain authority to make modifications to
dimensional requirements through existing processes in 21A.34.020 Historic Preservation
Overlay District.
Ground mounted utility boxes will be required to be on private property when serving
individual developments.
Accessory building heights would be able to increase slightly up to a district specific
maximum with increased setbacks.
Outdoor dining would be permitted with qualifying provisions intended to reduce the
impact when next to residential zoning districts, including a setback from the shared
property line and time limitations for outdoor music.
Front yard parking would be allowed for residential uses only when no other yard is
accessible for parking and there is no option for an attached garage.
Inline additions would be allowed to follow existing building lines in front and rear
yards. In side yards, an inline addition would be allowed to extend an existing wall that
doesn’t met setbacks up to 25% of the length of the wall.
In commercial zoning districts, building height would be allowed to be increased by up to
10% if the lot is sloped, the increased height is not creating an additional habitable, upper
level to the building, and at least 50% of the building complies with the height
requirement.
Zoning districts where vintage signs can be used as art are expanding to include the
following zoning districts: CSHBD-2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA.
Vintage signs as art is already authorized in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, and
CSHBD1 zoning districts.
PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposed changes went through an early engagement process that
included notice to all recognized organizations, notice to AIA Utah, and notice to the Planning
Divisions email list. The official early engagement period started on August 13 and ended on
October 10, 2020. The public information document on this topic that was posted on the
3
Planning Division website was accessed by 147 individuals during this period. Comments were
submitted from the Sugar House Community Council and four individuals. After the early
engagement period several changes were made to the proposal in response to the comments.
These changes included expanding the zoning districts where vintage signs could be placed as
public art, modifying the inline addition regulations to allow minor extensions to buildings walls
that do not meet current side yard setback requirements, and changes to the location of
mechanical equipment when next to driveways, parking areas, or accessory buildings.
As part of the public review process the Planning Division also reviewed zoning complaints to
determine what types of issues are commonly associated with complaints related to special
exceptions. The most common complaint was associated with mechanical equipment and
outdoor dining. The outdoor dining regulations were modified to include a 10-foot setback when
adjacent to a residential zone and hours that music could be played outdoors. Changes to the
mechanical equipment regulations include prohibiting equipment from being placed on the roofs
of accessory buildings and requiring screening when locating in a front or corner side yard.
The Planning Commission held a work session on September 30, 2020 to review the proposal
and provide input. The meeting was held virtually and broadcast on the City’s YouTube
channel, Channel 17 and through the WebEx platform. During the work session, the PC directed
the Planning Division to address the following issues:
1. Front yard parking when there are no other options for off street parking on the site;
2. Extra building height in commercial districts on sloping lots;
3. Inline additions within noncomplying side yards;
4. Ground mounted utility boxes; and
5. Accessory structure building height.
The proposal was modified to address the issues. Front yard parking would be allowed in very
limited situations with specific dimensional requirements; maximum building height in
commercial zoning districts would be allowed up to a 10% increase in building height on sloping
lots and the extra height does not result in the creation of an additional story; inline additions
were limited in scale; ground mounted utility boxes were prohibited in rights of way when
serving only a private development; and up to a 25% increase in accessory building height was
allowed with an equal increase in setback.
The Historic Landmarks Commission held a virtual public hearing on the proposal on November
5, 2020. The meeting was broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel and Channel 17 and
available through the WebEx platform. The public was able to submit comments during the
meeting to a public comment email address that was monitored by staff during the meeting.
One person spoke during the public hearing and discussed the importance that the proposal
maintains the authority of the HLC to modify lot and bulk modifications within local historic
districts and for landmark sites. The HLC adopted a motion recommended that the City Council
adopt the proposal.
The Planning Commission held a virtual public hearing on November 18, 2020. The meeting
was broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel and Channel 17 and available through the WebEx
platform. The public was able to submit comments during the meeting to a public comment
4
email address that was monitored by staff during the meeting. Two people spoke during the
public hearing, one person in favor of the proposal for streamlining approval processes and the
resulting reallocation of staff resources to other city planning needs. Another person discussed
the impact of making more things permitted and the loss of notice associated with that. It should
be noted that notice is only sent to adjacent property owners/occupants and to property owners
directly across the street. Nearly of all special exception requests are approved by staff after the
noticing period ends. The special exceptions that generate the most opposition and are make up
the bulk of denials include requests for extra height for single family homes and over height
fences. These two options are being deleted as part of this proposal and would no longer be
allowed. After discussing these issues, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion
recommending that the City Council adopt the proposal.
It should be noted that this petition has no direct mailing list because the text amendment does
not directly impact specific properties, no property owners or stakeholders indicated that they
would like to receive notice regarding the changes, and no entities have requested direct notice
related to special exceptions.
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3. Planning Commission Meetings
A. November 18, 2020 Public Hearing
i. Agenda and Minutes
ii. Hearing Notice
iii. Staff Report
B. September 30, 2020 Work Session
i. Agenda and Minutes
ii. Staff Report
4. Historic Landmark Commission Meeting November 5, 2020
A. Agenda and Minutes
B. Staff Report
5. Original Petition
5
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
to eliminate special exceptions from that title)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606 to eliminate special exceptions from the city’s zoning
ordinances.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on
November 18, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No.
PLNPCM2020-00606) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.06 (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies
and Officials); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts);
21A.32 (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts); 21A.34 (Zoning: Overlay Districts); 21A.36
(Zoning: General Provisions); 21A.38 (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying
Structures); 21A.40 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures); 21A.44 (Zoning: Off
Street Parking, Mobility and Loading); 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) 21A.52 (Zoning : Special
Exceptions); 21A.60 (Zoning: Defined Terms); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt
Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to off street parking; and
WHEREAS, at its November 18, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor
of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
2
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.06.050.C.6 as
follows:
6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for
properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is
also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic
Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for administrative approval by the planning
director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific
development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification
authorized elsewhere in this title:
a. Building wall height;
b. Accessory structure wall height;
c. Accessory structure square footage;
d. Fence height;
e. Overall building and accessory structure height;
f. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and
g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning
district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards
identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic
structures.
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.2 as
follows:
2. Repealed.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.6
(Grade Changes) as follows:
6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade more than 4
feet at any point for the construction of any structure or improvement except:
a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 feet
shall be permitted for the construction of below grade portions of structures, egress
windows, and building entrances. Grade change transition areas between a yard area
and the buildable area shall be within the buildable area;
b. Within the side and rear yard areas, grade changes greater than 4 feet are permitted
provided:
3
(1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls.
(2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height.
c. Within the required front and corner side yards, grade changes up to 6 feet in height
are permitted provided:
(1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking
areas; and
(2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls.
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.D.6
(Maximum Building Height) as follows:
6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for
properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the
historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of
Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.D.6
(Maximum Building Height) as follows:
6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for
properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the
historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of
Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.D.6
(Maximum Building Height) as follows:
6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for
properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the
historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of
Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.080.D.6
(Maximum Building Height) as follows:
6. Additional Building Height: Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for
additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay
4
District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such
requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.100.D.6
(Maximum Building Height) as follows:
6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for
properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the
historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of
Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.D.6
(Maximum Building Height) as follows:
6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for
properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the
historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of
Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.010.J
(Modifications to Maximum Height) as follows:
J. Modifications to Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in commercial
zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face due to the natural
topography of the site pursuant to the following standards:
1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the underlying
zoning district;
2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the portion of
the building that complies with the maximum building height of the zone without the
10% modification; and
3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from finished
floor to finished ceiling height.
SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D.3 as
follows:
5
3. Recreation equipment heights are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when
needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as fences
surrounding golf course driving ranges.
SECTION 12. Amending to the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D as
follows:
D. Maximum Building and Recreation Equipment Height:
1. Lots 4 acres or less: Building height shall be limited to 35 feet; provided that for each
foot of height in excess of 20 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be
increased one foot.
2. Lots greater than 4 acres: Building heights in excess of 35 feet but not more than 45
feet may be permitted provided, that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each
required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. Building heights in
excess of 45 feet up to 60 feet may be approved through the design review process
and that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard
shall be increased one foot.
3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake
City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in
Section 21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of 60 feet may be approved through the
special exception process.
4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department
that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from
the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is
deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure
necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public.
SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.H
(Lighting) as follows:
H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting
installations comply with the following standards:
1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will not have an adverse impact on
the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, traffic safety or on
surrounding properties and uses;
2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent
properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky; and
3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other similar
uses may be permitted up to 70 feet in height provided the lights are located a
6
minimum of 30 feet from a residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto
neighboring properties.
SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.34.120.G
(Special Exception for Garages) as follows:
G. Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A garage built into a hillside
and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed subject to the
following standards:
1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of parking.
2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and satisfy
the standards of the YCI.
3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main floor of
the house.
4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements.
SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Table 21A.36.020.B
(Obstructions in Required Yards) as follows (only the identified rows and columns in the table
are amended):
TABLE 21A.36.020B
OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1
Type Oof Structure Oor Use Obstruction Front
and
Corner
Side
Yards
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no
exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and
required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or
publicly owned infrastructure or utilities.
X X X
Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR
Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of Subsection
21A.24.010.P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line
shall be supported by a retaining wall.)
Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change
includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in
depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall.
X X X
7
Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X
Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative “swamp”
coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line.
X X X
Notes:
1. ”X” denotes where obstructions are allowed.
2. Reserved.
3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the property.
SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection
21A.36.350.A.3.c.(3) as follows:
(3) A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of 6 feet high shall be provided along all
interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required site distance triangles at
driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6 feet may be required as a condition of
approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a
detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter;
SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.040.H.2
(Enlargement of a Structure With a Nonconforming Use) as follows:
2. Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use: Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use are
limited to a one time expansion of up to 25% of the gross floor area, or 1,000 gross
square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being able to provide required off
street parking that complies with any applicable parking requirement of this title. An
approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning certificate for the
property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use beyond these limits is not permitted.
The expansion shall be limited to a one-time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective
date of this title. Any expansion granted as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall
be considered as fulfilling the one-time expansion.
SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.B
(Enlargement) as follows:
B. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its
location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as
provided in this section.
1. Noncomplying as to setbacks.
8
a. Front yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the
minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce
the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable
requirements of Title 21A.
b. Corner side yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is
less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not
further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all other
applicable requirements of Title 21A.
c. Interior side yards: Additions to a principal structure with noncomplying side
yard setback(s) are permitted as follows:
(1) Single story additions are permitted to follow the existing setback line
provided the following standards are complied with:
i. The exterior wall height of the addition is equal to or less than the exterior
wall height of the existing building. When a cross slope exists along the
exterior wall, the interior floor to ceiling height of the addition shall match
the interior floor to ceiling height of the existing building.
ii. The addition may extend the noncomplying exterior wall of the building
up to 20% of the length of the existing wall. This shall be a one-time
addition and no further additions are permitted.
(2) Two story or greater additions shall comply with the side yard setback
requirement(s) and maximum wall height as specified in the underlying zone.
(3) In determining if a side yard is noncomplying, the narrower of the two side
yards shall be interpreted to be the narrower side yard required in the
underlying zoning district.
(4) All other provisions of the underlying zoning district and any applicable
overlay zoning district shall apply.
d. Rear yards. A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be
expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building wall
and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and complies
with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If the
building does not comply with the existing side or corner side yard setback, the
expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner side yard setback of
the underlying zone.
2. Noncomplying as to Height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum height
of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of the
building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied with.
9
SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.F
(Replacement or Reconstruction of a Noncomplying Structure) as follows:
F. The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal
structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided
the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of
noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement
of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section
complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage
requirements.
SECTION 20. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.060
(Noncomplying Lots) as follows:
21A.38.060: NONCOMPLYING LOTS:
Subdividing Lots Containing Two or More Separate Principal Buildings: Lots that contain
two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to place each
structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions:
A. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat.
B. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and
street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district;
C. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director after
consultation with applicable city departments;
D. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, and
rear yards for the purpose of future development.
E. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front yards
(unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-street
parking
F. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public
street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street
parking is required, vehicle access and parking.
G. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note shall
be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and utilities.
H. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply.
A lot that is noncomplying as to lot area or lot frontage that was in legal existence on the
effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the existing lot noncomplying shall
be considered a legal complying lot and is subject to the regulations of this title. Any
noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created prior to January 13, 1950, may be
approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning
10
requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning
certificate for the property.
Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created on or between January 13,
1950 to April 12, 1995, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot
meeting minimum zoning and subdivision requirements at the time the lot was created and
documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property.
Noncomplying lots may be combined to create a conforming lot or more conforming lot
subject to any maximum lot size standards of the zoning district in which the lot is located.
SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.070 (Legal
Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Two-Family Dwellings, and Twin Homes) as
follows:
Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home
shall be considered legal conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of
the single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the
extent of the original footprint.
A. Alterations, Additions or Extensions or Replacement Structures Greater Than the
Original Footprint: In zoning districts which do not allow detached single-family
dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or twin homes, any alterations,
extensions/additions or the replacement of the structure may exceed the original footprint
by 25% of the existing structure subject to the following standards:
1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not project
into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the structure being
replaced.
2. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the provisions of
Section 21A.36.190, “Residential Building Standards for Legal Conforming Single-
Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings and Twin Homes in
Nonresidential Zoning Districts”, of this title.
B. Off Street Parking: When replacing a legal conforming single- family detached dwelling,
two-family dwelling or twin home, the number of new parking stalls provided shall be
equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. The maximum number
of outdoor parking stalls shall be 4 parking stalls per dwelling unit
SECTION 22. Adopting a new Section 21A.38.075 (Unit Legalizations) to the text of the
Salt Lake City Code as follows:
11
21A.38.075: UNIT LEGALIZATIONS:
A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City
community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one
or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such
units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing
housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of
neighborhoods within the city.
B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this
section shall comply with the following standards:
1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a
dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide
documentation thereof which may include any of the following:
a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar
documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants;
b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit,
business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in
question;
c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit;
d. Historic surveys recognized by the planning director as being performed by a
trained professional in historic preservation;
e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor;
f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but
not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or
g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record
which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995.
2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 1995.
In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the
following may be considered:
a. Evidence listed in Subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has
been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years;
b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied
for more than 5 consecutive years;
c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by Subsection
B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction
upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof.
d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record
which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling
unit at least once every 5 years.
12
C. Conditions of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The unit owner shall allow the city’s building official or designee to inspect the
dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life
safety requirements as provided in Title 18, Chapter 18.50, “Existing Residential
Housing”, of this code.
2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed
within 1 year unless granted an extension by the Building Official.
D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the zoning
administrator, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units.
SECTION 23. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.040 “Use
Limitations” as follows:
21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS:
In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use shall
be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth below:
A. An accessory use shall be incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure
in area, extent and purpose;
B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or control
as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly
authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal use
or structure;
C. No accessory use shall be established or constructed before the principal use is in
operation or the structure is under construction in accordance with these regulations;
D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the
provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an
accessory use or structure.
E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with
the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this title. For residential uses, this
includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as home
office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and other
similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed in the
zoning district.
SECTION 24. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.A as
follows:
13
A. Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards:
1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front yard and shall
be set back at least as far as the principal building when the principal building
exceeds the required front yard setback. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses
and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a front yard.
2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than
the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory
building be closer than 20 feet to a public sidewalk or public pedestrianway and the
accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the principal building.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches
in height may be placed in a corner side yard.
3. Side Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required interior side yard;
however, hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frame structures associated solely with
growing food and/or plants are allowed in an interior side yard but no closer than one
foot to the corresponding lot line. If an addition to residential buildings results in an
existing accessory building being located in a side yard, the existing accessory
building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a 4 foot separation from
the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential building, as required in
Subsection A.4.b of this section.
4. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows:
a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot to a side
or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory building on
an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to side or rear
lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all applicable
requirements of the adopted building code.
b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than 4 feet to any
portion of the principal building; excluding cold frames associated solely with
growing food and/or plants.
c. Garages on 2 or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building
use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located,
may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance
with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings
on each property as indicated herein.
5. Accessory or Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an
accessory or principal lot may be built closer than 10 feet to any portion of a principal
residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a residential zoning
district; excluding hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frames associated solely with
growing food and/or plants.
6. Double Frontage Lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a property
where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in a front
yard provided the accessory building or structure:
14
a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the
primary entrance to the principal building is located;
b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the
block;
c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this title; and
d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this title.
SECTION 25. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.C
(Maximum Height of Accessory Structures) as follows:
C. Maximum Height of Accessory Buildings/Structures:
1. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU Districts,
SNB and the RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures in residential
districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory
building and shall conform to the following:
a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet. The
height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the
principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increases one foot
for every one foot of building height above 12 feet.
b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet
measured to the midpoint of the roof. The height of pitched roof structures may
be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not exceed 15 feet
provided the setbacks increase one foot for every one foot of structure height
above 17 feet.
2. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts:
The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 districts, R-2
district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of
the accessory structure and shall conform to the following:
a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet; 9 feet
in the SR-1A zoning district. The height of flat roof structures may be increased
up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet or 11 feet
in the SR-1A zoning district provided the setbacks are increased one foot for
every one foot of building height above 12 feet or 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning
district.
b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet at
any given point of building coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of
accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14 feet. The height of
pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal
structure, not to exceed 21 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district provided
15
the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of building height above 17
feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district.
SECTION 26. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.065 (Outdoor
Dining) as follows:
21A.40.065: OUTDOOR DINING:
“Outdoor dining”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any zoning
districts where restaurant and retail uses are allowed subject to the provisions of this section:
A. Where allowed:
1. Within the buildable lot area;
2. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard;
3. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of
10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit
restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered
adjacent for the purpose of this section.
4. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of
10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit
restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered
adjacent for the purpose of this section.
5. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all
applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining design
guidelines.
B. All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. All applicable requirements of Chapter 21A.48 and Section 21A.36.020 of this
title are met.
2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor dining
have been secured.
3. A detailed site plan demonstrating the following:
a. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private
property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of the
activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate
approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained from
the city;
b. The main entry has a control point as required by state liquor laws.
4. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to any
existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for property.
16
5. Live music will not be performed, nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor dining
area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt Lake City noise
control ordinance, Title 9, Chapter 9.28 of this code. Live music and loudspeakers
are prohibited outside between the hours of 9:00 pm and 9:00 am when the
property is adjacent to a residential zoning district.
6. Outdoor dining shall be by considered an expansion of the use for the purpose of
determining if additional parking is required as stated in Chapter 21A.44
(Parking).
7. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 25 feet of
the outdoor dining area.
SECTION 27. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.D
(Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding Ten Square Feet) as follows:
D. Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and
antenna support having a combined surface area greater than 10 square feet or having any
single dimension exceeding 12 feet that is capable of transmitting as well as receiving
signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission as an amateur radio
facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in compliance with the
regulations set forth below:
1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with a
surface area greater than 10 square feet or any single dimension exceeding 12 feet
may be located on any lot.
2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted,
exceed 75 feet in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to Subsection D.3 of this
section, the height therein specified.
3. Attachment to Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be
attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions are
satisfied:
a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than 20 feet
above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted.
b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or
mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and its
support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side of
any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building roof
facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to
withstand a wind force of 80 miles per hour without the use of supporting
guywires.
c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding
rod.
17
SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.E.3.b
(Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property) as follows:
b. Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property: Electrical equipment shall be subject
to the following standards:
(1) Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot.
(2) If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the
equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard
property line.
(3) Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an
enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible.
(4) If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public
space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid
fence so the equipment is not visible.
(5) The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is
subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district.
SECTION 29. Amending Section 21A.40.100 (Mechanical Equipment) to the text of
Salt Lake City Code as follows:
21A.40.100: LOCATION OF MECHNICAL EQUIPMENT:
All mechanical equipment shall be located as follows:
A. Front and Corner Side Yards and Double Frontage Lots: Only allowed if located
within 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or
fence so the equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner
side yard property lines.
B. Side Yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a
driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may
be reduced to 2 feet.
C. Rear Yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a
driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may
be reduced to two feet.
D. Prohibited Areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment
is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of
exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the
fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line.
18
SECTION 30. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.I
(Barbed Wire Fences) as follows:
I. Barbed Wire Fences:
Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following
instances:
1. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 districts and to secure critical
infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following
requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the
facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed wire is also
permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction is pending
provided it is removed once construction is complete.
2. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions:
a. Not allowed in a provided or required front yard.
b. The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height.
c. No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above the
ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is vertically
aligned.
d. No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted.
e. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 60
degrees from a vertical line.
f. All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property.
g. The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a residential use
when the subject property is in a CG zoning district.
SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.J
(Razor Wire Fences) as follows:
J. Razor Wire Fences:
Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts
and to secure critical infrastructure structures and sites located in any other zoning district
subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are
necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety.
1. Razor wire is not allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard.
2. Razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height to a height necessary to
reasonably secure the site.
19
3. No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than 7 feet high.
Razor wire coils shall not exceed 18 inches in diameter and must slant inward from
the fence to which the razor wire is being attached.
4. All razor wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property in zoning
districts that do not have a minimum setback.
SECTION 32. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.L
(Electric Security Fences) as follows:
L. Electric Security Fences:
1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and
M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are
prohibited.
2. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front
yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
3. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be
constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes.
4. Perimeter Fence or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless it
is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than 6 feet in height.
There shall be at least one foot of spacing between the electric security fence and the
perimeter fence or wall.
5. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging
prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate
a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way.
6. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of 10 feet.
7. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs
that read: “Warning-Electric Fence” at intervals of not greater than 60 feet. Signs
shall comply with requirements in Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title.
8. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box
that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies.
SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.130 (Access
for Persons with Disabilities) as follows:
21A.40.130: ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES:
Building permits for an uncovered vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp,
for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, or any other form of uncovered access,
for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, that encroaches into required yard areas,
may be approved by the zoning administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered
ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required yard
20
areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal
regulations.
SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.160 (Ground
Mounted Utility Boxes) as follows:
21A.40.160: GROUND MOUNTED UTILITY BOXES:
A. Purpose: Utility infrastructure provides a necessary service to the community. The
regulations of this section are intended to allow for ground mounted utility boxes while
reducing the negative impacts they may create.
B. Compliance With Regulations Required: All ground mounted utility boxes shall be
subject to the regulations of this section and any applicable requirement in Title 21A,
unless exempted within Section 21A.02.050 of this title and any applicable adopted code
and regulation. The location and access for maintenance of all required utility
infrastructure is subject to approval by the utility provider and complying with all
applicable adopted codes and regulations. No construction shall be undertaken without
the applicable city permits and public way permits.
C. Location: Ground mounted utility boxes shall be located as required by this section.
1. On the subject parcel or an adjacent parcel when part of new construction or as an
addition to an existing building that requires additional utility service subject to the
following standards:
a. Rear and Side Yards: the ground mounted utility box shall be located a minimum
of one foot from a side or rear property line.
b. Front and Corner Side Yards: The ground mounted utility box shall be located
within 5 feet of the building façade when located in required or provided front or
corner side yard and at least one foot from a front or corner side yard property
line. Utility boxes in a front or corner side yard shall be screened by a wall, fence,
or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or
fence allowed in the applicable yard.
c. Ground mounted utility box(es) may be placed in a required landscaped yard if
screened by a wall, fence or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the
maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard.
d. If proposed on an adjacent parcel, an easement shall be provided for the utility
boxes and associated equipment along with consent from the owner of the
adjacent parcel.
2. In a public right of way if each of the following criteria are satisfied:
a. There is an existing building on the subject property that is located in a manner
that prohibits the placement of required utility infrastructure on the property;
21
b. There is no existing front yard, corner side yard, interior side yard, or rear yard of
sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es) and access for
maintenance, as required by the utility provider, of the box(es) within the yard. A
right of way may be used to accommodate necessary working space;
c. There is not an alley adjacent to the subject property that provides sufficient
access as required by the utility provider to a yard of sufficient size to
accommodate ground mounted utility box(es). If the alley is not a public alley,
necessary permissions and easements must be provided;
d. The existing utilities are not being relocated to support an expansion of the use or
building or for any new use or accessory use on the property;
e. The ground mounted utility box will not negatively impact any existing or
planned public improvement within the right of way;
f. The ground mounted utility box is located at least 10 feet away from any tree in
the right of way;
g. The ground mounted utility box(es) comply with all requirements of Chapter
14.32 or its successor; and
h. The applicant has provided to the city and the utility provider the dimensions and
space requirements necessary for the utility needs, as determined by the utility
provider, of the proposed development.
3. In a public right of way when the ground mounted utility box is necessary to provide
utility service to the broader neighborhood, the location is consistent with any legal
agreement between the utility provider and the city, and the proposed utility box
complies with all applicable regulations.
4. The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground mounted utility
box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in this section
and Title 14, Chapter 14.32 of this code.
D. Materials: All ground mounted utility boxes shall consist of high quality material such as
stainless steel or other durable painted or colored material. The finish shall be a neutral
color such as dark or light green, beige or gray or color similar to utility boxes within the
vicinity and coated with a graffiti resistant treatment.
E. Post installation Obligations: All ground mounted utility boxes and any related screening
materials shall remain the service provider’s responsibility to keep in a state of good
visual quality and repair.
1. Franchise Agreements: Permitted and installed ground mounted utility boxes shall
also comply with all conditions as set forth in the service provider’s/owner’s
franchise agreement with the city. If the terms of any franchise agreement conflict
with the provisions of this title, the ordinance regulations shall prevail and govern.
2. Discontinued Use: If the service provider/owner of a ground mounted utility box in
the public right of way discontinues the use or has no defined need for said box, it is
that service provider’s/owner’s sole responsibility to remove the box and all
associated conduit and wiring at its own expense in compliance with all engineering
division requirements.
22
3. Required Contact Information: A service provider shall place a permanent notice on
the box containing the service provider’s name and telephone number for the purpose
of notification in the event of graffiti or damages to the equipment.
4. Maintenance: A service provider shall be solely responsible for maintaining ground
mounted utility box sites in reasonably good repair in a clean, safe and level
condition. “Level condition” shall mean not tilting greater than 15° from plumb. A
service provider shall repair any damage to a ground mounted utility box within 72
hours after discovering or being notified of such damage to a box.
SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.44.090
Modification to Parking Areas as follows:
21A.44.090: MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING AREAS:
Applicants requesting development permits or approvals may request adjustments to the
standards and requirements in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and
Loading, and the city may approve adjustments to those standards, as described below.
A. Authority to Approve Modifications:
The planning director or transportation director may approve the following types of
modifications provided that the Director determines that the adjustment will not
create adverse impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety and that the
adjustment is required due to the nature of the site and the surrounding context (such
as shape, topography, utilities, or access point constraints) and that the need for the
adjustment has not been created by the actions of the applicant.
B. Authorized Modifications:
1. Modification to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or stacking space,
aisles, or maneuvering areas otherwise required by this chapter, other City
regulations, or the Off Street Parking Standards Manual; provided that those
modifications are consistent with federal and state laws regarding persons with
disabilities, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2. Modifications to bicycle parking or loading berth location or design standards.
3. Front Yard Parking:
a. The lot contains an existing residential building.
b. No other off-street parking exists on the site.
c. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over
6 inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the
removal of the tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard.
d. The rear yard does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the
property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley.
e. The front yard parking complies with the following standards:
23
(1) The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a
minimum depth of 20 feet.
(2) The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach.
(3) The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot
line or for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line
and is consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face.
(1) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only.
4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing:
a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district
b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or
maneuvering.
b. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side
yard.
c. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other
similar material with dust control measures in place.
d. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to
remove mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50
feet of paved driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The
mechanism used is subject to approval by the Transportation Director or
designee provided it is a commonly used device that is effective at removing
debris from vehicle tires.
SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.070.V
(Historic District Signs) as follows:
21A.46.070.V Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commission may authorize,
as a minor alteration modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new
sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement of a sign type not
allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size
and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the
historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically
significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site has been
designated a vintage sign as per Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the modifications
allowed in that section may be authorized by the historic landmark commission subject to
the appropriate standards of Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
24
SECTION 37. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.46.125 (Vintage
Signs) as follows:
A. The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and
reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt Lake
City’s heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the community
at large.
B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title:
1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the reinstatement
of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be processed in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.08 and Section 21A.46.030 as well as
the following:
Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a sign, an
application for vintage sign designation or modification shall require:
(a) Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, if
currently existing;
(b) Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the sign
meets the applicable criteria;
(c) Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought;
(d) Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and
(e) Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign.
2. The zoning administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the sign:
a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and
has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned
development agreement or by the historic landmark commission;
b. Is not a billboard as defined in Section 21A.46.020 of this chapter;
c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or
restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and
d. Meets at least 4 of the following criteria:
(1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other
establishment on the subject site;
(2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the city,
or region;
(3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or
identity of a neighborhood;
(4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period;
(5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building
where the sign is located; or
25
(6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of lighting
technique, use of materials, or design.
3. A designated vintage sign may:
a. Be relocated within its current site.
b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These
modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign
including:
(1) Shape and form,
(2) Size,
(3) Typography,
(4) Illustrative elements,
(5) Use of color,
(6) Character of illumination, and
(7) Character of animation.
c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site.
d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the
original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it
advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be relocated
for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU,
CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA.
e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business’s new site, should the business with
which it is associated move, provided that the business’s new location is within
the same contiguous zoning district as the original location.
4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage on
a site.
SECTION 38. Deleting Chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions of the Salt Lake City Code
Chapter. Chapter 21A.52 (Special Exceptions) is deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 39. Amending the text of the Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020 (List of
Defined Terms) by adding the following term in alphabetical order:
Ground mounted utility box.
SECTION 40. Adding the following definition in alphabetical order to Section
21A.62.040 (Definition of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code as follows:
26
Ground mounted utility boxes: shall mean such equipment and facilities, including pedestals,
boxes, cabinets, meters or other ground mounted facilities and associated equipment that
extend over 6 inches above ground level used for the transmission or distribution of utilities.
SECTION 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance deleting special exceptions from city code(legislative)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
March9, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
A. NOVEMBER 18, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING
i. AGENDA AND MINUTES
ii. HEARING NOTICE
iii. STAFF REPORT
B. SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 WORK SESSION
i. STAFF REPORT
ii. MINUTES
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 2020
A. AGENDA AND MINUTES
B. STAFF REPORT
5. ORIGINAL PETITION
6
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
7
Petition: PLNPCM2020-00606
August 5, 2020 The mayor initiated a petition to remove the special exception process
from the zoning ordinance.
August 5, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2018-00606 assigned to Nick Norris, Planning Director,
for staff analysis and processing.
August 11, 2020 Petition routed to each City Department and Division for review and
comment.
August 13, 2020 Early engagement period started by sending an email containing
preliminary information sent to all Community Council Chairs informing
them of the proposed text amendments, and that Planning Commission
and City Council meetings would be scheduled in the future.
August 13, 2020 Public information posted to the Planning Division website explaining the
proposal and containing proposed text of code changes.
August 14, 2020 Email notice of the digital open house sent to the Planning Division list-
serve. This email is sent every two weeks with each item that is in the
public engagement phase.
September 17, 2020 Email sent to American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter with
information on the proposal and seeking input from the architecture
community.
September 21. 2020 Presentation to the Sugar House Land Use Committee.
September 30, 2020 Planning Commission work session to discuss proposal
October 5, 2020 Planning Division internal review and drafting of recommendations from
Planning Commission
October 23, 2020 Public notice for November 5, 2020 HLC meeting sent to Division list
serve, posted on city website, and posted on Utah Public Meeting website.
October 24, 2020 Public hearing notice posted in newspaper
October 29, 2020 Ground Mounted Utility Box discussion with City Departments and
Rocky Mountain Power
November 5, 2020 Public Hearing with the Historic Landmark Commission. HLC
recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed changes.
8
November 6, 2020 Public hearing notice for November 18, 2020 Planning Commission public
hearing published in newspaper, posted on the Planning Division website
and on the State of Utah Public Meeting website, and emailed to Planning
Division list serve.
November 18, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and conducted a public
hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that
the City Council adopt the proposed changes.
December 7, 2020 Transmittal forwarded to Community and Neighborhood Department.
9
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
10
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text
Amendments - A request by Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is
requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal
would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception
is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses
and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The
proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted,
or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will
become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions
are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark
Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would
apply Citywide.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments
regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this
issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the
same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our
website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during
the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at
(801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments
received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Nick Norris at 801-641-1728 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at nick.norris@slcgov.com
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance
in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make
a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or
relay service 711.
11
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18, 2020
i. AGENDA AND MINUTES
12
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AMENDED AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
November 18, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission
Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning
Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are
interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following
platforms:
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide
general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-11182020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
1. Consideration of a Stay of Decision - On October 28, 2020 the Planning Commission
approved a special exception for additional building height to add a second story to existing
home located at approximately 1400 East Federal Way; Case number PLNPCM2020-
00465. That decision has been appealed. City ordinance 21A.52.120.B authorizes the Planning
Commission to consider whether to stay the decision that is being appealed. A stay prevents
the city from taking any further action regarding the application, including issuing building
permits, performing inspections, or finalizing inspections, until a decision is reached by the
appeals hearing officer. A stay does not prohibit the applicant from performing work on the
subject property that does not require a permit or for work related to a permit that has already
been issued. If a stay is not granted, the city would be obligated to issue permits, perform
inspections and approve permits. The property owner proceeds at their own risk pending a
decision on the appeal. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or
caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com)
CONSENT AGENDA
2. Kensington Tower Time Extension Request – Steve Brown, project representative, is
requesting a one-year time extension of approval for the Kensington Tower Design Review.
The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed due to delays related to the current
COVID-19 pandemic. Design Review was approved by the Planning Commission on
November 13, 2019 for a 448-foot-tall multi-family residential tower. The subject property is
13
located at approximately 75 E. 200 S., in the D-1 (Central Business District) within Council
District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: John Anderson at (385) 226-6479
or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00786
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 2020
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 2321 S Windsor St - Andrea Palmer with Modal,
representing the property owner, is seeking Conditional Use approval for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) in a detached structure at approximately 2321 S Windsor Street. The
ADU will be located in the Southeast corner of the rear yard of the subject property. The ADU
will measure approximately 561 square feet and will measure a height of approximately 11
feet 7 inches. The subject property is located in the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential
zoning district and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff
contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00512
2. East Liberty Tap House Conditional Use for a Bar at approximately 850 East 900 South
- Caroline & Josh Stewart, the property owners, are requesting Conditional Use approval for
a bar establishment to be located at 850 E 900 S. The space is currently occupied by the
East Liberty Tap House and the bar establishment will retain the same name and ownership.
The applicants are proposing to change the existing tavern/restaurant license and approval
at this location to a bar establishment which requires a new Conditional Use approval. A Bar
is allowed as a Conditional Use in the CB – Community Business zoning district subject to
certain size limitations. An area that previously functioned as a private dining room will be
incorporated into the bar's space for patrons. The building's exterior, parking and other
aspects are not being modified through this request. The subject property is located within
Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385) 226-
3860 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00558
3. Emeril Townhomes Planned Development, Design Review and Preliminary Subdivision
at approximately 833 W Emeril Avenue - Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, is
requesting approval for a new townhome development at 833 Emeril Avenue. The project will
replace one single family residence on a single lot with 12 single family attached townhomes.
The total site is 0.27 acres. The proposed project is subject to the following applications:
a. Planned Development: The Planned Development is needed to address the lack of
street frontage and modifications to the TSA zoning regulations. Case
number PLNPCM2020-00288
b. Design Review: The development requires Design Review approval as the
development did not receive enough points through the TSA development review
process for administrative (staff level) approval. Case number PLNPCM2020-00289
c. Preliminary Subdivision: The development also involves a preliminary plat to create
the individual new townhome lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00347
The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston.
(Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535- 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com)
4. Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance
Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting
14
amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal
would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A
special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance
or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions
authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and
results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different
process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include
changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved
by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission.
The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The
changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or
nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted
two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission.
15
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, November 18, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at 5:30:26 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are
retained for a period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice
Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins,
Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne
Mills, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Caitlyn
Miller, Principal Planner; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Katia
Pace, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation for conducting a virtual meeting.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:31:35 PM
Chairperson Scheer stated that it is her and Amy Barry’s first time serving as Chair and Vice-
Chair and asked the public for their patience while they settle into their new roles.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:32:08 PM
Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, provided the public with instructions on how to join and
participate during the meeting.
6:41:48 PM
Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance
Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting
amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal
would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special
exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses
accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the
zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special
exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning
ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to
add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning
Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed
amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-
Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (
16
Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-0606
Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in
the case file).
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Clarification on whether extra height for buildings is allowed if the primary structure is
nonconforming in height
Clarification on nonconforming structures
PUBLIC HEARING 7:04:10 PM
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Cindy Cromer – Stated she mentioned to the Historic Landmark Commission the issue of lack of
public notice once the changes are approved. She also stated that over time uses associated
with special exceptions have changed dramatically; an example is outdoor dining.
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided information on notices that are provided to the public.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
Whether public comments received by staff are sent to City Council
Clarification on whether the neighborhood will still receive notices if the petition is
approved
Clarification on the number of special exceptions in the zoning ordinance that are being
changed
Clarification on how the proposed changes affect daycares
MOTION 7:17:02 PM
Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment,
PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendment.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Young-Otterstrom,
Urquhart, Paredes, Lyon, Hoskins, Bell, Barry and Bachman voted “Aye”. The motion
passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20:37 PM
17
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18 2020
ii. NEWSPAPER NOTICE
18
19
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18, 2020
iii. STAFF REPORT
20
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com
Date: November 18, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
REQUEST:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to
the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and
eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a
minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory
uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning
ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception
being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance.
Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add
flexibility in administering the regulation and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved
by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission.
The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would
apply Citywide.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the Planning Division recommends that the
Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation for the text amendment request to
the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Quick guide of changes to each special exception
B. Proposed Text Amendment
C. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Factors
D. Public Outreach Summary
E. Department Review Summary
21
Petition Description
The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception
process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized
exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions
for each authorized special exception:
• Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied;
• Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely
approved; or
• Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance.
The number of special exception applications have
grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is
directing staff resources away from addressing
citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing
staff resources towards individual developments.
Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost
two full time employees to process the applications in
2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total
workload.
Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy. Without any real cap on the
scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is
increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate
with the applicant, and decide on each application.
Proposed Changes
The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The
Planning Commission was briefed on those changes during a September 30, 2020 work
session. A quick guide to the changes can be found in Attachment A. The proposed text
changes can be found in Attachment B.
Applicable Review Processes and Standards
Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment
Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether
proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the
zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they
implement best professional practices. Those considerations are addressed in Attachment C.
The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing
growth by implementing the following practices:
• removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth
related issues,
• modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes
(such as special exceptions that are rarely, if ever, applied for),
What is a special exception?
A special exception is a minor
modification to a dimensional
standard or accessory use with
minimal impact to adjacent
properties.
22
• removing regulations that restrict property rights and that do not reflect current trends
in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and
• removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety,
and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city.
City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not
controlled by any one standard.
Community Input
Public Outreach is summarized in Attachment D and includes who was noticed, when the notice
was sent, presentation and meetings held, and submitted comments. Below is a discussion of
the key issues identified by the community, how the comments relate to the proposal, and how
the comments were reflected in the proposed update. The following issues were identified
through the public engagement process as of October 31, 2020:
1. Outdoor Dining
The Department of Community and Neighborhoods have had several recent complaints about
outdoor dining and the impact to adjacent and nearby neighbors. The primary complaints
involve noise, proximity to property lines, and businesses not obtaining special exception
approvals. The proposed changes would allow outdoor dining as a permitted use to a restaurant,
coffee shop, or other food serving business. The proposal maintains some existing standards
and adds some new standards:
• A ten-foot setback for outdoor dining when located next to a residential zoning district
(new);
• Limits amplified and live music to decibel levels required by the Salt Lake County Health
Department and places hours that music can be played outdoors when the business is
adjacent to a residential zoning district.
2. Fence Heights and buffering
Changes to fence height are being processed as a separate application and those comments
related to this special exception have been included and analyzed in that project.
3. Discrepancy with Special Exception Approvals
The Planning Division did hear from a resident of the East Bench Neighborhood regarding
special exception approvals. The resident indicated that the process was used to create
inequities in property rights, with some property owners benefiting from the process and then
using the public process to deny other nearby property owners of the same benefits. The
Planning Division has heard similar complaints from applicants and the process does create the
potential for an applicant to gain approval if the neighbors are favorable towards a proposal and
be denied or have a more rigorous approval process if the neighbors are not in favor. Special
exceptions are an administrative process because the PC is the approval authority. The PC does
have discretion in the process because the current standards are subjective, and applicants are
not being denied a property right because the applicant typically has the option to comply with
the zoning requirements without the need for a special exception. No changes were necessary
from this comment.
4. Noncomplying Issues
23
Public comment was received identifying that many properties in the city likely have some level
of noncompliance due to the age of the building and changing zoning regulations. The comment
indicated that noncomplying issues should be resolved easily and retain property rights. There
are changes to chapter 21A.38, which regulates nonconforming uses and noncomplying
structures that accomplish this by simplifying the regulations and reducing the need to submit
land use applications.
5. Front yard Parking
The Sugar House Community Council indicated that they do not support allowing front yard
parking. This is highlighted here because the Planning Commission indicated that it should be
allowed under narrow circumstances. The Planning Division has prepared a draft proposal that
follows the input of the Planning Commission and is discussed under the “Planning Commission
Recommendations” section.
6. Unit Legalizations
The comments received regarding unit legalizations focused on the need for the definition of a
unit to be applied more uniformly and updated if needed. This is separate from this proposal.
The comment including inconsistent application of the definition to include things such as water
heaters. The zoning definition of a dwelling unit is:
A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a
family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with
kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within
hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses and
lodging houses.
It should be noted that this definition is being changed slightly as part of the Shared Housing
(formerly known as SROs) zoning amendment. The changes address a shared housing unit not
being fully self-contained. No changes were made to this proposal in response to this comment.
7. Vintage Signs
A comment was received about vintage signs and that they should be allowed in the CSHBD 2
(Sugar House Business District) zone. A vintage sign is a historic sign that adds some distinctive
nature to a neighborhood. Vintage signs can be relocated within the same zoning district, be
moved with a business if it relocates, and are allowed to be used as public art in some zoning
districts. This comment is in reference to the use of vintage signs as public art. The ordinance
currently restricts this to the Downtown zones, Gateway Mixed Use, and Sugar House Business
District 1 zoning districts. The comment from the Sugar House Community Council is related
to adding CSHBD2 to the allowed zones where vintage signs could be relocated as public art.
The Planning Division used this suggestion to update the proposal to add this zoning district
and other similar zoning districts: FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. It may be worth
considering if vintage signs create an impact in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district
and allow them in those districts as well.
8. Inline Additions
A comment was received about the need to maintain inline additions as an option to provide
flexibility when designing additions that fit in with the characteristics of the built environment.
This is a true statement. This issue was also identified by the Planning Commission with a
24
recommendation to find a way to maintain inline additions in the side yard. Options are
discussed in the next section of this report.
Inline additions within side yards do create new impacts that the adjacent property owner may
not have anticipated. The impacts often cited by the public when reviewing an inline addition
within a side yard include privacy and shadowing. Privacy impacts include how windows are
aligned with windows on neighboring properties and expanding the living space so that adjacent
rear yards are less secluded. Issues associated with shadowing are identified when the proximity
of the addition starts to shade a portion of a neighboring yard that was not previously in the
shade. Trees and fences also create shading issues, fences are shorter than building walls and
tree heights are not regulated by city ordinances.
The remaining processes in the zoning ordinance do not contain similar flexibility or do not
contain standards that help determine if an inline addition within a side yard is appropriate.
The closest process is the design review process. That process does not contain specific
standards about inline additions and would require some standards be added in order to be a
useful tool for inline additions.
9. HVAC Locations and Setbacks
HVAC equipment is generally required to be at least 4 feet from a property line and are not
allowed to be in a required front yard setback. An average of 11 applications per year are made
requesting to locate HVAC equipment within four feet of a property line or within a required
front yard. In response to this comment, the proposal was modified to add flexibility, such as
allowing the equipment in a front yard if it is located within 4 feet of the building, at least 10 feet
from the front property line, and screened. There was a public comment that suggested that
mechanical equipment may be appropriate if it was within 4 feet of a property line and adjacent
to a driveway on a neighboring property. This was added as an allowed encroachment when
next to a driveway, parking area, or an accessory building provided a 2-foot setback is
maintained to allow future maintenance without the need to use adjacent property to access the
equipment.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following section outlines the recommended changes made by the Planning Commission
during the work session held on September 30, 2020.
1. Inline Additions
An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the
minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for
additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a
time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a
structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller
side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying.
The Planning Commission supported allowing inline additions to buildings that already
encroach into a required front or rear yard. The proposal presented by the Planning Division
did not allow inline additions in noncomplying side yards that did not comply with current
side yard setbacks. This means that any new addition would be required to meet the setbacks.
The Commission requested that the Division consider options for inline additions in
25
noncomplying side yards and suggested limited those additions to single story in height or
rethinking how building height is measured.
The Division created a proposal that would allow an inline addition within a noncomplying
side yard provided:
• The addition is limited to a single story;
• The addition maintains the exterior wall height (or lower) of the existing building;
• The addition can extend the existing noncomplying exterior wall no more than 20% in
length.
These provisions provide some flexibility in the regulations and reduce the potential impacts
to neighbors. The proposal would allow the extension “by-right” and there would be no public
process for meeting the provisions. An additional suggestion was to allow an addition to
extend a noncomplying wall by up to 50% of the existing wall, but no more than 16 feet, which
would be enough to accommodate an additional room within the building. The Commission
can decide which option is best upon considering impacts and the need to be flexibility and
allow for growth within existing buildings to better accommodate changing housing needs.
The HLC would retain the ability to modify setbacks within historic districts, which cover
significant portions of the city. The provisions for inline additions would not apply to
properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District because the H Overlay already
has standards and processes to address additions with noncomplying setbacks.
2. Front Yard Parking
The Planning Commission recommended that front yard parking be allowed provided there
are no other alternatives for off-street parking on the property. The Planning Division has
added standards that:
• Only permits front yard parking when the property has no other off-street parking;
• Limits front yard parking to residential uses;
• The front or rear yard are not accessible due to the width of a side yard, lack of a side
yard, or lack of a wide enough rear yard for corner properties; and
• Adds dimensional standards to ensure that the front yard parking does not impact the
sidewalk or bike lanes.
3. Additional Height for Accessory Structures
The primary concern raised by the Planning Commission involved how high an accessory
building could be if the principal structure was more than two stories in height. Standards
were added that:
• Limited the increase to no more than 25% of the permitted height and restricts the
height to no more than 75% of the height of the principal structure;
• Requires an increased setback of one foot for every one foot in additional height.
Several issues were identified by Planning staff regarding extra height and the likelihood for it
to promote second story use in accessory buildings. The existing special exception for extra
height in accessory buildings limited the extra height to storage purposes and did not allow
windows to face a neighboring yard. The use of the secondary story requires a separate special
26
exception under the current code. However, with the proposed changes, second story use
would be permitted.
4. Commercial Building Height
The Planning Commission discussed that there could be some benefit for allowing extra height
on sloping lots in commercial zoning districts. The concerns raised were mainly focused on
buildings with wide frontages and the impact extra height would have. The ability to obtain
extra height, up to 10%, was added as a permitted increase provided that at least 50% of the
building volume complies with the height, the height allows for the top story to have level
floors without internal stepping, and the ground floor has a minimum height of twelve feet.
5. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes
The recommendation from the City is to prohibit ground mounted utility boxes in public rights
of way when the utility box is only serving private development. The reason for this change is
because the private development benefits from placing the boxes in the rights of way because
doing so does not require space on private property for private infrastructure. However, this
creates long term planning issues for the City because those boxes will never be able to be
moved out of the right of way if the City desires or needs to make changes to the rights of way.
Examples include planting trees, expanding underground infrastructure (such as water pipes,
storm drainage, or sewer lines), widening sidewalks, adding grade separate bike lanes,
managing curb space, and other public uses within the ROW. This section was modified to
require utility provider approval for location and access to utility boxes, setbacks from
property line of one foot, and multiple requirements for locating a box in the ROW (each
requirement must be satisfied) only when the box is necessary for neighborhood wide service
and when an existing building on the property is being reused and there is no other location
on the subject property.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing on the proposed changes on
November 5, 2020. There was one public comment in support of the proposed changes as it
retains the HLC ability to make modifications to lot and bulk requirements but simplifies the
process to do so. The HLC passed a motion unanimously recommending that the City Council
adopt the proposed changes.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration
criteria in Attachment C. The proposed code changes implement best practices by ensuring the
code is up to date, does not conflict with other applicable State or City Code, and complies with
the City’s zoning purposes by ensuring that City ordinances can be legally administered and
enforced.
Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable
recommendation on this request to the City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
27
The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed
text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing
and additional public hearing(s) on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City
Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the
proposed zoning text amendments.
If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new
City ordinance standards.
The Planning Commission may also recommend a modified version of the proposal. This would
be advisable if the commission identifies potential issues with any aspect of the proposal.
Instances where this may happen include:
• The commission wants to add a standard or modify a proposed regulation;
• The commission wants to delete a standard or requirement within the proposal;
• The commission wants additional information about any aspect of the proposal.
There may be situations where the Planning Commission makes a request and the Planning
Division is not able to provide information regarding that request. An example of this may be a
request for a significant amount of research or data that the Division does not have the capability
to provide.
28
This is a simple summary of the proposed changes. Please refer to the draft code in Attachment
B for all proposed changes.
Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure)
allowed with increase in setbacks
Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory
buildings of the block.
Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights.
Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; standards added
to allow 10% increase on sloping lots.
Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception
Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception
Alternative to off street parking: deleted
Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land
uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities.
Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but
was not deleted from the special exception chapter.
Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process
with standards added.
Front yard parking: Standards added to allow front yard parking in very limited instances.
Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary
to retain the grade change.
Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line:
standards updated to allow equipment in additional situations when there is no impact or the
equipment is screened.
Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted.
Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards;
allowed in a limited manner in side yards.
Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for
number of kids.
Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise,
etc. when next to residential zone.
Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a
high level of security.
Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right
within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance.
Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards.
29
Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted.
Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water
quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets.
Ground mounted utility boxes: prohibited in the public right of way unless the box serves a
broader area than just a private development and with specific standards; location requirements
on private property added. Size limitations deleted.
Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter
21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update
to parking standards deleted.
Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where
a vintage sign could be used as public art.
Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light
trespass, increased setback from residential uses.
Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions.
Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public
utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings.
Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be
given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes.
Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition
complies with zoning requirements.
Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet
setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, with limited application in side yards.
Alteration to an existing SFD when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted.
Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted.
Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback
and screening requirements.
Electrical security fences: deleted and will become nonpermitted.
Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation
authorized under federal laws.
Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required
to be located on private property when serving individual developments.
Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will be allowed
in very limited instances.
Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to
parking ordinance.
Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to
parking ordinance.
30
Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized
through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay.
HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through
existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Special Exception Text Amendment
Public hearing notice for the HLC meeting was sent through the Division email list on
mailed on October 22, 2020
Public hearing notice published to newspaper October 24, 2020
Public notice posted on City and State websites on October 22, 2020
No formal requests to receive notice of the proposed text amendment were received prior
to the noticing deadline of this public hearing.
72
From:John Blankevoort
To:Norris, Nick
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions
Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:46:34 PM
Attachments:EBCC 6-17-2020 meeting.pdf
Hello Nick
I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes,
frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of
subjects.
I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to
evaluate the wider problem.
We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with
these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call
into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual
obstacles for your Dept.
Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject
of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home
and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and
planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting
neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to
'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and
planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following
the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts.
time by making more work.
I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local
District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new
process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special
exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the
charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more
efficient, don't you agree?
Best
John
73
From:Ann Robinson
To:Norris, Nick; Annie V. Schwemmer
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes
Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:56:57 PM
Well, these situations were handled previously by special exceptions because each circumstance is
unique. By eliminating special exceptions, you are now trying to make rules that cover all
possibilities—probably not possible.
Let us think about this a bit and get back to you.
Ann Robinson, AIA
Principal // Renovation Design Group
824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101
O.801.533.5331 | M. 801.230.2080
RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:48 PM
To: Annie V. Schwemmer
Cc: Ann Robinson
Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes
Thanks Annie, these are helpful comments. Do you have some ideas on how we can accommodate
these issues within the proposal?
NICK NORRIS
Director
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
CELL 801-641-1728
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
From: Annie V. Schwemmer
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:33 PM
To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Cc: Ann Robinson
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes
Hi Nick-
We’ve reviewed the proposed special exception changes and since we do so many
renovations/additions in SLC we have the following comments:
74
Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: It seems there will be very few of these that
would not also need to project into a front yard setback.
Central Air Condensers: There are many side yards that can accommodate a condenser without
causing undue hardship on the neighbor (for instance, a 4’ side yard adjacent to a neighbor’s
driveway) and there should be a way for these to be allowed.
Corner side yards: We think in-line additions need to be allowed in side yard setbacks to avoid
awkward interior spaces & rooflines.
Noncomplying as to height: We think rear additions should be allowed to match the height of the
existing roofline even if the existing structure is noncomplying. This change will create odd looking
rooflines and will preclude 2nd stories on rear additions if the lower roofline makes the upper level
ceiling lower than 7’ high.
Thanks-
Annie
Annie V. Schwemmer, AIA
Principal // Renovation Design Group
824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101
O. 801.533.5331 | M. 801.560.7171
RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio
75
76
77
From:Kyle Deans
To:Norris, Nick
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions
Date:Monday, November 9, 2020 3:09:19 PM
Nick,
If the exceptions have been addressed in each of their specific sections of zoning code I fully
support deleting the Special Exceptions from the code.
Kyle R Deans
Salt Lake City Resident
78
Special Exception Text Amendment
Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for
review on August 11, 2020. In addition, follow up meetings were held on September 30, 2020
and October 29, 2020 with Engineering, Real Estate Services,Building Services and Rocky
Mountain Power to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are
submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings.
Airports: no comments received.
Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver
for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections
of the proposal:
o Edit suggestions regarding Table 21A.36.020.B Obstructions in yards;
o Support addressing grade changes and retaining walls as it removes vagueness
in doing related zoning reviews.
o Requested that the expansions of nonconforming uses be limited to a one-time
request to avoid repeated requests over time.
o Regarding noncomplying lots, add provision about complying with all applicable
provisions so that it includes building and fire codes.
o Remove some of the standards for unit legalizations that deal with past zoning
violations. Past violations that are unrelated to the existence of a dwelling unit
should not be a factor in determining if the unit can be recognized as a legal
dwelling unit.
o Concerns with letting any accessory use go into an accessory building. Is a
welding shop appropriate in a shed, for example?
Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments provided.
Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional
building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the
number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts
and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division
also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial
districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and
encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta
Reichgelt.
Engineering: Engineering is concerned with prohibiting all utility boxes in the ROW.
This puts the burden on Engineering to make decisions about the aesthetics of utility
boxes when they are mostly focused on the engineering and impact to physical
infrastructure, such as sidewalks, curb, and gutter.
Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on
revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division
revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year.
79
Special Exception Text Amendment
Fire Department: no comments provided.
Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.
Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special
exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.
Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated.
The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes
be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.
Police Department: no comments provided.
Public Services:
o Parks and Public Lands: Parks and Public Lands provided comments relating to
fence height around outdoor recreation facilities and light poles associated with
sports fields.
o Golf Division: provided comments regarding fence heights around golf course
driving ranges.
o the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex provided input on the height and setbacks
of athletic field lighting.
Public Utilities: Public Utilities provided comments about exempting some necessary
infrastructure and utility buildings from height requirements in the OS Zoning District,
asking if the riparian and lowland overlay zoning districts still apply, clarifying that
underground encroachments are on private property only, and ensuring that antennae
height would allow the necessary infrastructure to monitor utility facilities. Comments
provided by Jason Draper.
Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because
they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more
predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.
Sustainability: no comments provided.
Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by
Michael Barry.
Urban Forestry: no comments provided.
80
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
i. AGENDA AND MINUTES
81
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
September 30, 2020, at 1:00 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will
connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can
still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning
Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating or provide general comments, email;
planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-09302020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 1:00 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
WORK SESSIONS: No public comment will be heard
1. 800 South & State Street Design Review at approximately 754 S. State St. – Aabir Malik,
an applicant with Colmena Group, is requesting Design Review approval to develop a portion
of the former Sears property into an 11-story, 120 foot tall, mixed-use development consisting
of ground floor retail and 360 multi-family residential units in upper floors. The applicant is
requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height, modification to the
spacing of building entrances and to exceed the maximum street facing facade length. The
project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district and is located within
Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801)
535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00439
2. Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance & Associated Ordinance
Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting
amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal
would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A
special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance
or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions
authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and
results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different
process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include
changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved
by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission.
82
The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would
apply Citywide. This briefing is intended to introduce the changes to the Commission in
anticipation of a future public hearing. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or
nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-6060
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted
two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission.
83
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at 1:00:43 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are
retained for a period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice
Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners, Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn
Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner
Andres Paredes was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne
Mills, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; and
Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 26, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 1:00:59 PM
MOTION 1:01:09 PM
Commissioner Scheer, moved to approve the August 26,2020 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Scheer, Barry,
Urquhart, Bachman and Bell voted “Aye”. Commissioner Lee abstained from voting as
he was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed 6-1.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 1:02:04 PM
Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1:02:18 PM
Nick Norris, Planning Director, thanked the Commission for attending the meeting for work
session items.
2:25:25 PM
Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance & Associated Ordinance Changes
– Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to
the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and
eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor
alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and
84
structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The
proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted,
permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special
exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce
impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning
Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple
chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as
part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. This briefing is intended to introduce the
changes to the Commission in anticipation of a future public hearing. (Staff contact: Nick Norris
at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-6060
Nick Norris, Planning Director, briefed the commission with an overview of the proposal and
seek input on 5 key issues with the proposal.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Front yard parking: proposal is to eliminate.
a. Have an issue with eliminating it.
b. May impact more modest neighborhoods than wealthier neighborhoods. Some
westside neighborhoods have narrow lots where side/rear cannot be accessed. It is
not just the avenues or capitol hill.
c. Reality is that even if someone has a driveway that leads to a garage, they park in
the portion of the driveway in the front yard. If that is allowed, how is this any
different in terms of seeing cars parking in the front yard area?
d. Would like to see a proposal to allow it with some standards (dimensions, materials,
location within front yard)
e. If the block face has driveways, it should be allowed.
f. Consider standards about parking slab being located closer to the side property line
so it is similar to other driveways and not going directly into the middle of the lot.
Commercial Building height
a. Is this an issue that is created by how building height is measured in commercial
districts?
i. For example, if the height is averaged on one slope, how does that translate
to the next building face? One side gets the benefit of the slope, but the
other doesn’t so in effect it is a meaningless.
b. Try to figure out how to allow this when it isn’t adding an additional story of habitable
space. Like if the front yard is fine, but the property slopes towards the back, can the
rear of the building be level with the street facing façade?
c. Can it be based on the length of the lot? Really wide lots may have to have some
sort of stepping.
Ground Mounted utility boxes
a. Support removing them from the ROW or private developments.
b. Understands the need for flexibility with underground power requirements and the
tradeoff with some utility boxes.
Accessory building height
a. Concerns with just allowing an accessory building up to 75% of the height of the
principal structure. What if the principal building is 35 feet tall, should the accessory
building be allowed to be almost as tall as the maximum principal building of 28 feet?
i. Consider an “up to height” as part of the increased height.
85
b. Concerned with the use of second stories on accessory buildings.
Inline additions
a. Want to find a way to allow them inside yards.
i. Can we allow a single-story addition to follow the existing setback line, but
require a second story to comply with current step backs?
b. OK with the front and rear yard proposals.
Next Steps:
Engagement period ends on Oct 11th. Will see if there are any additional issues and
address them when this comes back to the PC
Will work on addressing the key issues above and work solutions into the proposal.
Targeting November PC meeting for a public hearing due to workloads but would like to
transmit by end of December.
The meeting adjourned at 3:05:03 PM
86
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
ii. STAFF REPORT
87
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 www.slcgov.com
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Staff Report
To : Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com
Date: September 25, 2020 (publication)
Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
REQUEST:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to
the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and
eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a
minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory
uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning
ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception
being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance.
Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add
flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division,
the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments
involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may
be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a briefing only. The purpose of the briefing is to introduce the Planning Commission to
the proposal, the purpose of the project, identify key issues, and answer questions.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Public Information Guide
Petition Description
The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception
process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized
exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions
for each authorized special exception:
Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied;
88
Special Exception Text Amendment
Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely
approved; or
Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance.
The number of special exception applications have
grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is
directing staff resources away from addressing
citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing
staff resources towards individual developments.
Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost
two full time employees to process the applications in
2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total
workload.
Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy. Without any real cap on the
scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is
increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate
with the applicant, and decide each application.
Proposed Changes and Most Frequently Applied for Special Exceptions
The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The
key changes are discussed below and based on the most frequently applied for exceptions. The
chart shows the number of applications
received in the last three years for each
type of special exception.
Unit Legalizations: Regulations will be
relocated to the nonconforming chapter
because this is recognized an existing use
that has been in existence prior to the
current zoning regulations.
Replacing Non-Complying Building or
building segment: regulations will be
moved to noncomplying section because
these are legally existing structures that
retain certain noncomplying status rights.
Home Day Care: This will be addressed
through another text amendments that
will make home day cares permitted or conditional uses based on the number of children
cared for.
Hobby Shops: These will become permitted uses in accessory buildings.
Type of Special Exception # of
applications
Unit Legalizations 32
Replace Noncomplying Building 37
Home Day Care 37
Hobby Shop 42
Grade Changes 43
Mechanical Equipment in Required
Yard 44
Additional Height Accessory Building 47
HLC Bulk Modification 51
Inline Additions 97
Fence Height 104
What is a special exception?
A special exception is a minor
modification to a dimensional
standard or accessory use with
minimal impact to adjacent
properties.
Top ten most applied for special exceptions for
the past three years
89
Special Exception Text Amendment
Grade Changes: specific regulations will be added to reduce the size of retaining walls
necessary to retain the associated grade changes. The retaining walls will be required to be
stepped based on the base zoning districts.
Mechanical equipment in required yards: Will be permitted with setback and screening
requirements added to reduce negative impacts.
Additional Accessory Building Height. The permitted height will remain at seventeen feet for
most residential districts (SR-1 and SR-1A have different height requirements). However, the
height may be increased up to 75% of the height of principal building for an equal increase to
side yard and rear yard setbacks.
HLC Bulk Modifications: the authority of the Historic Landmark Commission would remain
and authorized through the required process in the overlay zoning district for new
construction and additions. Currently two different applications are required. This would
reduce the need for a redundant application. Staff authority would be expanded to allow for
similar allowances for minor modification applications.
Inline Additions: additions to a side yard where the building does not comply with the
minimum requirement would be prohibited. Additions in a front or rear yard would be
allowed when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required front or rear yard.
This is because front yard and rear yard setbacks are larger than side yard setbacks and do not
create the same impacts to neighboring properties.
Fence Height: this would be deleted. Specific maximum heights would be added. The HLC
and PC will retain the ability to approve taller fences to mitigate a negative impact associated
with a land use application. (this is being processed as a separate text amendment).
Other changes can be found in Attachment A as a quick summary of what would happen to
each special exception. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B.
Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment
Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether
proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the
zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they
implement best professional practices. These factors will be fully analyzed in the final staff
report prepared for the public hearing.
The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing
growth by implementing the following practices:
removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth
related issues,
modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes
(such as special exceptions that are rarely, if ever, applied for),
90
Special Exception Text Amendment
removing regulations that restrict property rights, do not create unexpected impacts,
and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary
land uses, and
removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety,
and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city.
City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not
controlled by any one standard.
Community Input
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities, related to the proposal that have been received as of Friday, September 25, 2002:
Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out August 13, 2020.
o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community
councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage
One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and
present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee
On September 21, 2020 staff attended the meeting over video
conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. The
discussion included the following key subjects:
o The application fee and the degree to which an application
is subsidized.
o The ability of the decision makers to require additional
fence height to address impacts between incompatible
land uses, including when apartment buildings are next to
single family.
o Whether or not the ability to modify bulk requirements,
such as setbacks, building heights, etc. would apply to
historic buildings that not located within an existing
historic district.
No other formal input has been received from any community councils.
One email has been received from a resident of the East Bench
Community. The text from that email is copied below. The actual email
will be provided as part of the staff report for the public hearing on this
item.
Hello Nick
I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process
changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests
on a number of subjects.
I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to
help you to evaluate the wider problem.
91
Special Exception Text Amendment
We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking
the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is
driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to
stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept.
Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up
the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special
exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and
architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had
already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to
work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to
'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on
zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The
neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our
District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work.
I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help;
from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be
mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating
anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have
the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to
drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you
agree?
o The American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter was notified of the proposed
amendments on September 17, 2020. The Planning Division asked for their help
in notifying the local architecture community. No response has been provided.
o Information on the online open house posted to the Planning Division website
was posted on August 13, 2020. The information was emailed out to the Planning
Division list-serve every other week from August 14, 2020 through the October
11, 2020 early engagement period. Website analytics as of September 22, 2020
indicate 135 people have accessed the public information on the Planning
Division website concerning this item.
Changes That are Most Likely to be Controversial:
Most of the changes associated with this proposal are minor in nature. However, some of the
changes require more study and input before they can be adequately addressed and may be
controversial. It is possible that additional challenges are identified before the public hearing.
The known issues are discussed below:
1. Inline Additions
Proposed Change:
Remove the special exception process from the ordinance and require inline additions
to comply with existing side yard setbacks but allow inline additions in front and rear
yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into the front or rear yard.
An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the
minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for
additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a
92
Special Exception Text Amendment
time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a
structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller
side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying.
This proposal would require additions to comply with existing side yard setbacks. This is being
proposed to reduce the impacts that additions to noncomplying buildings have on adjacent
properties. While a property owner clearly knows how close the existing building is to their
property, an addition that increases that impact may not be expected. The proposal would allow
inline additions in the rear and front yards when a portion of the building already encroaches
into a required yard but would not be allowed to encroach further into a required yard. This is
because in most cases the front and rear yards are larger, and the impacts are already reduced.
2. Extra Height in Commercial Districts
This special exception is proposed to be deleted. However, recent development proposals have
indicated that the rules for measuring height may be problematic on sloping lots. Prior to a final
recommendation, the Planning Division will consider practical ways to address this so that
property owners do not have to go through a process to address issues with sloping lots.
3. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes in Rights of Way.
City staff from Planning, Transportation, and Engineering are proposing eliminating above
grade ground mounted utility boxes from being in the rights of way when the utility boxes are
only serving a private development. The purpose for this is that the equipment and
infrastructure necessary for development should be provided on the private property associated
with that development. When utility boxes are in the rights of way, it impacts the future use of
the rights of way and limits the city’s ability to make changes, such as planting more trees,
building protected bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and providing utility upgrades.
4. Bulk Modifications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District
The ability of the Historic Landmark Commission to make modifications to setbacks, building
heights, and other dimensional requirements helps new development fit into the historic
development patterns of local historic districts. This authority is proposed to be authorized
trough the existing processes required for changes to historic properties instead of requiring a
second application and process. Staff is also considering expanding this authority to the
planning staff for minor alterations that are approved at a staff level. This would allow staff to
make some modifications in situations where someone is restoring a historic structure to its
original condition when the current ordinance prohibits it or when additions to historic
buildings require some modification to reduce the impact to the historic structure.
DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF 9/24/2020:
Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for
review on August 11, 2020. In addition, a follow up meeting is scheduled for September 30,
2020 with Engineering and Building Services to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how
to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a
summary of associated meetings.
Airports: no comments received.
93
Special Exception Text Amendment
Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver
for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections
of the proposal:
Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments received
Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional
building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the
number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts
and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division
also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial
districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and
encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta
Reichgelt.
Engineering: no comments received; however, a specific meeting is scheduled for
September 30, 2020 to discuss.
Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on
revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division
revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year.
Fire Department: no comments provided.
Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.
Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special
exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.
Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated.
The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes
be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.
Parks and Public Lands: no comments provided
Police Department: no comments provided.
Public Services: no comments provided
Public Utilities: no comments provided
Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because
they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more
predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.
Sustainability: no comments provided.
Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by
Michael Barry.
Urban Forestry: no comments provided
94
Special Exception Text Amendment
NEXT STEPS:
The public comment period for this item runs through October 11, 2020. After the public
comment period ends, the Planning Division will review the comment received (both internal
and external) and make modifications to the proposal as needed.
Due to Planning Commission workloads, this item is not likely to be scheduled for a public
hearing until November 18, 2020. Please note that this is the third Wednesday of November.
The meeting date has been changes to accommodate Veterans Day on November 11, 2020.
It is possible that this item may be scheduled for a public hearing on October 28, 2020
depending on how many private development applications are ready to be heard on that date.
That date already has two other city text amendments that are time sensitive. The goal is to
have a recommendation and transmit this change to the City Council by the end of the calendar
year.
95
Special Exception Text Amendment
96
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING –
NOVEMBER 5, 2020
A. AGENDA AND MINUTES
97
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
November 5, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that
conducting the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting at a physical location presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location.
We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can
still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the
Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide
general comments, email; historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex
at:
http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-11052020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
Approval of Minutes for October 1, 2020
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Director’s Report
Public Comments - The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed
on the agenda.
Public Hearings
1. Fisher Mansion Carriage House Chemical Coating at approximately 1206 West 200
South - CRSA, on behalf of Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands, is requesting a Major
Alteration to the Carriage House associated with the Fisher Mansion. The applicant is
requesting approval to administer an anti-graffiti coating to the exterior of the Fisher Mansion
Carriage House located at 1206 W. 200 S. The anti-graffiti coating is associated with the
approved adaptive reuse of the carriage house as a River Recreation and Community
Engagement Hub. The subject property is located at 1206 W. 200 S., which is designated as
a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. Both structures, the mansion and the carriage house, are
listed as contributing to the landmark site. The subject property is located within the I
(Institutional) zoning district and within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston.
(Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNHLC2020-00509
98
2. Harvard Avenue Landscape Alterations at approximately 1362 E Harvard Avenue -
Dean Anesi, Landscape Designer, on behalf of the property owners, Joan Hammond, and
Joe Dick, is requesting approval from the City for site grading, landscaping, and a 20” high,
stone veneer wall installed in the front yard without a Certificate of Appropriateness at the
above-listed address. This type of project must be reviewed as a minor alteration to a property
in a historic district. The house is a contributing building within the SLC Harvard Heights
Historic District and is zoned R-1-7,000 Single-Family Residential District. The subject
property is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Nelson Knight
at (801) 535-7758 or nelson.knight@slcgov.com) Case number PLNHLC2020-00692
3. Special Exception Text Changes - Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance
and Associated Ordinance Changes. Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning
Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special
exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the
zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of
the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty
special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special
exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized
through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become
permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special
exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or
Historic Landmark Commission. The ability to make exceptions to bulk and lot dimensional
requirements in local historic districts will be retained through the processes outlined in
21A.34.020 of the City Code. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the
Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this
petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or
nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606
Other Business
Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson elections
The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, December 3, 2020,
unless a special meeting is scheduled prior to that date.
For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be
posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic
Landmark Commission.
Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision
Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a
decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer
within ten (10) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued.
The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal
with the appeals hearing officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of
decision is issued
99
SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Thursday, November 5, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The
meeting was called to order at 5:30:27 PM. Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark
Commission meetings are retained for a period of time.
Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters; Vice
Chairperson Robert Hyde; Commissioners Babs De Lay, John Ewanowski, Aiden Lillie, Victoria
Petro-Eschler, David Richardson, and Michael Vela.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela
Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; and
Nelson Knight, Senior Planner.
Chairperson Peters read the declaration to hold an electronic meeting without an anchor site.
APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 1, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:35:51 PM
MOTION 5:35:57 PM
Commissioner Richardson moved to approve the October 1, 2020 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Petro-Eschler seconded the motion. The three new commissioners abstained
from voting. Commissioners Hyde, Richardson, Petro-Eschler, and Vela voted “Aye”. The
motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:37:18 PM
Chairperson Peters welcomed our three new commissioners!
Vice Chairperson Hyde stated he had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:38:17 PM
Michaela Oktay let the commission know that we can make badges for HLC members to wear
so if they visit a site they can show official credentials. Marlene will send out an email and each
commissioner can contact HR to have one made.
Public Comment- Chair Peters asked if there were any members of the public who wanted to
provide public comments. There were no responses from the public. Director Norris showed a
presentation how to “raise the hand” on webex, he also went through all the ways the public can
alert the commission and staff how to participate.
7:46:31 PM
Special Exception Text Changes - Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and
Associated Ordinance Changes. Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division,
is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The
proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A
100
special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or
addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions
authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results
in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in
the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to
standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the
Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The ability to
make exceptions to bulk and lot dimensional requirements in local historic districts will be retained
through the processes outlined in 21A.34.020 of the City Code. The proposed amendments
involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be
amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at
(801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606
Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in
the case file).
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Retention of HLC authority when it pertains to special exceptions
The importance of addressing the multiple special exceptions authorized and fixing the
code
Overall a valuable and well thought out amendment.
PUBLIC HEARING 8:11:00 PM
Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing;
Cindy Cromer – Stated that the importance of the special exceptions authorized by the HLC.
She mentioned projects of different use and magnitude that were only possible since the
institution of HLC authorization of special exceptions. A well done project.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission made the following comments:
All for simplifying the process. All HLC authorities are maintained, simplified and a step in
the right direction.
Supportive of all the changes, a great idea.
MOTION 8:14:33 PM
Commissioner Hyde stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Historic
Landmark Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text
amendment, PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendment.
Commissioner Richardson seconded the motion. Commissioners Lillie, DeLay,
Richardson, Ewanowski, Vela, Petro-Eschler, and Hyde voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
101
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING –
NOVEMBER 5, 2020
B. STAFF REPORT
102
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission
From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com
Date: October 29, 2020 (publication)
Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
REQUEST:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to
the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and
eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a
minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory
uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning
ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception
being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance.
Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add
flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division,
the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments
involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may
be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide.
RECOMMENDATION:
Briefing and public hearing only. This proposal involves multiple chapters of the code and
changes regulations that apply city wide. The purpose of the briefing is to inform the Historic
Landmark Commission (HLC) on the proposal and the process to date, specifically in regards
to how the changes impact the authority of the HLC and the Planning Division when reviewing
certificates of appropriateness proposals within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Although not required, the HLC may make a recommendation on the proposal. The
recommendation would be provided to the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City
Council for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Quick guide of changes to each special exception
B. Proposed Text Amendment
103
C. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Factors
D. Public Outreach Summary
E. Department Review Summary
Petition Description
The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception
process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized
exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions
for each authorized special exception:
• Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied;
• Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely
approved; or
• Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance.
For the purposes of the HLC, the major change proposed result in moving special exceptions
under the certificate of appropriateness process.
The number of special exception applications have
grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is
directing staff resources away from addressing
citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing
staff resources towards individual developments.
Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost
two full time employees to process the applications in
2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total
workload.
Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy, particularly outside of the H
Overlay. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are
asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to
inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide on each application.
Proposed Changes
The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The
Planning Commission was briefed on those changes during a September 30, 2020 work
session. A quick guide to the changes can be found in Attachment A. The proposed text
changes can be found in Attachment B.
The most impactful change that impacts the HLC involves the authority of the HLC to address
bulk modifications. The HLC currently has the authority to approve bulk modifications as a
special exception. This includes building height, setbacks, lot coverages, and any other
regulation that deals with the placement of a building or structure on property located within
the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District. This authority includes the ability of staff
to address bulk modifications to accessory buildings and structures and other proposals listed
as minor alterations. This has proven to be a beneficial tool for the HLC because it has
What is a special exception?
A special exception is a minor
modification to a dimensional
standard or accessory use with
minimal impact to adjacent
properties.
104
provided flexibility in acknowledging that most historic buildings and development patterns
within local historic districts were established prior to zoning. It has allowed the HLC to focus
on design review standards with the overarching goal of preserving the integrity of a building,
site and the established historic context. It has provided a mechanism to develop some lots
within the city that were previously unbuildable and to design new construction on those lots
with buildings that fit into the historic context.
This proposal maintains that authority but eliminates the need to require a separate special
exception application and process. The process to approve modification of lot and bulk
standards would be now be retained through the existing Certificate of Appropriateness
processes outlined in 21A.34.020. The benefits of this change include:
• property owners would only need one type of application instead of the two currently
required;
• decisions would be based on the applicable standards in 21A.34.020 (alteration, new
construction) and the general standards for special exception would not be needed;
• Review time for staff is reduced due to the reduced analysis necessary with elimination
of the special exception standards; and
• Staff reports become shorter without the need for additional process review, motions,
etc.
The proposed changes include changing the authority section so that the surrounding context
is more applicable than the current ordinance requires. The current ordinance says that the
HLC can only approve a special exception if it is found that the underlying zoning district is
incompatible with the historic district or landmark site. That wording is being changed to
focus on the proposal complying with the applicable certificate of appropriateness standards
and being compatible with the surrounding historic structures.
Planning staff would be specifically granted the authority to approve modifications for those
things listed in the ordinance as minor alterations. Those items listed include:
1. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, and/or
structure;
2. Substantial alteration of or addition to a noncontributing site;
3. Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building or
structure;
4. Demolition of an accessory building or structure;
5. Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure; and
6. Installation of solar energy collection systems pursuant to section 21A.40.190 of this
title.
This would most likely be used for proposals that fall into items one and two. The HLC would
retain the authority to approve modifications for new construction and major alterations. The
Planning Division would retain the ability to refer a matter to the HLC for decision if there is a
question about the level of compliance with standards.
105
It is conceivable that any of the proposed changes within this proposal could impact properties
within historic districts. However, the H Overlay District takes precedence over any other
base zoning district requirement or general provision within the ordinance.
Properties within the H Historic Overlay District may also be impacted by other proposed
changes. Those key changes are discussed within the “Community Input” and “Key Code
Changes” sections of this report. The provisions and processes within the H Overlay District
would not be impacted by the changes and all exterior modifications of a property subject to
the H Overlay would maintain some review process.
Applicable Review Processes and Standards
Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment
Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether
proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the
zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they
implement best professional practices. This staff report focuses on the factors that are directly
related to the HLC and the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and can be found in
Attachment C.
The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing
growth by implementing the following practices:
• removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth
related issues,
• modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes
(such as special exceptions that rarely, if ever, applied for),
• removing regulations that restrict property rights and that do not reflect current trends
in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and
• removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety,
and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city.
City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not
controlled by any one standard.
Community Input
Public Outreach is summarized in Attachment D and includes who was noticed, when the notice
was sent, presentation and meetings held, and submitted comments. Below is a discussion of
the key issues identified by the community, how the comments relate to the proposal, and how
the comments were reflected in the proposed update. The following issues have been identified
through the public engagement process (as of October 29, 2020):
1. Outdoor Dining
The Department of Community and Neighborhoods have had several recent complaints about
outdoor dining and the impact to adjacent and nearby neighbors. The primary complaints
involve noise, proximity to property lines, and businesses not obtaining special exception
approvals. The proposed changes would allow outdoor dining as a permitted use to a restaurant,
106
coffee shop, or other food serving business. The proposal maintains some existing standards
and adds some new standards:
• A ten -foot setback for outdoor dining when located next to a residential zoning district (new);
• Limits amplified and live music to decibel levels required by the Salt Lake County Health
Department
2. Fence Heights and buffering
Changes to fence height are being processed as a separate application and those comments
related to this special exception have been included and analyzed in that project.
3. Discrepancy with Special Exception Approvals
The Planning Division did hear from a resident of the East Bench Neighborhood regarding
special exception approvals. The resident indicated that the process was used to create
inequities in property rights, with some property owners benefiting from the process and then
using the public process to deny other nearby property owners of the same benefits. The
Planning Division has heard similar complaints from applicants and the process does create the
potential for an applicant to gain approval if the neighbors are favorable towards a proposal and
be denied or have a more rigorous approval process if the neighbors are not in favor. There is
some risk that this creates unequal treatment and application of the special exception process
and standards.
4. Noncomplying Issues
Public comment was received identifying that many properties in the city likely have some level
of noncompliance due to the age of the building and changing zoning regulations. The comment
indicated that noncomplying issues should be resolved easily and retain property rights.
5. Front yard Parking
The Sugar House Community Council indicated that they do not support allowing front yard
parking. This is highlighted here because the Planning Commission indicated that it should be
allowed under narrow circumstances and the Planning Division has prepared a draft proposal
that follows the input of the Planning Commission.
6. Unit Legalizations
The comments received regarding unit legalizations focused on the need for the definition of a
unit to be applied more uniformly and updated if needed. This is separate from this proposal.
The comment including inconsistent application of the definition to include things such as water
heaters. However, that is not within the definition within the zoning ordinance and cannot be
used to determine if a unit is self-contained. The zoning definition of a dwelling unit is:
A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a
family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with
kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within
hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses and
lodging houses.
It should be noted that this definition is being changed slightly as part of the Shared Housing
(formerly known as SROs) zoning amendment. The changes address a shared housing unit not
being fully self-contained.
107
7. Vintage Signs
A comment was received about vintage signs and that they should be allowed in the CSHBD 2
(Sugar House Business District) zone. A vintage sign is a historic sign that adds some distinctive
nature to a neighborhood. Vintage signs can be relocated within the same zoning district, to be
moved with a business if it relocates, and are allowed to be used as public art in some zoning
districts. This comment is in reference to the use of vintage signs as public art. The ordinance
currently restricts this to the Downtown zones, Gateway Mixed Use, and Sugar House Business
District 1 zoning districts. The comment from the Sugar House Community Council is related
to adding CSHBD2 to the allowed zones where vintage signs could be relocated as public art.
The Planning Division updated the proposal to add this zoning district and other similar zoning
districts: FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. It may be worth considering if vintage signs
create an impact in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district and allow them in those
districts as well.
KEY CODE CHANGES:
Most of the changes associated with this proposal are minor in nature. However, some of the
changes may have broader implications and deserve to be discussed in more detail. The
following specific issues were discussed by the Planning Commission during a work session and
are included as information for the Historic Landmark Commission.
1. Inline Additions
An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the
minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for
additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a
time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a
structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller
side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying.
The HLC would retain the ability to approve appropriately designed inline additions. However,
outside of the H Overlay additions would be required to comply with existing side yard setbacks.
This is being proposed to reduce the impacts that additions to noncomplying buildings have on
adjacent properties. While a property owner clearly knows how close the existing building is to
their property, an addition that increases that impact may not be expected. The proposal would
allow inline additions in the rear and front yards when a portion of the building already
encroaches into a required yard but would not be allowed to encroach further into a required
yard. This is because in most cases the front and rear yards are larger than side yards and the
impacts are already reduced.
The Planning Commission supported allowing inline additions to buildings that already
encroach into a required front or rear yard. The proposal presented by the Planning Division
did not allow inline additions in noncomplying side yards that did not comply with current
side yard setbacks. This means that any new addition would be required to meet the setbacks.
The Commission requested that the Division consider options for inline additions in
noncomplying side yards and suggested limited those additions to single story in height or
rethinking how building height is measured.
108
After reviewing these options, the Planning Division is of the opinion that trying to
accommodate in line additions as suggested may trigger unintended consequences. The issues
identified by Planning Staff include:
• Limiting an inline addition to a single story: this required defining what a single story
is, how it is measured, and how it interacts with the rest of the structure. For example,
an addition could add a single story that had a larger floor to ceiling height than the
existing structure, but still be considered a single story. The addition could potentially
be a 28-foot-tall space and have the same impacts that a two-story structure may have.
• Establishing a new method to measure height for single story additions may create
unintended consequences to other structures and would require greater analysis.
There are tens of thousands single family structures in the city that were build prior to
the current side yard setbacks. Understanding the impact that such a change would
have to those properties and the adjacent properties is a challenging task that would
require significant staff research that is not currently available.
The HLC would retain the ability to modify setbacks, building height and other mass related
regulations within historic districts. Maintaining this authority creates a benefit for properties
within the H Overlay and is a relatively small, but effective, carrot for creating local historic
districts.
2. Front Yard Parking
The Planning Commission recommended that front yard parking be allowed provided there
are no other alternatives for off-street parking on the property. The Planning Division has
added standards that:
• Only permits front yard parking when the property has no other off-street parking;
• Limits front yard parking to residential uses;
• The front or rear yard are not accessible due to the width of a side yard, lack of a side
yard, or lack of a wide enough rear yard for corner properties; and
• Adds dimensional standards to ensure that the front yard parking does not impact the
sidewalk or bike lanes.
Front Yard parking is currently an authorized special exception, including in the H Overlay.
The applicable approval processes in the overlay would apply to any request for front yard
parking. Front yard parking would be considered a minor alteration in most circumstances
because it would be proposed on properties that were developed prior to parking requirements
being added to the Zoning Ordinance and new construction must comply with current parking
requirements, including location of the parking.
3. Additional Height for Accessory Structures
The primary concern raised by the Planning Commission involved how high an accessory
building could be if the principal structure was more than two stories in height. Standards
were added that:
• Limited the increase to no more than 25% of the permitted height and restricts the
height to no more than 75% of the height of the principal structure;
• Requires an increased setback of one foot for every one foot in additional height.
109
Several issues were identified by Planning staff regarding extra height and the likelihood for it
to promote second story use in accessory buildings. The existing special exception for extra
height in accessory buildings limited the extra height to storage purposes and did not allow
windows to face a neighboring yard. The use of the secondary story requires a separate special
exception under the current code. However, with the proposed changes, second story use
would be permitted.
The HLC already has the authority within the H Overlay to approve additional height for
accessory structures. This proposal does put some parameters around that additional height
that are not currently within the ordinance. However, the HLC would have the authority to
modify the height further on a case by case basis.
4. Commercial Building Height
The Planning Commission discussed that there could be some benefit for allowing extra height
on sloping lots in commercial zoning districts. The concerns raised were mainly focused on
buildings with wide frontages and the impact extra height would have. The ability to obtain
extra height, up to 10%, was added as a permitted increase provided that at least 50% of the
building volume complies with the height, the height allows for the top story to have level
floors without internal stepping, and the ground floor has a minimum height of twelve feet.
The HLC is currently granted this authority through the general modification to bulk
requirements within the code. As this typically applies to new construction, it would more
than likely be reviewed by the Commission and not at the staff level. It is possible however
that additions to commercial buildings that are within the H Overlay may be eligible for staff
review.
5. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes
The recommendation from the City is to prohibit ground mounted utility boxes in public rights
of way when the utility box is only serving private development. The reason for this change is
because the private development benefits from placing the boxes in the rights of way because
doing so does not require space on private property for private infrastructure. However, this
creates long term planning issues for the City because those boxes will never be able to be
moved out of the right of way if the City desires or needs to make changes to the rights of way.
Examples of city actions that may be impacted by allowing utility boxes to be placed in the
rights of way include planting trees, expanding underground infrastructure (such as water
pipes, storm drainage, or sewer lines), widening sidewalks, adding grade separate bike lanes,
managing curb space, and other public uses within the ROW.
The proposed prohibition would eliminate the ability for utility boxes within historic districts
to be placed in the public rights of way when the box is only serving a private development.
Utility boxes that serve the broader neighborhood would still be allowed provided they comply
with the size requirements in the code. It is possible that a utility box could be proposed in
excess of the size requirements because the size requirements are considered bulk regulations.
110
NEXT STEPS:
There are a few issues that remain unresolved and some modifications may be made after the
HLC public hearing. Those issues involve the key code changes discussed by the Planning
Commission. An additional issue that has been identified is additional building height in the
Foothill Zoning Districts. There are no local districts mapped within the Foothill Zoning
Districts. The relatively steep slopes and large grade changes across individual properties make
it difficult to build a new building are make additions to existing homes and comply with the
height requirements. This may be addressed by allowing minority percentage of the building to
exceed the height, like the proposal in commercial districts.
The HLC may provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text
amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the Planning Commission and City Council,
who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing(s) on the proposed text amendments
amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline
to approve the proposed zoning text amendments.
If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new
City ordinance standards.
The HLC may also recommend a modified version of the proposal. This would be advisable if
the commission identifies potential issues with any aspect of the proposal. Instances where this
may happen include:
• The commission wants to add a standard or modify a proposed regulation;
• The commission wants to delete a standard or requirement within the proposal;
• The commission wants additional information about any aspect of the proposal.
There may be situations where the HLC makes a request and the Planning Division is not able
to provide information regarding that request. An example of this may be a request for a
significant amount of research or data that the Division does not have the capability to provide.
111
This is a simple summary of the proposed changes. Please refer to the draft code in Attachment
B for all proposed changes.
Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure)
allowed with increase in setbacks
Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory
buildings of the block.
Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights.
Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; will rely on
processes in base zoning district.
Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception
Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception
Alternative to off street parking: deleted
Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land
uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities.
Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but
was not deleted from the special exception chapter.
Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process
with standards added.
Front yard parking: deleted
Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary
to retain the grade change.
Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line:
deleted. Will be required to meet standards in code without exceptions.
Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted.
Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards;
prohibited when buildings don’t comply with side yard setbacks.
Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for
number of kids.
Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise,
etc. when next to residential zone.
Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a
high level of security.
Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right
within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance.
Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards.
112
Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted.
Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water
quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets.
Ground mounted utility boxes: permitted in the public right of way if under a certain size and if
the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards.
Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter
21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update
to parking standards deleted.
Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where
a vintage sign could be used as public art.
Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light
trespass, increased setback from residential uses.
Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions.
Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public
utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings.
Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be
given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes.
Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition
complies with zoning requirements.
Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet
setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, but prohibited in side yards.
Alteration to an existing SFD when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted.
Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted.
Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback
and screening requirements.
Electrical security fences: deleted and will become nonpermitted.
Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation
authorized under federal laws.
Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required
to be located on private property when serving individual developments.
Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will no longer be
allowed.
Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to
parking ordinance.
Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to
parking ordinance.
Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized
through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay.
113
HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through
existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay.
114
Special Exception Text Amendment
115
Special Exception Code Changes (Current as of 10/26/2020)
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments to Title 21A. Zoning:
• Amends section 21A.06.050 C 6
• Deletes section 21A.24.010 P 2
• Amends section 21A.24.010 P 6
• Amends section 21A.24.050.D.6.a
• Amends section 21A.24.060.D.6.a
• Amends sections 21A.24.070.D.6.a
• Amends section 21A.24.080.D.6.a
• Amends section 21A.24.100.D.6.a
• Amends section 21A.24.110.D.6.a
• Amends section 21A.26.010.J
• Amends section 21A.32.100.D.3
• Amends section 21A.32.100.D.4
• Amends section 21A.32.100 H
• Amends section 21A.34.120.G
• Amends section Table 21A.36.020.B
• Amends section 21A.36.350.A.3
• Amends section 21A.38.040.H.2
• Amends section 21A.38.050.A
• Amends section 21A.38.050.G
• Amends section 21A.38.060
• Amends section 21A.38.070
• Adds new section 21A.38.075
• Amends section 21A.40.040
• Amends section 21A.40.050.A.6
• Amends section 21A.40.050.C
• Amends section 21A.40.065
• Amends section 21A.40.090.D
• Amends section 21A.40.090.E.3.b
• Adds new section 21A.40.100 Mechanical Equipment
• Amends section 21A.40.120.I Barbed Wire Fences
• Amends section 21A.40.120.J Razor Wire Fences
• Amends section 21A.40.120.L Electric Security Fences
• Amends section 21A.40.130 Access for Persons with Disabilities
• Amends section 21A.40.160 Ground mounted Utility Boxes
• Amends section 21A.44.090 Parking Modifications (this is the proposed parking chapter,
not the current parking chapter)
• Amends section 21A.46.070.V Historic District signs
• Amends section 21A.46.125 Vintage signs
• Deletes chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions
• Makes technical changes
• Makes changes to references associated with the amended sections
116
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is
existing with no proposed change.
Amending 21A.06.050.C.6 1
6. Review and approve or deny certain special exceptions modifications to dimensional 2
standards for properties located within an H historic preservation overlay district. This 3
authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the 4
H Historic preservation overlay district that are eligible for administrative approval by 5
the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain special exceptions 6
modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and 7
are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 8
a. Building wall height; 9
b. Accessory structure wall height; 10
c. Accessory structure square footage; 11
d. Fence height; 12
e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 13
f. Signs pursuant to section 21A.46.070 of this title; and 14
g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying 15
zoning district where it is found that the underlying zoning would not be compatible 16
with the historic district and/or landmark site proposal complies with the applicable 17
standards identified in 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic 18
structures. 19
20
Delete section 21A.24.010.P.2 (eliminating additional height in foothill zones) 21
21A.24.010.P.2 22
Height Special Exception: The Planning Commission, as a special exception to the height 23
regulations of the applicable district, may approve a permit to exceed the maximum 24
building height but shall not have the authority to grant additional stories. To grant a 25
height special exception the Planning Commission must find the proposed plan: 26
a. Is a design better suited to the site than can be achieved by strict compliance to 27
these regulations; and 28
b. Satisfies the following criteria: 29
(1) The topography of the lot presents difficulties for construction when the 30
foothill height limitations are applied, 31
(2) The structure has been designed for the topographic conditions existing on 32
the particular lot, and 33
(3) The impact of additional height on neighboring properties has been identified 34
and reasonably mitigated. 35
c. In making these considerations the Planning Commission can consider the size 36
of the lot upon which the structure is proposed. 37
d. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to submit sufficient data to persuade 38
the Planning Commission that the criteria have been satisfied. 39
e. The Planning Commission may deny an application for a height special 40
exception if: 41
117
(1) The architectural plans submitted are designed for structures on level, or 42
nearly level, ground, and the design is transposed to hillside lots requiring support 43
foundations such that the structure exceeds the height limits of these regulations; 44
(2) The additional height can be reduced by modifying the design of the structure 45
through the use of stepping or terracing or by altering the placement of the structure on 46
the lot; 47
(3) The additional height will substantially impair the views from adjacent lots, 48
and the impairment can be avoided by modification; or 49
(4) The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 50
Repealed 51
Amending 21A.24.010 P 6 (modifying grade change requirements in foothill zones) 52
6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building 53
permit. The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade 54
more than four4 feet (4') at any point for the construction of any structure or 55
improvement except: 56
a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 six 57
feet (6') shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards in 58
chapter 21A.52 of this title shall be permitted for the construction of below grade 59
portions of structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change 60
transition areas between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the 61
buildable area; 62
b. Within the front, corner side, side and rear yard areas, proposals to modify 63
established grade more grade changes greater than 4four feet (4') shall be 64
reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.52 65
of this title are permitted provided: and 66
(1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. 67
(2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. 68
69
c. As necessary to construct driveway access from the street to the garage or 70
parking area grade changes and/or retaining walls up to six feet (6') from the 71
established grade shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards 72
in chapter 21A.52 of this title Within the front and corner side yards, grade 73
changes up to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: 74
(1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking 75
areas 76
(2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. 77
Delete reference to special exception for extra height in R-1, R-2, and SR districts 78
21A.24.050.D.6.a: 79
6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 80
additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 81
Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 82
title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 83
pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 84
conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 85
118
b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 86
for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 87
reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 88
subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 89
21A.24.060.D.6.a 90
6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 91
additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 92
Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 93
title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 94
pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 95
conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 96
b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 97
for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 98
reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 99
subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 100
21A.24.070.D.6.a 101
6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 102
additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 103
Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 104
title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 105
pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 106
conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 107
b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 108
for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 109
reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 110
subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 111
21A.24.080.D.6.a 112
6. Additional Building Height: 113
a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, 114
additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning 115
commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 116
title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 117
pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with 118
conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 119
b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building 120
height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be 121
reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests 122
subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 123
21A.24.100.D.6.a 124
6. Additional Building Height: 125
a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, 126
additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning 127
commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 128
title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 129
pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with 130
conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 131
b. Additional Principal Building Height:: Requests for additional building 132
height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be 133
119
reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 134
subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 135
21A.24.110.D.6.a 136
6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 137
additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 138
Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 139
title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 140
pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 141
conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 142
b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 143
for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 144
reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 145
subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 146
Delete special exception for extra height in all commercial zoning districts in 21A.26.010 J 147
21A.26.010 J: 148
J. Modifications To Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in 149
commercial zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face 150
Additions to the maximum height due to the natural topography of the site may 151
be approved pursuant to the following procedures and standards: 152
1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the 153
underlying zoning district; 154
2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the 155
portion of the building that complies with the maximum building height 156
of the zone without the 10% modification; and 157
3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from 158
finished floor to finished ceiling height. 159
1. Modifications Of Ten Percent Or Less Of Maximum Height: 160
a. The Planning Commission may approve, as a special exception, additional 161
height not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the maximum height pursuant to the 162
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.52 of this title. Specific conditions for 163
approval are found in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 164
2. Modifications Of More Than Ten Percent Of Maximum Height: 165
a. Design Review: Through design review for properties on a sloping lot in 166
Commercial Zoning Districts, pursuant to chapter 21A.59 of this title, the 167
Planning Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval the Planning 168
Director or designee, may allow additional building height of more than ten 169
percent (10%) of the maximum height, but not more than one additional story, if 170
the first floor of the building exceeds twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The 171
additional story shall not be exposed on more than fifty percent (50%) of the 172
total building elevations. 173
Changes to 21A.32.100 D 3 and D 4 deleting special exception for recreation equipment height 174
and heights for public utility buildings in the OS Open Space zoning district 175
3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake 176
City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in section 177
21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of sixty feet (60') may be approved through the 178
120
Special Exception process. are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when 179
needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as 180
fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. 181
4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department 182
that are not specifically exempt in section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from 183
the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is 184
deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure 185
necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. 186
Changes to 21A.32.100 H additional height for sports related light poles in the OS zone. 187
H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting 188
installations comply with the following standards 189
1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will do not have an adverse 190
impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, 191
traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses. 192
2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into 193
adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. 194
3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other 195
similar uses may be permitted to exceed the maximum heights up to 70 feet 196
in height provided the lights are located a minimum of 30 feet from a 197
residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring 198
properties. 199
200
Changes to 21A.34.120 Garages located in hillsides in the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill 201
Overlay 202
G. Special Exception For Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A 203
garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may 204
be allowed as a special exception granted by the planning commission, subject to the 205
following standards: 206
1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of 207
parking. 208
2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and 209
satisfy the standards of the YCI. 210
3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main 211
floor of the house. 212
4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. 213
Changes to Table 21A.36.020 B Obstructions in Required yards 214
TABLE 21A.36.020B 215
OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 216
217
121
Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front
And
Corner
Side
Yards
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there
is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than
entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with
any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. 2
X X X
Central air conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and
filtering equipment, the outside elements shall be located not less
than 4 feet from a lot line..Structures less than 4 feet from the
property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to
the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title
X X
Changes of established grade for commercial or industrial uses in
zones, where conditionally or otherwise permitted, the grade is
changed to accommodate site retention or detention requirements
X X X
Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and
FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of subsection
21A.24.010P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property
line shall be supported by a retaining wall.)
For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay
District, Changes of established grade greater than 4 feet are
special exceptions subject to the standards and factors in chapter
21A.52 of this title Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height
provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal
step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4
vertical feet of retaining wall.
X X X
Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X
Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative
"swamp" coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line.
Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and "swamp"
coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a
special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030
of this title
X X X
Notes: 218
1. "X" denotes where obstructions are allowed. 219
2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the 220
surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the 221
surface) into required yards shall be treated as a special exception in accordance with the 222
procedures set forth in chapter 21A.52 of this title. reserved 223
3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the 224
property. 225
226
Changes to 21A.36.350 A 3: fence and wall height associated with homeless resource center 227
122
21A.36.350.A.3. A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of six6 feet (6') high shall 228
be provided along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required 229
site distance triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6six feet (6') may be 230
approved by the Planning Commission as a special exception required as a condition of 231
approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a 232
detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; 233
Changes to 21A.38.040 H 2 enlarging a structure with a legal non-conforming use 234
21A.38.040.H.2 235
2. Enlargement Of A Structure With A Nonconforming Use: Alterations or modifications 236
to a portion of a structure with Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use may be 237
approved by special exception, subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title, 238
are limited to a one time expansion of up to if the floor area for the nonconforming use 239
does not increase by more than twenty five 25 percent (25%) of the gross floor area, or 240
one thousand (1,000) gross square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being 241
able to provide required off street parking that complies with any applicable parking 242
requirement of this title. within the limits of existing legal hard surfaced parking areas 243
on the site. An approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning 244
certificate for the property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use portion of a 245
structure beyond these limits is not permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-246
time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted 247
as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time 248
expansion. 249
Changes to 21A.38.050 A Noncomplying structures and inline additions 250
A. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its 251
location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as 252
provided in this section. Horizontal in line additions or extensions to existing 253
noncomplying building portions are considered not creating a new nonconformance 254
and are subject to special exception standards and approval of subsection 255
21A.52.030A15 of this title. Vertical in line additions or extensions to existing 256
noncomplying building portions are considered creating a new nonconformance and 257
are not permitted. 258
1. Noncomplying as to setbacks 259
a. Front yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the 260
minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further 261
reduce the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable 262
requirements of Title 21A. 263
b. Corner side yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is 264
less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does 265
not further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all 266
other applicable requirements of Title 21A. 267
c. Interior side yards: Any addition to a principal structure with a 268
noncomplying setback is permitted provided the addition complies with the 269
minimum side yard setback requirement and maximum wall height as 270
specified in the underlying zone. In determining if a side yard is 271
123
noncomplying, the narrower of the two side yards shall be interpreted to be 272
the narrower side yard required in the underlying zoning district. 273
274
d. Rear yards. A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be 275
expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building 276
wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and 277
complies with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning 278
district. If the building does not comply with the existing side or corner side 279
yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner 280
side yard setback of the underlying zone. 281
2. Noncomplying as to height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum 282
height of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of 283
the building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied 284
with. If the existing setbacks of the structure are noncomplying, then an 285
expansion of the building shall comply with the height and applicable setback 286
requirements of the underlying zoning district. 287
Changes to 21A.38.050 G replacement/reconstruction of a noncomplying structure 288
The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal 289
structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is subject to the 290
special exception standards of subsection 21A.52.030A19 of this title permitted provided 291
the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of 292
noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement 293
of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section 294
complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage 295
requirements. 296
Changes to 21A.38.060 Noncomplying lots: adding paragraph A addressing subdividing a lot 297
with two or more principal buildings. 298
A. Subdividing Lots containing two or more separate principal buildings. Lots that 299
contain two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to 300
place each structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions 301
1. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. 302
2. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, 303
and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; 304
3. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director 305
after consultation with applicable city departments; 306
4. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, 307
and rear yards for the purpose of future development. 308
5. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front 309
yards (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-310
street parking 311
6. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public 312
street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street 313
parking is required, vehicle access and parking. 314
124
7. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note 315
shall be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and 316
utilities. 317
8. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. 318
Changes to 21A.38.070 Legal conforming single-family detached dwelling, tw0-family dwelling, 319
and twin home. 320
Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home 321
located in a zoning district that does not allow these uses shall be considered legal 322
conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family 323
detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the 324
original footprint. 325
326
A. Alterations, Additions Or Extensions Or Replacement Structures Greater Than 327
The Original Footprint: In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do 328
not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or 329
twin homes, any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the 330
structure may exceed the original footprint by twenty five25 percent (25%) of the 331
existing structure subject to the following standards: 332
1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not 333
project into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the 334
structure being replaced. 335
2. Any alterations, additions or extensions beyond the original footprint which 336
are noncomplying are subject to special exception standards of subsection 337
21A.52.030A15 of this title. 338
3. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the 339
provisions of section 21A.36.190, "Residential Building Standards For Legal 340
Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings And 341
Twin Homes In Nonresidential Zoning Districts", of this title. 342
343
Any alterations, additions or extensions or replacement structures which exceed twenty 344
five percent (25%) of the original footprint, or alterations, additions or extensions or 345
replacement of a single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home in 346
an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the 347
provisions of chapter 21A.54 of this title. 348
Adding new section 21A.38.075 Unit Legalizations: relocated from special exception chapter. 349
A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City 350
community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one 351
or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such 352
units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing 353
housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of 354
neighborhoods within the city. 355
B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this 356
section shall comply with the following standards. 357
358
125
1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether 359
a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall 360
provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: 361
a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar 362
documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; 363
b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building 364
permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the 365
dwelling unit in question; 366
c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; 367
d. Historic surveys recognized by the Planning Director as being performed by a 368
trained professional in historic preservation; 369
e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; 370
f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit 371
(but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or 372
g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public 373
record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. 374
2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 375
1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling 376
unit, the following may be considered: 377
a. Evidence listed in subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has 378
been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; 379
b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied 380
for more than 5 consecutive years; 381
c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by subsections 382
B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction 383
upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. 384
d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record 385
which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling 386
unit at least once every 5 years. 387
3. The property where the dwelling unit is located: 388
a. Can accommodate on-site parking as required by this title, or 389
b. Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or 390
bus stop in service at the time of legalization. 391
4. Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved except 392
for those related to excess units. 393
C. Conditions Of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following 394
conditions: 395
1. The unit owner shall allow the City's building official or designee to inspect the 396
dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life 397
safety requirements as provided in title 18, chapter 18.50, "Existing Residential 398
Housing", of this Code. 399
2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be 400
completed within 1 year unless granted an extension by the Building Official. 401
3. If a business license is required by Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code of ordinance, 402
the unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within fourteen 403
(14) days ofany correction required by this section being completed and approved 404
by the City Building Official.. 405
406
126
D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the Zoning 407
Administer, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. A notice of 408
application shall be sent to property owners and occupants as required by chapter 409
21A.10. The purpose of the notice is to allow neighbors to submit evidence regarding the 410
existence of the dwelling unit and the length of time that the unit has been in existence. 411
Changes to 21A.40.040 Use limitations: clarifies accessory uses. 412
21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: 413
In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use, 414
building or structure shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth 415
below: 416
A. An accessory use, building or structure shall be incidental and subordinate to the 417
principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; 418
B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or 419
control as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly 420
authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal 421
use or structure; 422
C. No accessory use, building or structure shall be established or constructed before 423
the principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in 424
accordance with these regulations; and 425
D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the 426
provisions of chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an 427
accessory use or structure. 428
E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with 429
the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this Title. For residential uses, 430
this includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as 431
home office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and 432
other similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed 433
in the zoning district. 434
435
Changes to 21A.40.050 A 6 accessory structures on double frontage lots. Clarifies where 436
accessory structures can be located on lots that have two front yards (a street along the front 437
yard and back yard) 438
21A.40.050 A 6: Double Frontage lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a 439
property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in 440
a front yard provided the accessory building or structure: 441
a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the 442
primary entrance to the principal building is located; 443
b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the 444
block; 445
c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 446
d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this 447
title. 448
449
Changes to 21A.40.050 C Maximum height of accessory structures. Changes how accessory 450
buildings are measured for height and increases the allowed height up to 75% of the principal 451
structure if the setbacks are increased. 452
127
C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 453
1. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU 454
Districts, SNB And The RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures 455
in residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of 456
the accessory building and shall conform to the following: 457
a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 458
twelve12 feet (12'). The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 459
75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided 460
the setbacks increases 1 foot for every one 1 foot of building height above 12 461
feet. 462
b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not 463
exceed 17 seventeen feet (17') measured to the midpoint of the roof. The 464
height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of 465
the principal structure, not exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increase 1 466
foot for every 1 foot of structure height above 17 feet. ; and 467
c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a 468
special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 469
2. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District And SR 470
Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 471
districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the 472
highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: 473
a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve 474
12 feet (12'); nine9 feet (9') measured from established grade in the SR-1A 475
zoning district. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% 476
of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet or 11 feet in the 477
SR-1A zoning district provided the setbacks are increased 1 foot for every one 478
1 foot of building height above 12 feet or 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. 479
b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not 480
exceed seventeen17 feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the 481
top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building 482
coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory buildings 483
structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14fourteen feet (14'). The 484
height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of 485
the principal structure, not to exceed 21 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning 486
district provided the setbacks are increased 1 foot for every 1 foot of building 487
height above 17 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district.; and 488
c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a 489
special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, if the proposed 490
accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block 491
face. 492
493
128
Changes to 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining. Outdoor dining changed to permitted with clarified 494
standards related to noise, setbacks, and location. 495
21A.4o.065 Outdoor Dining 496
"Outdoor dining", as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any 497
zoning district where restaurant and retail uses are allowed and for any noncomplying 498
restaurant or retail use subject to the provisions of this section: 499
A. Where allowed: 500
A. Within the buildable lot area, Outdoor dining in the public way shall be 501
permitted subject to all City requirements. 502
B. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 503
C. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a 504
minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does 505
not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not 506
considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 507
D. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a 508
minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does 509
not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not 510
considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 511
E. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all 512
applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining 513
design guidelines. 514
B. Outdoor dining is allowed within the required landscaped yard or buffer area, in 515
commercial and manufacturing zoning districts where such uses are allowed. 516
Outdoor dining is allowed in the RB, CN, MU, R-MU, RMU-35 and the RMU-45 517
Zones and for nonconforming restaurants and similar uses that serve food or 518
drinks through the provisions of the special exception process (see chapter 519
21A.52 of this title). All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following 520
conditions: 521
1. All applicable requirements of chapter 21A.48 and section 21A.36.020 of this 522
title are met. 523
2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor 524
dining have been secured. 525
3. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private 526
property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of 527
the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate 528
approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained 529
from the City. 530
b. The location of any paving, landscaping, planters, fencing, canopies, 531
umbrellas or other table covers or barriers surrounding the area; 532
c. The proposed outdoor dining will not impede pedestrian or vehicular 533
traffic; and 534
4d. The main entry has a control point as required by State liquor laws. 535
5e. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to 536
any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for 537
property. 538
6f. Live music will not be performed nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor 539
dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt 540
Lake City noise control ordinance, title 9, chapter 9.28 of this Code. Live 541
129
music and loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 9:00 542
pm and 9:00 am when the property is adjacent to a residential zoning 543
district. 544
7g. No additional parking is required unless the total outdoor dining area 545
ever exceeds five hundred (500) square feet. Parking for outdoor dining 546
areas in excess of five hundred (500) square feet is required at a ratio of 547
two (2) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of outdoor dining 548
area. No additional parking is required in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, TSA, or 549
G-MU Zone. Outdoor dining shall be by considered an expansion of an 550
use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is required as 551
stated in Chapter 21A.44 Parking. 552
8. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 553
twenty five25 feet (25') of the outdoor dining area. 554
ii. H. The proposed outdoor dining complies with the 555
environmental performance standards as stated in 556
section 21A.36.180 of this title. 557
iii. i. Outdoor dining shall be located in areas where 558
such use is likely to have the least adverse impacts on 559
adjacent properties. 560
561
Changes to 21A.40.090 D Amateur radio facilities with surface area exceeding 10 square feet. 562
Removes the special exception process for extra height. 563
21A.40.090 D: Amateur Radio Facilities with Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet 564
Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and 565
antenna support having a combined surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or 566
having any single dimension exceeding twelve 12 feet (12') that is capable of transmitting 567
as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission 568
as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in 569
compliance with the regulations set forth below: 570
1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with 571
a surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or any single dimension exceeding 572
twelve12 feet (12') may be located on any lot. 573
2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, 574
exceed seventy five75 feet (75') in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to 575
subsection D3 of this section, the height therein specified. 576
3. Attachment To Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be 577
attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions 578
are satisfied: 579
a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than twenty 580
20 feet (20') above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. 581
b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or 582
mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and 583
its support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side 584
of any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building 585
roof facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to 586
withstand a wind force of eighty (80) miles per hour without the use of 587
supporting guywires. 588
130
c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding 589
rod. 590
d. Other Standards: The antenna and its support structure shall satisfy such other 591
design and construction standards as the Zoning Administrator determines are 592
necessary to ensure safe construction and maintenance of the antenna and its 593
support structure. 594
e. Special Exception For Increased Height: Any person desiring to erect an amateur 595
("ham") radio antenna in excess of seventy five feet (75') shall file an application 596
for a special exception with the Zoning Administrator pursuant to chapter 21A.52 597
of this title. In addition to the other application regulations, the application shall 598
specify the details and dimensions of the proposed antenna and its supporting 599
structures and shall further specify why the applicant contends that such a design 600
and height are necessary to accommodate reasonably amateur radio 601
communication. The Zoning Administrator shall approve the proposed design 602
and height unless the Zoning Administrator finds that a different design and 603
height which is less violative of the City's demonstrated health, safety or aesthetic 604
considerations also accommodates reasonably amateur radio communication 605
and, further, that the alternative design and height are the minimum practicable 606
regulation necessary to accomplish the City's actual and demonstrated legitimate 607
purposes. The burden of proving the acceptability of the alternative design shall 608
be on the City. 609
610
Changes to 21A.40.090 E 3 b electrical equipment exceeding the permitted size for cell towers. 611
Requires electrical equipment to be located on private property and prohibits the equipment 612
from being located between the street facing façade and the street. 613
21A.40.090.E.3.b Electrical Equipment Located On Private Property: Electrical 614
equipment shall be subject to the following standards: located in the rear yard, interior 615
side yard, or within the buildable area on a given parcel. In the case of a parcel with an 616
existing building, the electrical equipment shall not be located between the front and/or 617
corner street facing building facades of the building and the street. 618
619
Electrical equipment located in a residential zoning district, shall not exceed a width of 620
four feet (4'), a depth of three feet (3'), or a height of four feet (4') to be considered a 621
permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical equipment exceeding 622
these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 623
624
Electrical equipment located in all other CN, PL, PL-2, CB, I or OS Zoning Districts shall 625
not exceed a width of six feet (6'), a depth of three feet (3'), or a height of six feet (6') to 626
be considered a permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical 627
equipment exceeding these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 628
. 629
630
Electrical equipment exceeding the dimensions listed above shall be reviewed 631
administratively as a special exception per chapter 21A.52 of this title. 632
633
The electrical equipment and any necessary building shall be subject to the maximum lot 634
coverage requirements in the underlying zoning district. 635
i. Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. 636
131
ii. If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the 637
equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard 638
property line. 639
iii. Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an 640
enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. 641
iv. If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public 642
space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid 643
fence so the equipment is not visible. 644
v. The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is 645
subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. 646
647
Adding new section 21A.40.100 Mechanical equipment. Requires mechanical equipment to be 648
located on private property subject to specific standards. 649
21A.40.100 Location of Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be 650
located as follows 651
A. Front and corner side yards and double frontage lots: Only allowed if located within 652
4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or fence so the 653
equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner side yard 654
property lines. 655
B. Side yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. 656
C. Rear yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. 657
D. Prohibited areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment 658
is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of 659
exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the 660
fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. 661
662
Changes to 21A.40.120 I Barbed wire fences: removes special exception requirements and adds 663
standards to address impacts. 664
I. Barbed Wire Fences: 665
1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following 666
instances: 667
a. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 and D-2 districts and to secure 668
critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the 669
following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary 670
to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed 671
wire is also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction 672
is pending provided it is removed once construction is complete. 673
b. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: 674
(1) Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. 675
(2) The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. 676
(3) No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above 677
the ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is 678
vertically aligned. 679
(4) No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. 680
(5) The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 681
60 degrees from a vertical line. 682
(6) All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. 683
132
(7) The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a 684
residential use when the subject property is located in a CG zoning district. 685
2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for 686
nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of 687
this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted 688
uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the 689
placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping 690
out of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, 691
microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly 692
necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any 693
residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is 694
occupied as a place of residence. 695
3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in 696
required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as 697
gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master 698
plan. 699
4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be 700
permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three (3) strands of 701
barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant 702
outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical 703
line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the 704
barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the 705
applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner 706
agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 707
5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may 708
approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire 709
fence if it is found that the applicant has shown that the fence is 710
reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from 711
dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave 712
stations or construction sites. 713
714
Changes to 21A.40.120 J Razor wire fencing: removes special exception requirements and adds 715
standards to address impacts. 716
J. Razor Wire Fences: Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 717
and EI zoning and D-2 districts and to secure critical infrastructure structures and 718
sites located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following 719
requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the 720
facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 721
1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as 722
a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 723
and M-2 zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special 724
exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around 725
commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other 726
similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is 727
not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. Not 728
allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard. 729
133
2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front 730
or corner side yard setback The razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum 731
fence height to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 732
3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence 733
that is less than seven7 feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen18 734
inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor 735
wire is being attached. 736
4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve 737
razor wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor 738
wire is necessary for the security of the property in questionAll razor wire shall be 739
setback a minimum of three (3) feet from public property in zoning districts that 740
do not have a minimum setback. 741
742
Changes to 21A.40.120 L Electric security fencing: removes special exception requirements and 743
adds standards to address impacts. 744
L. Electric Security Fences: 745
1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 746
and M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are 747
prohibited. 748
2. Special Exception: Electric security fences on parcels or lots adjacent to a 749
commercial zone may be approved as a special exception pursuant to the requirements 750
in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 751
23. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required 752
front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 753
34. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be 754
constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 755
45. Perimeter Fence Or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used 756
unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than six6 feet 757
(6') in height. There shall be at least one1 foot (1') of spacing between the electric security 758
fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 759
56. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site 760
staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to 761
accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 762
67. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of ten10 feet (10'). 763
78. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning 764
signs that read: "Warning-Electric Fence" at intervals of not greater than sixty60 feet 765
(60'). Signs shall comply with requirements in chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title. 766
89. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or 767
box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. 768
769
Changes to 21A.40.130 Access for persons with disabilities. Removes the special exception 770
process and allows staff level decisions based on federal regulations. 771
21A.40.130 Access for persons with disabilities: building permits for an uncovered 772
vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, for persons with disabilities, 773
under four 4 feet (4') in height, or any other form of uncovered access, for persons with 774
disabilities, under four feet4 (4') in height, that encroaches into required yard areas, may 775
be approved by the Zoning Administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered 776
ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required 777
134
yard areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal 778
regulations. approved, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Application for a special 779
exception for an access structure for persons with disabilities shall not require the 780
payment of any application fees. 781
782
Changes to 21A.40.160 Ground mounted utility boxes: removes the ability to locate these in the 783
right of way when it exceeds a certain size and prohibits the ability to place utility boxes in the 784
right of way when the box only serves a single development. (this section may be see additional 785
changes) 786
21A.40.160E2: The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground 787
mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in 788
this section and title 14, chapter 14.32 of this code. 789
a. Below grade utility boxes that do not extend greater than six6 inches (6") above 790
ground level. 791
b. A ground mounted utility box installed in a park strip or behind the sidewalk in 792
the public way meeting the following criteria: 793
(1) A ground mounted utility box not exceeding a height of three3 feet (3') and 794
a footprint of four (4) square feet, or a box not exceeding two2 feet (2') in 795
height and a footprint of eight (8) square feet. 796
(2) The pad for a ground mounted utility box shall not extend more than six6 797
inches (6") beyond the footprint of the box. 798
(3) A ground mounted utility box in a residential zoning district is located 799
within fifteen15 feet of the interior lot line of an adjacent property. 800
(4) Excluding manufacturing, business park and general commercial zoning 801
districts no more than three (3) ground mounted utility boxes, excluding 802
exempt utility boxes, shall be allowed within a six hundred sixty foot (660') 803
foot segment of street right of way, unless approved as a special exception. 804
(5) Any small ground mounted utility box that is less than sixty percent (60%) 805
of the allowed size in subsection E2b(1) of this section shall be exempt from 806
the special exception requirement of subsection E2b(4) of this section. The 807
dimensional requirements of this section do not apply to the equipment 808
necessary for placing electrical service under ground. 809
c. A ground mounted utility box installed in a public alley that does not interfere 810
with the circulation function of the alley. 811
d. Ground mounted utility boxes that only serve a single development or parcel 812
are prohibited in a public right of way. 813
21A.40.160 F: delete 814
F. Special Exception: Proposed ground mounted utility boxes not specifically 815
addressed in subsection E of this section or that do not meet the standards of 816
subsection E of this section may be approved as a special exception pursuant to 817
chapter 21A.52 of this title and the following requirements: 818
1. Application: A special exception application shall be made on a form 819
prepared by the planning director or designee and submitted to the 820
planning division, that includes required information and the following 821
additional information: 822
a. Described plan of the proposed ground mounted utility box: 823
135
(1) Dimensions of box and footing/platform detail. 824
(2) Location of contact information on the box. 825
(3) Description of cabinet materials and finish treatment. 826
b. A location analysis which identifies other sites considered as 827
alternatives within five hundred feet (500') of the proposed location. 828
The applicant shall provide a written explanation why the 829
alternatives considered were either unavailable, or technologically or 830
reasonably infeasible. 831
2. General Standards And Considerations For Special Exception Review Of 832
Ground Mounted Utility Boxes: No special exception application for a 833
ground mounted utility box shall be approved unless the planning 834
director or the planning director's designee determines that the ground 835
mounted utility box satisfies the applicable standards related to size, 836
spacing and/or location of the following criteria: 837
a. Evidence that the existing ground mounted utility box location 838
and/or size are within a pattern that allowing an additional or larger 839
ground mounted utility box will not create a significant impact on the 840
character of the area. 841
b. Evidence submitted that shows another location is not practical to 842
service the subject area. 843
c. Sufficiently demonstrates the reason that the larger cabinet is 844
necessary. 845
d. Demonstrates that the subject block face location is the only feasible 846
location for the ground mounted utility box based on technical or 847
physical constraints. 848
e. Ground mounted utility boxes are spaced in such a manner as to limit 849
the visual impact of the box when viewed from the street or an 850
adjacent property. 851
f. The location will not obstruct access to other installed utility facilities. 852
g. The additional cabinet is compatible in design and size with the 853
existing ground mounted utility boxes in the area. 854
855
Amending 21A.44.090 (proposed chapter) 856
21A.44.090 MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING AREAS 857
Applicants requesting development permits or approvals may request adjustments to the 858
standards and requirements in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and 859
Loading, and the City may approve adjustments to those standards, as described below. 860
A. Administrative ModificationsAuthority to Approve Modifications 861
The Planning Director or Transportation Director may approve the following types of 862
modifications without requiring approval of a Special Exception, provided that the Director 863
determines that the adjustment will not create adverse impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or 864
vehicle safety and that the adjustment is required due to the nature of the site and the 865
surrounding context to accommodate an unusual site feature (such as shape, topography, 866
utilities, or access point constraints) and that the need for the adjustment has not been 867
created by the actions of the applicant. 868
136
869
B. Authorized Modifications 870
1. Modification to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or stacking space, aisles, 871
or maneuvering areas otherwise required by this chapter, other City regulations, or the 872
Off Street Parking Standards Manual; provided that those modifications are consistent 873
with federal and state laws regarding persons with disabilities, including but not 874
limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 875
2. Modifications to bicycle parking or loading berth location or design standards. 876
B. Special Exceptions 877
The following types of exceptions may be approved through the Special Exception process in 878
section 21A.52.040, provided that the application meets the criteria for approval of a Special 879
Exception in section 21A.52.060 in addition to the standards provided in this section. 880
3. Exceptions PermittedFront Yard Parking 881
a. The lot contains an existing residential building. 882
b. No other off-street parking exists on the site. 883
c. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 884
inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the 885
tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. 886
d. The rear yard does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the 887
property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. 888
e. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: 889
(1) The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a 890
minimum depth of 20 feet. 891
(2) The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. 892
(3) The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or 893
for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is 894
consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face. 895
a. Front Yard Parking Exception 896
For any zoning district, if front yard parking is prohibited in Table 21A.44.060-A: 897
Parking Location and Setback Requirements, it may be allowed if all of the 898
following conditions are met: 899
(1) The rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed by vehicles, specifically; 900
(a) Clearance for a driveway could not be provided in the side yard on either 901
side of the building that is free from obstructions that cannot reasonably 902
be avoided, such as utilities, window-wells, a specimen tree, a direct 903
elevation change of three feet (3') or greater, or retaining walls three feet 904
(3') high or greater; and 905
(b) There is not a right-of-way or alley adjacent to the property with 906
established rights for access, where: 907
a. The travel distance to the property line is less than one hundred feet 908
(100') from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has at 909
least a minimum twelve foot (12') clearance that is, or could be paved; 910
or 911
137
b. The travel distance to the property line is more than one hundred feet 912
(100') from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has an 913
existing minimum twelve foot (12') wide paved surface. 914
(2) It is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and 915
setback requirements; 916
(3) Parking is limited to an area that is surfaced in compliance with the Off Street 917
Parking Standards Manual; 918
(4) The parking area is limited to nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 919
(5) Vehicles using the parking area will not project across any sidewalk or into the 920
public right-of-way; and 921
(6) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only. 922
4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing 923
a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district 924
b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 925
maneuvering. 926
b. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side 927
yard. 928
c. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other similar 929
material with dust control measures in place. 930
d. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to remove 931
mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of paved 932
driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is 933
subject to approval by the Transportation Director or designee provided it is a 934
commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. 935
a. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Surfacing Exception 936
Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing may be permitted in the CG, 937
M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts provided that: 938
(1) The lot is used for long-term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 939
maneuvering; 940
(2) The vehicles or equipment stored are large and/or are built on tracks that 941
could destroy normal hard surfacing; 942
(3) The parking surface is compacted with six inches (6") of road base and other 943
semi-hard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually; 944
(4) A hard-surfaced cleaning station is installed to prevent tracking of mud and 945
sand onto the public right-of-way; and 946
(5) Any vehicles or equipment that contain oil are stored with pans, drains, or 947
other means to ensure that any leaking oil will not enter the soil. 948
949
950
21A.46.070 V Historic District signs: removes the special exception and allows the existing 951
processes to modify sign dimensions in historic districts to be reviewed as a minor alteration. 952
21A.46.070V Historic District Signs: The Historic Landmark Commission may authorize, 953
as a minor alteration special exception, modification to an existing sign or the size or 954
placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement 955
of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that 956
the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period 957
138
or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the 958
historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site 959
has been designated a vintage sign as per section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the 960
modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the Historic Landmark 961
Commission subject to the appropriate standards of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 962
963
21A.46.125 Vintage signs: removes the special exception process and establishes the zoning 964
certificate as the process to approve vintage signs. 965
The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and 966
reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt 967
Lake City's heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the 968
community at large. 969
B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 970
1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the 971
reinstatement of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be 972
processed through the zoning certificate process in accordance with the 973
procedures for a special exception, as per chapter 21A.52 of this title21A.46.030: 974
a. Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a special 975
exceptionsign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall 976
require: 977
(1) Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, 978
if currently existing; 979
(2) Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the 980
sign meets the applicable criteria; 981
(3) Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; 982
(4) Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and 983
(5) Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 984
2. The Zoning Administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the 985
sign: 986
a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and 987
has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned 988
development agreement or by the Historic Landmark Commission; 989
b. Is not a billboard as defined in section 21A.46.020 of this chapter; 990
c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or 991
restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and, 992
d. Meets at least four (4) of the following criteria: 993
(1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other 994
establishment on the subject site; 995
(2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the 996
City, or region; 997
(3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or 998
identity of a neighborhood; 999
(4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; 1000
(5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building 1001
where the sign is located; or, 1002
(6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of 1003
lighting technique, use of materials, or design. 1004
3. A designated vintage sign may, by special exception: 1005
139
a. Be relocated within its current site. 1006
b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These 1007
modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign 1008
including: 1009
(1) Shape and form 1010
(2) Size, 1011
(3) Typography, 1012
(4) Illustrative elements, 1013
(5) Use of color, 1014
(6) Character of illumination, and 1015
(7) Character of animation. 1016
c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. 1017
d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the 1018
original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it 1019
advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be 1020
relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, 1021
D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. 1022
e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business's new site, should the business 1023
with which it is associated move, provided that the business's new location is 1024
within the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 1025
4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage 1026
on a site. 1027
1028
140
Special Exception Text Amendment
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment
is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any
one standard. In deciding to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the
following:
CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE
1. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies
of the City as stated
through its various
adopted planning
documents;
The proposed
amendments are
generally
consistent with
the goals and
policies the
City’s plans.
The Salt Lake City Preservation Plan includes statements
regarding how zoning impacts the preservation of
property and that flexibility is necessary to ensure
changes do not negatively impact the public benefit of
historic districts. (Please see action pg. III-22 Action 2
of the Preservation Plan) This concept is expanded
in more detail with specific policies related to
regulations in policies 3.3a through 3.3h. A link to
the plan can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/historicpreservation/Poli
cy/presplan.pdf
2. Whether a proposed
text amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance;
The proposal
generally
furthers the
specific purpose
statements of
the zoning
ordinance by
ensuring their
enforcement and
administration.
The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to “promote the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake
City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and
carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use
Development and Management Act (State Code). The
proposed amendments reduce conflicts between City and
State Code, better allowing enforcement and
administration of the City’s zoning ordinance. The
proposed changes maintain conformity with the general
purpose statements of the zoning ordinance and ensure
that the code can be legally administered and enforced to
further those ordinance purposes.
3. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which
may impose additional
standards; and
The proposal is
consistent with
and does not
impact the
enforceability of
any existing
appeal process
references in any
zoning overlays.
The purpose of the H Overlay District includes the
following statement: Encourage new development,
redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in Historic
Districts that is compatible with the character of existing
development of Historic Districts or individual
landmarks;”. This proposal helps achieve this purpose by
providing the HLC the authority to consider
modifications within the overlay for the purpose of
ensuring compatibility with the surrounding historic
buildings.
4. The extent to which
a proposed text
The proposed
changes
This proposal removes red tape in the approval process
and provides a benefit for property owners within the H
141
Special Exception Text Amendment
amendment implements
best current,
professional practices of
urban planning and
design.
eliminate legal
conflicts,
improve
enforceability
and
administration
of City Code,
and so
implement best
professional
practices.
Overlay by allowing for flexibility for appropriate changes
to properties within the Overlay. The proposal reduces
staff time necessary to review proposals, reduces the time
spent by the HLC in considering changes, and allows for
a more streamlined approval process. The benefits lead
to a more efficient use of city resources at a reduced
expense to the property owner.
142
Special Exception Text Amendment
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities, related to the proposal:
Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out August 13, 2020.
o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community
councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage
One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and
present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee
On September 21, 2020 staff attended the meeting over video
conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. The
discussion included the following key subjects:
o The application fee and the degree to which an application
is subsidized.
o The ability of the decision makers to require additional
fence height to address impacts between incompatible
land uses, including when apartment buildings are next to
single family.
o Whether or not the ability to modify bulk requirements,
such as setbacks, building heights, etc. would apply to
historic buildings that not located within an existing
historic district.
o The Sugar House Community Council submitted a forma
response in response to the proposal.
No formal input was received from other community councils.
Emails were submitted by a resident of the East Bench neighborhood that
was generally in support of the proposal.
o The American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter was notified of the proposed
amendments on September 17, 2020. The Planning Division asked for their help
in notifying the local architecture community. No response was provided from
AIA. However, comments were received via email from a local architecture firm.
That email was not in support of the changes primarily due to the removal of
flexibility that special exceptions may provide.
o Information on the online open house posted to the Planning Division website
was posted on August 13, 2020. The information was emailed out to the Planning
Division list-serve every other week from August 14, 2020 through the October
11, 2020 early engagement period.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
143
Special Exception Text Amendment
Public hearing notice for the HLC meeting was sent through the Division email list on
mailed on October 22, 2020
Public hearing notice published to newspaper October 24, 2020
Public notice posted on City and State websites on October 22, 2020
No formal requests to receive notice of the proposed text amendment were received prior
to the noticing deadline of this public hearing.
144
From:John Blankevoort
To:Norris, Nick
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions
Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:46:34 PM
Attachments:EBCC 6-17-2020 meeting.pdf
Hello Nick
I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes,
frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of
subjects.
I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to
evaluate the wider problem.
We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with
these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call
into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual
obstacles for your Dept.
Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject
of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home
and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and
planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting
neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to
'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and
planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following
the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts.
time by making more work.
I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local
District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new
process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special
exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the
charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more
efficient, don't you agree?
Best
John
145
From:Ann Robinson
To:Norris, Nick; Annie V. Schwemmer
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes
Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:56:57 PM
Well, these situations were handled previously by special exceptions because each circumstance is
unique. By eliminating special exceptions, you are now trying to make rules that cover all
possibilities—probably not possible.
Let us think about this a bit and get back to you.
Ann Robinson, AIA
Principal // Renovation Design Group
824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101
O. 801.533.5331 | M. 801.230.2080
RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:48 PM
To: Annie V. Schwemmer <annie@rdgslc.com>
Cc: Ann Robinson <ann@rdgslc.com>
Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes
Thanks Annie, these are helpful comments. Do you have some ideas on how we can accommodate
these issues within the proposal?
NICK NORRIS
Director
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
CELL 801-641-1728
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
From: Annie V. Schwemmer <annie@rdgslc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:33 PM
To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Cc: Ann Robinson <ann@rdgslc.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes
Hi Nick-
We’ve reviewed the proposed special exception changes and since we do so many
renovations/additions in SLC we have the following comments:
146
Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: It seems there will be very few of these that
would not also need to project into a front yard setback.
Central Air Condensers: There are many side yards that can accommodate a condenser without
causing undue hardship on the neighbor (for instance, a 4’ side yard adjacent to a neighbor’s
driveway) and there should be a way for these to be allowed.
Corner side yards: We think in-line additions need to be allowed in side yard setbacks to avoid
awkward interior spaces & rooflines.
Noncomplying as to height: We think rear additions should be allowed to match the height of the
existing roofline even if the existing structure is noncomplying. This change will create odd looking
rooflines and will preclude 2nd stories on rear additions if the lower roofline makes the upper level
ceiling lower than 7’ high.
Thanks-
Annie
Annie V. Schwemmer, AIA
Principal // Renovation Design Group
824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101
O. 801.533.5331 | M. 801.560.7171
RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio
147
148
149
Special Exception Text Amendment
Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for
review on August 11, 2020. In addition, a follow up meeting was held on September 30, 2020
with Engineering and Building Services to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to
address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a
summary of associated meetings.
Airports: no comments received.
Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver
for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections
of the proposal:
o Edit suggestions regarding Table 21A.36.020.B Obstructions in yards;
o Support addressing grade changes and retaining walls as it removes vagueness
in doing related zoning reviews.
o Requested that the expansions of nonconforming uses be limited to a one-time
request to avoid repeated requests over time.
o Regarding noncomplying lots, add provision about complying with all applicable
provisions so that it includes building and fire codes.
o Remove some of the standards for unit legalizations that deal with past zoning
violations. Past violations that are unrelated to the existence of a dwelling unit
should not be a factor in determining if the unit can be recognized as a legal
dwelling unit.
o Concerns with letting any accessory use go into an accessory building. Is a
welding shop appropriate in a shed, for example?
Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments provided.
Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional
building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the
number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts
and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division
also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial
districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and
encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta
Reichgelt.
Engineering: Engineering is concerned with prohibiting all utility boxes in the ROW.
This puts the burden on Engineering to make decisions about the aesthetics of utility
boxes when they are mostly focused on the engineering and impact to physical
infrastructure, such as sidewalks, curb, and gutter.
Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on
revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division
revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year.
150
Special Exception Text Amendment
Fire Department: no comments provided.
Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.
Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special
exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.
Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated.
The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes
be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.
Police Department: no comments provided.
Public Services:
o Parks and Public Lands: Parks and Public Lands provided comments relating to
fence height around outdoor recreation facilities and light poles associated with
sports fields.
o Golf Division: provided comments regarding fence heights around golf course
driving ranges.
o the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex provided input on the height and setbacks
of athletic field lighting.
Public Utilities: Public Utilities provided comments about exempting some necessary
infrastructure and utility buildings from height requirements in the OS Zoning District,
asking if the riparian and lowland overlay zoning districts still apply, clarifying that
underground encroachments are on private property only, and ensuring that antennae
height would allow the necessary infrastructure to monitor utility facilities. Comments
provided by Jason Draper.
Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because
they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more
predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.
Sustainability: no comments provided.
Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by
Michael Barry.
Urban Forestry: no comments provided.
151
From:Reichgelt, Roberta
To:Norris, Nick
Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment
Date:Monday, August 31, 2020 3:02:32 PM
Got it. Thanks
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:22 PM
To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com>
Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment
This type of special exception says that it has to be approved by the Planning Commission. The PC
processing time for special exceptions is historically around 45 days. We don’t have an application
for additional height in a commercial district that hasn’t also required design review or planned
development due to some other requested modification. So we don’t have any data on how long
this specific special exception would normally take.
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
From: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:07 PM
To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment
Thanks, is the special exception process generally shorter than a planned development? So this
different would be that it might take the applicant longer in the future?
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:29 PM
To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com>
Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment
Not common. We have had two requests in the last three years and only one other in the previous
10. Most are already in the planned development or design review process anyways and address
height in those processes. This option is mostly used in zoning districts that don’t have the extra
height option through the design review process.
ICK ORRIS
152
N N
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
From: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:01 PM
To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment
Hi Nick,
Could you help me understand if this is a common request? I have followed planned development
process on height requests that are much larger than this. How did the special exception process for
this type of request come to be and why was it not able to be approved through the Design Review?
You can call me if it’s easier than responding via email: 385-214-9628.
Thanks,
Roberta
Special Exceptions in 21A.26 Commercial Zoning DistrictsZoning ordinance section 21A.26.010 Paragraph J authorizes a special
exception for additional height if the additional height is less than 10% of the
maximum allowed in the specific zone. For example, in the CB zone the
maximum height is thirty feet. A special exception could approve up to three
feet. This has resulted in three different ways for extra height to be granted:
Through the planned development process (limited to a maximum of five feet);
Through the design review process (including when allowed under the base
zoning and in cases where the lot is sloping, which is almost every lot); and
Through the special exception process.
The proposal would be to delete this paragraph so that the extra height is
authorized only through the planned development process or when allowed by
the base zoning district through the design review process.
From: Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:59 AM
To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com>; Wright, William
<William.Wright@slcgov.com>
Cc: Makowski, Peter <Peter.Makowski@slcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment
153
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM
To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio
<Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott
<scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani
<Lani.Eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony
<Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie
<debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>
Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>;
Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa
<Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine
<Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela
<Pamela.Lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth
<MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny
<Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer
<Jennifer.Mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com>
Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment
Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special
exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each
authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning
ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories:
The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would
be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop.
The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be
grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height.
The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing
standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does
not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks.
There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we
would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list:
Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews.
Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures
over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a
special exception.
Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation
equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum
heights for these structures.
Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain
size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would
be required to be located on private property.
Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception
will be eliminated.
154
HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use
process.
Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate
approximately $40,000 annually in application fees.
Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process
includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and
recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete
by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to
me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to
add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it
easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can
decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and
provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please
don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time!
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
155
From:Draper, Jason
To:Norris, Nick; Briefer, Laura
Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment
Date:Monday, October 5, 2020 11:23:59 AM
Sounds good
We just want to make sure that we don’t run into problems with antennae height for SCADA systems
and other communications. It seems that these changes are specific to amateur and private
property, but just want to make sure we are able to at least have review available for these
antennae.
Thanks!
Jason Draper, PE, CFM
Development Review Manager - Floodplain Administrator
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:15 AM
To: Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>
Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment
Thanks Jason, a few questions
The riparian, lowland, and any other flood zone requirements would still apply and not be
impacted by these changes. They would be reviewed during building permit review.
The underground encroachments in this instance apply to private property. Wasn’t sure if
that was made clear in the info provided or if there are other issues that Public Utilities has.
There are a couple of sections that address antennae tower height. Can you clarify which
section that comment is referring to?
None of the public utilities facility on West Temple is zoned OS.
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
From: Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:28 AM
To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>
Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment
156
I have a couple of comments:
Replacement of noncomplying building must meet riparian and flood zone requirements.
Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less – must meet provisions of the flood hazard and
riparian overlay and lowland conservancy overlay zones
Underground encroachments – We would rather see this as not permitted or at least need to
establish the encroachment table before this goes away.
Public Utility buildings in OS Zone: I think this looks good – no office buildings in OS
Ground mounted utility boxes – support this action.
I’m a little concerned with a 60 ft max for an antenna tower and no mechanism to present a
case for anything taller.
Some years ago there was a discussion to zone the 1530 South West Temple Park as OS. We
may need the property for future expansion of our campus. Do you know if any of our
campus is currently OS?
Thanks!
Jason Draper, PE, CFM
Development Review Manager - Floodplain Administrator
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:47 AM
To: Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment
Wanted to follow up with these proposed zoning changes that may impact public utilities. I haven’t
received any comments yet, so wanted to do a final check to see if there are potential issues. The
biggest changes for public utilities are the changes exempt public utility structures from the height
requirements in the OS zone (pg 11 of the attached) and permits taller fences when necessary to
secure critical infrastructure and facilities (pg 26-27). We hope to take this to the PC on November
18th for a recommendation. The other change that you may want to know about it is prohibiting
ground mounted utility boxes in the ROW when they are only serving a private development. The
change would require those to be on private property. Let me know if you have any concerns with
the changes.
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
157
From: Norris, Nick
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM
To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio
<Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott
<scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani
<Lani.Eggertsen-Goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony
<Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie
<debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>
Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>;
Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa
<Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine
<Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela
<pamela.lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth
<MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny
<Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer
<jennifer.mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com>
Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment
Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special
exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each
authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning
ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories:
The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would
be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop.
The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be
grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height.
The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing
standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does
not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks.
There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we
would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list:
Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews.
Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures
over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a
special exception.
Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation
equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum
heights for these structures.
Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain
size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would
be required to be located on private property.
Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception
will be eliminated.
HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use
158
process.
Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate
approximately $40,000 annually in application fees.
Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process
includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and
recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete
by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to
me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to
add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it
easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can
decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and
provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please
don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time!
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
159
From:Barry, Michael
To:Norris, Nick
Cc:Young, Kevin; Larsen, Jonathan; Larson, Kurt
Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment
Date:Monday, August 31, 2020 1:23:56 PM
Nick,
I do not have any suggested changes. Thanks.
MICHAEL BARRY, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7147
From: Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:22 AM
To: Larsen, Jonathan <jon.larsen@slcgov.com>; Larson, Kurt <Kurt.Larson@slcgov.com>; Barry,
Michael <Michael.Barry@slcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment
FYI
If you have any comments or input, please provide them by September 11.
KEVIN J. YOUNG, P.E.
Deputy Director
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7108
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM
To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio
<Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott
<scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani
<Lani.Eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony
<Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie
<debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>
Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>;
Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa
<Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine
<Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela
<Pamela.Lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth
160
<MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny
<Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer
<Jennifer.Mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com>
Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment
Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special
exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each
authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning
ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories:
The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would
be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop.
The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be
grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height.
The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing
standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does
not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks.
There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we
would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list:
Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews.
Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures
over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a
special exception.
Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation
equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum
heights for these structures.
Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain
size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would
be required to be located on private property.
Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception
will be eliminated.
HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use
process.
Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate
approximately $40,000 annually in application fees.
Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process
includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and
recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete
by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to
me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to
add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it
easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can
decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and
provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please
161
don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time!
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
162
From:Laughlin, Chris
To:Norris, Nick
Cc:Bollwinkel, Lee
Subject:RE: text changes impacted OS zone
Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:45:44 AM
Hey Nick,
Hope we’re not too late. I just spoke with Bruce Brown in engineering and he said the poles are 70
ft. tall for our field lights. 30 ft sounds good for property distance.
Chris Laughlin | RAC Program Manager
From: Kogan, Lewis
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:57 AM
To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com>; Bollwinkel, Lee
<lee.bollwinkel@slcgov.com>; Laughlin, Chris <Chris.Laughlin@slcgov.com>
Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone
Importance: High
Nick, my sincere apologies, I must have missed your first email and it got lost in my inbox.
I am going to defer to the experts here:
Lee, Chris, can you please review Nick’s questions below at your earliest convenience, and let him
know how the proposed changes to ordinance would impact lighting and recreational equipment
heights, particularly for the Regional Athletic Complex?
Thanks!
Lewis
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com>
Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone
Wanted to follow up on this to see if you have any input.
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
163
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
From: Norris, Nick
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM
To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>
Subject: text changes impacted OS zone
Lewis,
We are working on a massive text change that will eliminate special exceptions from the zoning
ordinance. There are two specific special exceptions that could impact parks and recreational
facilities in the OS open space zone.
The first impacts recreational equipment in excess of 60 feet. Right now a special exception could
be granted to exceed that height. This was put in to provide flexibility for hogle zoo who wanted to
add a ropes course to the zoo and they were not sure how tall the poles were going to be. It also
allows for things like driving range fences to be up to 60 feet tall. Can you let us know if limiting the
height to 60 feet is going to cause problems or if there is any structure that exceeds 60 feet
currently? I don’t know how tall driving range fences are.
The second addresses light poles for recreational facilities. The code allows a special exception for
these to be taller when located within thirty feet of an adjacent residential structure. The current
code allows the lights to be 60 feet in height. Taller lights would trigger the special exception cited
above as well as if the light is within 30 feet of dwelling. There are screening requirements as well to
reduce light pollution. We are proposing to allow these up to 80 feet in height, but are trying to
figure out how far away they should be from the property line. Can you give us an idea of how tall
these lights tend to be and how far from property lines they should be? We would like to publish
public info on this in the next week or so. If that is not enough time, let me know how much time
you need so we can figure something out. Thanks.
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
164
From:Kammeyer, Matt
To:Norris, Nick; Kogan, Lewis
Subject:RE: text changes impacted OS zone
Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:38:34 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Nick and Lewis,
I’m responding directly to you in relation to Kristin’s question about driving range fence heights.
Driving range fences typically fall within the 60 to 80 foot range. The Top Golf range fence is upward
of 125 feet. Let me know if I can provide more info.
MATT KAMMEYER
Director, Golf Program
GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-485-7823
FAX 801-466-6705
WWW.SLC-GOLF.COM
WWW.SLCGOV.COM
From: Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 1:23 PM
To: Kammeyer, Matt <Matt.Kammeyer@slcgov.com>
Subject: FW: text changes impacted OS zone
Hi Matt-
Hope you all had a great event today. I apologize I missed it, thank you for asking me! I’m
tied to being close to my mom right now as she is not healthy and needs a lot of care.
Anyhow, please see Nick’s email below. Can you tell me how tall driving range fences are?
KRISTIN RIKER
Public Services Deputy Director; Public Lands
Salt Lake City Public Lands Divisions
Parks, Trails & Natural Lands, Urban Forestry
CELL 801-514-0205
TEL 801-972-7804
FAX 801-972-7847
165
From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com>
Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone
Wanted to follow up on this to see if you have any input.
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
From: Norris, Nick
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM
To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>
Subject: text changes impacted OS zone
Lewis,
We are working on a massive text change that will eliminate special exceptions from the zoning
ordinance. There are two specific special exceptions that could impact parks and recreational
facilities in the OS open space zone.
The first impacts recreational equipment in excess of 60 feet. Right now a special exception could
be granted to exceed that height. This was put in to provide flexibility for hogle zoo who wanted to
add a ropes course to the zoo and they were not sure how tall the poles were going to be. It also
allows for things like driving range fences to be up to 60 feet tall. Can you let us know if limiting the
height to 60 feet is going to cause problems or if there is any structure that exceeds 60 feet
currently? I don’t know how tall driving range fences are.
The second addresses light poles for recreational facilities. The code allows a special exception for
these to be taller when located within thirty feet of an adjacent residential structure. The current
code allows the lights to be 60 feet in height. Taller lights would trigger the special exception cited
above as well as if the light is within 30 feet of dwelling. There are screening requirements as well to
reduce light pollution. We are proposing to allow these up to 80 feet in height, but are trying to
166
figure out how far away they should be from the property line. Can you give us an idea of how tall
these lights tend to be and how far from property lines they should be? We would like to publish
public info on this in the next week or so. If that is not enough time, let me know how much time
you need so we can figure something out. Thanks.
NICK NORRIS
Planning Director
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
167
From:Parisi, Lauren
To:Norris, Nick
Subject:Special Exception Text Amendment
Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 5:15:00 PM
Hi Nick,
Danny had asked if I could review the special exception text amendment information you
sent over and, upon review, the RDA fully supports the proposed texts amendments as they
are. These amendments will help to streamline the building permit review process and
provide more predictability for property owners. We commend your team’s great work.
Thanks,
LAUREN PARISI
Project Manager
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7242
WWW.SLCRDA.COM
Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special
exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each
authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning
ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories:
The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would
be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop.
The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be
grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height.
The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing
standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does
not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks.
There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we
would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list:
Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews.
Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures
over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a
special exception.
Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation
equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum
heights for these structures.
Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain
size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would
be required to be located on private property.
Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception
168
will be eliminated.
HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use
process.
Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate
approximately $40,000 annually in application fees.
Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process
includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and
recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete
by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to
me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to
add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it
easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can
decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and
provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please
don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time!
169
5. ORIGINAL PETITION
170
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Cc: Lisa Shaeffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Jennifer McGrath, Deputy Director Department of
Community and Neighborhoods;
From: Nick Norris, Planning Director
Date: August 4, 2020
Re: Zoning amendment related to the special exception process in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21A.52
The Planning Division would like to request that a zoning text amendment be initiated to eliminate the special
exception process from the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance authorizes more than 40 exceptions to the
zoning ordinance through this process. An average of 150 applications are submitted each calendar year,
generating approximately 3,000 hours of staff time and about 8% of the total workload in the Division. The
purpose of the change is to reallocate staff hours to better respond to the city-wide needs that are created by
growth, align the zoning ordinance with city goals, and restore the long range land use planning function of the
city. One of the reasons for the proposal is partly due to the allocated resources for the Planning Division which
does not support the workload of land use applications that are authorized or required by the zoning ordinance.
Eliminating this process helps delay the need for additional staffing in the Planning Division.
Exceptions would fit into one of the following categories:
• Deleted from the ordinance and no longer allowed. This is for those exceptions where an application
has not been submitted in several years, relatively few applications have been received or where
applications are routinely denied.
• Allowed by right in the ordinance. This is for those exceptions that are routinely approved with little or
no public input, that match changing trends in how property is used, or do not create impacts that are
greater than permitted activities.
• Allowed through an existing process. This is for those exceptions where the zoning ordinance already
has an established process and the special exception application is redundant, when the exception is
used to determine legal status of a use or structure, or when another process may be more appropriate.
A public process will be conducted to gauge public input on the proposed changes. It is possible that the public
input received could change the direction or outcomes of the proposal. Due to the inability to hold community
meetings in person, all engagement will be performed virtually. All recognized organizations will be notified of
the proposal and staff will be made available to provide an overview of the proposal and answer questions that
the community may have. This proposal will impact the development community and builders, architects, and
developers will be included in the engagement process.
The Planning Division typically provides a memo to the Mayor to sign to initiate a zoning amendment. The
memo explains the issue, provides a brief description of the process, and the resources required. For this
potential proposal, the process would follow the typical engagement processes that include notification of all
community councils and a 45-day comment period. Following the 45-day comment period the Planning
Division would prepare for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission
makes a recommendation, the matter is transmitted to the City Council for a decision.
171
l Page 2
This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the
decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the
Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition.
Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you.
Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above.
_____________________________________
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
_____________
Date
August 5, 2020
172
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: July 20, 2021
RE: Text Amendment: Administrative
Decision Appeals
PLNPCM2020-00352
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: July 20, 2021
Set Date: July 20, 2021
Public Hearing: Aug 17, 2021
Potential Action: Aug 24, 2021
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to
appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are made by the Planning Commission,
Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning
ordinance.
The amendments clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal
decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision, modify City Code to align with State law, related case
law, and make other clarifications to the “appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance, including:
Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation
and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation
and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or
federal law.
Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or “an
adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code.
Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a
“stay” (a hold on further proceedings on a matter) when appealing an administrative decision.
The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council.
Page | 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Key Changes
A short summary of the key changes is provided below. See pages 2-5 of the Planning Commission staff
report for full details.
1. Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals
Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the
interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the
interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution,
Utah common law or federal law.
2. State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants
The proposed changes to the City’s appeals chapter would revise the list of allowed appellants to
comply with the current State Code allowance. The list of allowed appellants includes:
o The land use applicant
o City board or officer
o An adversely affected party
3. Stays of Decisions for Appeals
Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify
a stay.
o Currently City Code specifies that a land use decision is automatically stayed upon
submission of an appeal.
o The proposal would no longer automatically stay a decision and instead require that an
appellant formally request a stay.
o The appellant would also need to justify the stay by showing how it would be necessary
“to prevent substantial harm” to the appellant.
o The Appeals Hearing Officer would then decide on whether to impose a stay.
4. Miscellaneous Changes
Clarifications to code references and removal of potentially conflicting language.
o Removal of potentially conflicting code regarding record keeping. City record keeping
timeframes are imposed by other City Code and State law and the code change reduces the
language to simply refer to those in order to avoid conflicts.
o Reference the current types of City applications and processes the Appeals Hearing Officer
has authority over.
o Clarify that there is an application and fee for appeals is included in the “Procedure” section.
o Delete reference to the “Historic Preservation Appeal Authority” shown in the draft. Those
are intended to reflect a recently adopted ordinance that deleted that entity, which has just
not yet been incorporated or “codified” into the official city zoning text.
o All the references to that entity were already deleted by another ordinance (5 of
2020). The strike-throughs shown in the legislative version of the ordinance
related to the “Historic Preservation Appeal Authority” are now redundant.
When the code was being drafted, those changes just weren’t yet codified.
Policy Questions:
Are there any stakeholders the Administration reached out to, notifying them about the proposed
changes? Would it be helpful if the billboard or cell tower companies were contacted directly to
inform them of these changes?
Are there any other groups who have commonly appealed administrative decisions that could be
contacted to work through and/or address potential unintended consequences?
Admin. Appeals Text Amendment
Appeals Chapter 21A.16
•Regulates appeals of administrative decisions
Decisions by:
•Planning Commission
•Historic Landmarks Commission
•Other Administrative decisions
•Zoning Administrator/Planning Director/Staff
•Appeals heard by an appointed Appeals
Hearing Officer
•Technical changes to Appeals chapter
•Comply with recent state code and case law
Admin. Appeals Text Amendment
•Clarify authority of Appeals Hearing Officer
•Authority over City code appeals only, not state code
•Align allowed appellant definition with State Code
•(2) "Adversely affected party" means a person other than a land use applicant
who:
(a) owns real property adjoining the property that is the subject of a land use
application or land use decision; or
(b) will suffer a damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that of
the general community as a result of the land use decision.
•Stays of decisions with appeals
•Appeals will not automatically stay decisions
•Appeals Hearing Officer would decide on stay requests from
appellants
•Appellant must demonstrate potential substantial harm
•Other wording , clarification changes for consistency
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, 801-535-7165,
daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed modifications to Chapter
21A.16 as recommended by the Planning Commission and Attorney’s Office.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposed ordinance includes changes to the City Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative land use decisions. The proposal was initiated
by the City Council in May of this year. The changes were initiated due to issues with the code
being identified by the Attorney’s Office in responding to and processing recent “Administrative
Decision” appeals, particularly related to recent appeals regarding billboards.
Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark
Commission, or the Zoning Administrator (City Staff) in the administration of the zoning
ordinance. Administrative decisions include decisions on such processes as Planned
Developments, Design Reviews, Subdivisions, Special Exceptions, and Major/Minor Alterations
to historic properties. Administrative decisions also include when City staff is administering the
ordinance by directly issuing decisions on development proposals or permits, or when the Planning
Commission or Historic Landmarks Commission are the decision makers on proposals.
12/4/2020
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 14, 2020 11:15 MST)
12/14/2020
12/14/2020
The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and
make other clarifications to the “Appeals” chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments
primarily do the following:
• Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the
interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions
regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah
Constitution, Utah common law or federal law.
• Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or “an
adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code.
• Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request
and justify a “stay” (a hold on further proceedings on a matter) when appealing an
administrative decision.
Other minor, miscellaneous clarifications are included in the code changes for consistency and
enforceability. The details of the code changes can be found in the staff report located in Exhibit
3b.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Early notification and online Open House notices were e-mailed out June 18, 2020:
o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community
councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage with the
proposed code.
o One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the
changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee.
o Staff attended the Sugar House meeting over video conference, reviewed the
proposal, and answered questions.
o No formal input was received from any community councils.
o No public comments were received.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal on October 14, 2020:
o A public hearing notice was published in the newspaper, posted on City and State
websites, and sent out on the Planning Division notification listserv on September 30,
2020.
o No members of the public spoke at the public hearing.
o Planning Commission members asked the City Attorney’s Office staff technical
questions about the ordinance.
o The Planning Commission passed a unanimous recommendation that the City Council
approve the ordinance.
EXHIBITS:
1) Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Planning Commission
a) Newspaper Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda and Minutes
d) Presentation Slides
4) Original Petition
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2020
(An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions)
An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of
Administrative Decisions, pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00352
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 14, 2020 to
consider a request made by the Salt Lake City Council (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352) to amend
Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code; and
WHEREAS, at its October 14, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a
positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this
ordinance is in the city’s best interests,
WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 requires a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance
to establish an appeal authority to hear and decide requests for variances from the terms of the land
use ordinances and appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances;
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has adopted a land use ordinance and established such an
appeal authority;
WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 also provides that a municipality may provide that
specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court;
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it necessary to clarify, as provided for in
Utah Code § 10 -9a-701, the authority of that appeal authority and to specify the types of land use
decisions that may be appealed directly to district court;
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it is also necessary to clarify the process for
filing appeals with the appeal authority;
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter,
that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter
21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
Chapter 21A.16
APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
21A.16.010: Authority
21A.16.020: Parties Entitled to Appeal
21A.16.030: Procedure
21A.16.040: Appeal of Decision
21A.16.050: Stay of Decision
21A.16.010: AUTHORITY:
A. Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of
this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide or make determinations regarding:
1. Appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning
administrator, the planning commission or the historic landmark commission involving
the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code;
2. Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or
subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of
this code;
3. Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title;
4. The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying
structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38,
“Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and
5. Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where
specifically authorized by a provision of this code.
B. State and Federal Law: The appeals hearing officer shall not hear and decide or make
determinations regarding any of the following:
1. Appeals alleging an error in the application, administration, enforcement or compliance
with a provision of state or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state
and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law;
2. Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to
provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and
federal common law;
3. Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law.
An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to
the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor.
C. Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer
has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in
district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and
decide.
D. Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has
authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have
authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims
the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does
not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and
exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear
and decide.
21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL:
An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or an adversely affected party, as that term is
defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, may appeal to the appeals hearing
officer.
21A.16.030: PROCEDURE:
Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission
or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures:
A. Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning
administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information
required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision
appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the
reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be
accepted.
B. Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable
deadline, together with all applicable fees.
C. Time for Filing an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal are:
1. Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days;
2. Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days;
3. Historic landmark commission: thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten
(10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal.
D. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the following fees:
1. The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and
2. The fees established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this
title.
All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete
until all applicable fees are paid.
E. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision
appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise.
F. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant,
Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator,
planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until
the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is
necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a
provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing
officer.
G. Notice Required:
1. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning
administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in
accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth
in chapter 21A.10 of this title.
2. Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or
planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the
appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent.
a. Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or
planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to
hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and
place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of
twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting.
b. The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the
appeals hearing officer a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the
hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, chapter 2.60
of this code.
H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the
filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and
withdrawn by the appellant.
I. Standard of Review:
1. The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection I2 of this
section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew,
based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to
the decision below.
2. An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission
shall be based on the record made below.
a. No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence
was improperly excluded from consideration below.
b. The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards
and shall determine its correctness.
c. The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect
when the decision was made.
J. Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect.
K. Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written
decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may
modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the
decision is rendered.
L. Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be
sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision.
M. Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded.
Recordings shall be retained by the planning division for a period that is consistent with city
retention policies and any applicable retention requirement set forth in state law.
N. Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures,
consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal
hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal.
O. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent
written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled
meeting date.
21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION:
Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a
petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision
is rendered.
21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION:
The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing
officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah
code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor.
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section
21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as
follows:
21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION:
A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050
or its successor.
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That
section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
21A.34.020L.3(e)
Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission
may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title.
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of
Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION:
A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the
planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title.
B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a
special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the
date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning
commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section
21A.160.30F.
SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of
Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a
conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter
21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission
pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A16.030F of this title.
SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of
the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission
Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application
for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the
provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of
the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under
section 21A.16.030F of this title.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
passage.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2020.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2020.
Published: ______________.
Approved As To Form
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
By: _________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Date: ______________________ November 3, 2020
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2020 2
(An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code 3
pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions) 4
5
An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of 6
Administrative Decisions, pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00352 7
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 14, 2020 to 8
consider a request made by the Salt Lake City Council (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352) to amend 9
Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code; and 10
WHEREAS, at its October 14, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a 11
positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council; and 12
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this 13
ordinance is in the city’s best interests, 14
WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 requires a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance 15
to establish an appeal authority to hear and decide requests for variances from the terms of the land 16
use ordinances and appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances; 17
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has adopted a land use ordinance and established such an 18
appeal authority; 19
WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 also provides that a municipality may provide that 20
specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court; 21
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it necessary to clarify, as provided for in 22
Utah Code § 10 -9a-701, the authority of that appeal authority and to specify the types of land use 23
decisions that may be appealed directly to district court; 24
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it is also necessary to clarify the process for 25
filing appeals with the appeal authority; 26
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, 27
that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests. 28
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 29
SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 30
21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 31
amended to read as follows: 32
Chapter 21A.16 33
APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 34
35
21A.16.010: Authority 36
21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To to Appeal 37
21A.16.030: Procedure 38
21A.16.040: Appeal Of of Decision 39
21A.16.050: Stay Of of Decision 40
41
21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: 42
43
A. Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of 44
this title, the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall hear and decide or make determinations 45
regarding: 46
47
1. Aappeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zZoning 48
aAdministrator, or the Administrative Hearing Officer in the administration or 49
enforcement of this title, as well as administrative decisions of the Pplanning 50
Ccommission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, 51
administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code;. 52
53
2. Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or 54
subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of 55
this code; 56
57
3. Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 58
59
4. The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying 60
structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, 61
“Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 62
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
63
5. Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where 64
specifically authorized by a provision of this code. 65
66
B. State and Federal Law: The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer may shall not hear and decide or 67
make determinations regarding any of the following: 68
69
1. Aappeals alleging an error in the application, administrative decisions made by the 70
Historic Landmark Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 71
administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, 72
including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal 73
constitutions and state and federal common law; 74
75
2. Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to 76
provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and 77
federal common law; 78
79
3. Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law. 80
81
An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to 82
the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. 83
84
C. Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer 85
has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in 86
district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and 87
decide. 88
89
D. Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has 90
authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have 91
authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims 92
the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does 93
not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and 94
exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear 95
and decide. 96
In addition, the Appeals Hearing Officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as per 97
chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or 98
modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and 99
standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of 100
this title. 101
As described in section 21A.06.080 of this title, the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may 102
hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions of the Historic Landmark 103
Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 104
105
21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: 106
107
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or any other person or entityan adversely 108
affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, by a 109
decision administering or interpreting this title may appeal to the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer. 110
For decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant may appeal to either 111
the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority or the Appeals Hearing Officer. 112
113
21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: 114
115
Appeals of administrative decisions by the zZoning aAdministrator, hHistoric lLandmark 116
cCommission or pPlanning cCommission shall be taken in accordance with the following 117
procedures: 118
119
A. Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning 120
administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information 121
required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision 122
appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the 123
reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be 124
accepted. 125
126
B. Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable 127
deadline, together with all applicable fees. 128
129
AC. Time for Filing Of an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal 130
are:All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with 131
the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, 132
including every theory of relief that can be presented in District Court. The deadlines for 133
filing an appeal are as indicated below: 134
135
1. Administrative decisions made by the zZoning aAdministrator: tTen (10) days;. 136
137
2. Planning cCommission decisions: tTen (10) days;. 138
139
3. Historic lLandmark cCommission: tThirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, 140
ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. 141
142
BD. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable following fees: 143
144
1. The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and 145
146
2. . The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of allThe fees established for 147
providing the public notice required by chapter chapter 21A.10 of this title. 148
149
All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete 150
until all applicable fees are paid. 151
152
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
CE. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision 153
appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. Stay Of Proceedings: 154
An appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 155
stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order, 156
requirement, decision, determination, or interpretation was made unless the Zoning 157
Administrator certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation 158
Appeal Authority, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay would, in the Zoning 159
Administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the City. 160
161
F. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, 162
Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, 163
planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until 164
the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is 165
necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a 166
provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing 167
officer. 168
169
DG. Notice Required: 170
171
1. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zZoning 172
aAdministrator, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer shall schedule and hold a public hearing 173
in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set 174
forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 175
176
2. Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or 177
pPlanning cCommission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the 178
appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. 179
180
a. Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or 181
pPlanning cCommission, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation 182
Appeal Authority shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant 183
and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given 184
to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance 185
of the meeting. 186
187
b. The cCity shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the 188
aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, a minimum 189
of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to 190
receive notice pursuant to title Title 2, chapter chapter 2.60 of this cCode. 191
192
3H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the 193
filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and 194
withdrawn by the appellant. 195
196
EI. Standard oOf Review: 197
198
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1. The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection E2 I2 of this 199
section, shall be de novo. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal 200
Authority shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and 201
standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 202
203
2. An appeal from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or pPlanning 204
cCommission shall be based on the record made below. 205
206
a. No new evidence shall be heard by the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic 207
Preservation Appeal Authority unless such evidence was improperly excluded from 208
consideration below. 209
210
b. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 211
review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its 212
correctness. 213
214
c. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 215
uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or 216
it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. 217
218
FJ. Burden Oof Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is 219
incorrect. 220
221
GK. Action bBy tThe Appeals Hearing Officer Or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority: 222
The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall render a 223
written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or 224
may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the 225
decision is rendered. 226
227
HL. Notification oOf Decision: Notification of the decision of the aAppeals hHearing 228
oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall be sent to all parties to the appeal 229
within ten (10) days of the decision. 230
231
IM. Record oOf Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. on 232
audio equipment. The audio Rrecordings of each appeal hearing shall be retainedkept by the 233
planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable 234
retention requirement set forth in state law. minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written 235
request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of 236
time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as determined by the Appeals Hearing Officer or 237
Historic Preservation Appeal Authority. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may be 238
provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The Appeals Hearing Officer 239
and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may have the appeal proceedings 240
contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. 241
242
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
JN. Policies aAnd Procedures: The Pplanning Ddirector shall adopt policies and procedures, 243
consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal 244
hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. 245
246
KO. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer and 247
Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted 248
a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 249
250
21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: 251
252
Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer or 253
Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may file a petition for review of the decision with the 254
Ddistrict Ccourt within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 255
256
21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: 257
258
The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing 259
officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah 260
code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. 261
The Appeals Hearing Officer and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may stay the issuance 262
of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the 263
District Court in any appeal of the decision. 264
265
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 266
21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as 267
follows: 268
21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: 269
270
A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 271
or its successor. The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approval 272
based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of 273
the decision. 274
275
276
277
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That 278
section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 279
amended to read as follows: 280
Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission 281
may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The 282
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
filing of an appeal shall stay the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission pending the 283
outcome of the appeal. 284
285
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of 286
Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and 287
hereby is amended to read as follows: 288
21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: 289
A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the 290
planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 291
B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a 292
special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the 293
date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning 294
commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 295
21A.160.30F. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 296
297
298
SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of 299
Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission 300
Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 301
21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 302
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a 303
conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 304
21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe filing of the appeal shall not 305
stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for 306
under section 21A16.030F of this title. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a 307
decision. 308
309
SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of 310
the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission 311
Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 312
21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 313
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application 314
for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the 315
provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe 316
filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome 317
of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the Planning 318
Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 319
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 320
passage. 321
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2020. 322
323
324
______________________________ 325
CHAIRPERSON 326
327
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 328
329
330
______________________________ 331
CITY RECORDER 332
333
334
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 335
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 336
337
______________________________ 338
MAYOR 339
340
______________________________ 341
CITY RECORDER 342
343
344
(SEAL) 345
346
347
Bill No. ________ of 2020. 348
Published: ______________. 349
350
351
Approved As To Form
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
By: _________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Date: ______________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020
a. Newspaper Notice
b. Staff Report
c. Agenda/Minutes
d. Presentation Slides
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment
May 5, 2020 City Council initiates petition
May 12, 2020 Petition assigned to Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner
June 8, 2020 Draft ordinance prepared by Attorney’s Office
June 18, 2020 Early notification notices sent to all recognized organizations and
posted on City webpage for public input
July 20, 2020 Staff attends Sugar House Community Council Land Use and
Zoning Committee meeting via web video conference to discuss
proposal
August 3, 2020 Early notification period ends
September 30, 2020 Public hearing notice for Planning Commission meeting published
in newspaper, posted on City/State notice websites, and sent out on
Planning notification listserv.
October 8, 2020 Staff report for the item is published
October 14, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing held. Planning Commission
passes unanimous motion recommending approval of the proposal
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON DATE and DATE at 7:00 p.m.
public hearings will be held by the Salt Lake City Council to accept
public comment and consider adopting an ordinance relating to Petition
No. PLNPCM2020-00352.
A proposed ordinance is before the Council to amend the text of Title
21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to appeals of administrative
decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning
Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator
in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments
would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and
make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments
primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals
Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can
stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the
zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be
amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide.
The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of
the second public hearing. This meeting will be electronic pursuant
to the Chair’s determination that conducting the meeting at a physical
location may present a substantial risk to the health & safety (due
to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) of those who would otherwise be
present at an anchor location, and pursuant to SLC Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public
Hearing, please visit the website https://www.slc.gov/council/ to
learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments
may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-
7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments
received through any source are shared with the Council and added to
the public record.
Publish:
3. PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020
a. Newspaper Notice
The Salt Lake Tribune
Publication Name:
The Salt Lake Tribune
Publication URL:
Publication City and State:
Salt Lake City, UT
Publication County:
Salt Lake
Notice Popular Keyword Category:
Notice Keywords:
plnpcm2020-00352
Notice Authentication Number:
202011250158583150503
3430682078
Notice URL:
Back
Notice Publish Date:
Saturday, October 03, 2020
Notice Content
Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, October 14, 2020, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider
making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions: 1. Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The
City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative
decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of
the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with state law, related case law, and make other
clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who
can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance.
Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel
Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352 The public hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m.
via Webex. To participate go to: http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-10142020 This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building.
Commission Members will connect remotely. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the
following platforms: YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLC tv-Live/2 If you are
interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email;
planning.comments@slcgov.com. 1300772 UPAXLP
Back
PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020
b. Staff Report
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 www.slcgov.com
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Daniel Echeverria, 801-535-7165, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com
Date: October 8, 2020 (publication)
Re: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
REQUEST:
The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding
appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning
Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in th e
administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to
align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The
amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing
Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed
amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-
Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission forward a favorable recommendation for the text amendment request to the City
Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Proposed Code Text
B.Existing Code Text
C.Analysis of Standards – Zoning Text Amendment
D.Public Process and Comments
E.Department Review Comments
Petition Description
The City Council initiated a petition to amend the Appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance in
May of this year. The changes were initiated due to issues with the code being identified by the
Attorney’s Office in responding to and processing recent “Administrative Decision” appeals.
1 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark
Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance.
Administrative decisions include such items as Planned Developments, Design Review s,
Subdivisions, Special Exceptions, and Major/Minor Alterations. These include when City staff
is administering the ordinance by issuing decisions for these items directly or when the Planning
Commission or Historic Landmarks Commission are the decision makers.
The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law,
and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily do the following:
•Clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer,
•Modify who can appeal decisions to comply with State Code, and
•Modify when an appeal can stay a decision to comply with State Code and case law.
Other minor miscellaneous clarifications are included in the code changes for consistency and
enforceability. The changes are discussed in more detail in the Key Code Changes section below.
Applicable Review Processes and Standards
Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment
Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether
proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the
zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they
implement best professional practices. Those considerations are addressed in Attachment C.
City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not
controlled by any one standard.
Community Input
Notification of this proposal was sent out in June to all registered community councils to get
community input and an online open house website was posted with the proposed draft and an
overview of the proposal to get wider input. One community council (Sugar House) responded
with a request to attend their Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting to go over the changes
and staff attended that meeting. No other input has been received from community councils on
the proposal.
KEY CODE CHANGES:
The below sections go over the primary code changes proposed with this amendment.
1.Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals
2.State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants
3.Stays of Decisions for Appeals
4.Miscellaneous Changes
1.Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals
Proposed Change:
•Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the
interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions
regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the
Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law.
2 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Utah State Code requires that a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance, shall also
establish one or more appeal authorities to hear and decide the following: (1) requests for
variances under the City’s land use ordinance; (2) appeals from decisions applying the land use
ordinance, and (3) appeals from certain fees imposed by the City, e.g. review of building plans
and hook-up fees. Utah Code § 10-9a-701(1)
Most applications the City receives, and most interpretations it must make on a day-to-day
basis, concern interpretation and application of provisions of the City’s local land use ordinance
(City Code). If an affected person disagrees with the City’s interpretation of a provision of the
City’s local land use ordinance, such as a zoning setback requirement, they can appeal it to the
City’s Appeals Hearing Officer (the local land use appeal authority.)
On occasion, the City will receive an application that requests a land use that is provided for in
Utah Code, not City ordinance. For example, Utah Code provides for relocation of billboards,
where specifically prohibited by the City’s local land use ordinance. These applications require
the City to review the application and determine if the applicant meets the requirement s of a
provision of state law, not City Code. In circumstances where the City has found the applicant
does not meet the requirements of the provision, applicants have sought to appeal these
decisions to the City’s Appeals Hearing Officer. On occasion, the City’s hearing officers, over
the objection of the City, have heard and issued decisions on these appeals.
Neither Salt Lake City Code, nor Utah State Code, permit a City Hearing Officer to make these
decisions. See Utah State Code § 10-9a-701(1) (requiring an appeal authority to hear appeals
from a city’s land use ordinance); Salt Lake City Code 21A.16.010 & 020 (stating hearing officer’s
authority is to hear appeals alleging an error in interpretation, administration or enforcement
of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code). These appeals should be made directly to the State’s
district courts.
Thus, to remove any confusion, the amendments to the ordinance make clear the authority of
the City’s hearing officers is limited to reviewing the City’s interpretation and application of
provisions of the Salt Lake City Code, not provisions of State or Federal law.
This clarification of the authority of the City’s Appeals Hearing Officers is specifically provided
for and permitted by the provision of State Code requiring the City to establish a land use appeal
authority. See Utah Code § 10-9a-701(4)(e) (stating a municipality may by ordinance “provide
that specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court.)
The changes are shown starting on line 39 of the redline draft in Attachment A.
2.State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants
Proposed Change:
•Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or
“an adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code.
This year the State Legislature with House Bill 388 adopted changes to Utah State Code section
10-9a-7 “Appeal Authority and Variances.” That code section authorizes cities to establish land
use appeal processes. That code section includes provisions that also limit land use appellants
to three entities. The code changes narrowed the list of the entities that can appeal land use
decisions by making the following change to that list of possible appellants (strikethroughs show
deleted text and underlines show new text):
3 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
The (1) land use applicant, (2) a board or officer of the municipality, or (3) [any person
adversely affected by the land use authority's decision administering or interpreting a
land use ordinance] an adversely affected party may…
The entity defined as “any person adversely affected by the land use authority’s decision” was
revised to the term “adversely affected party.” State Code then defines that term as:
(2) "Adversely affected party" means a person other than a land use applicant who:
(a) owns real property adjoining the property that is the subject of a land use
application or land use decision; or
(b) will suffer a damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that
of the general community as a result of the land use decision.
While still using the term “adversely affected” it narrowly defines it to the two specific
circumstances above in (a) and (b).
The proposed changes to the City’s appeals chapter would revise the list of allowed appellants
to comply with the current State Code allowance. The changes are shown starting on line 80 of
the redline draft in Attachment A.
3. Stays of Decisions for Appeals
Proposed Change:
•Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request
and justify a stay.
Currently City Code specifies that a land use decision is automatically stayed upon submission
of an appeal. A “stay” means that the decision is put on hold and no further proceedings can
occur on the matter, pending a decision by the appeal authority on the appeal. For example, if
the Planning Commission approved a development, but it was appealed and a stay was imposed,
the developer couldn’t pull permits or start construction on their proposal. The current City
Code also provides that an automatic stay can be released if the City’s Zoning Administrator (a
member of City Planning staff) certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer that the stay
would be against the best interest of the City.
The proposal would change the code section to no longer automatically stay a decision and
instead require that an appellant formally request a stay. The appellant would also need to
justify the stay by showing how it would be necessary “to prevent substantial harm” to the
appellant. The Appeals Hearing Officer would then decide on whether to impose a stay. This
change is intended to reflect State Code (10-9a-801(3)(b)) and case law wherein the decision of
the Planning Commission or Historical Landmark Commission (“land use authority”) is to be
initially presumed to be valid by a court or appeal authority in reviewing an appeal. An
automatic stay is contrary to that presumption and so the proposal would eliminate that
automatic stay. Additionally, automatic stays incentivize appeals that have no merit and put
applicants in a difficult position whereby City approvals may be put on hold for up to six months
when there may be no justification for such a stay.
The related changes are shown starting on line 129 of the redline draft in Attachment A. Other
changes are included to other related sections of the code, such as the Planning Commission
and Historic Landmarks Commission sections, to reflect and reference that change starting on
line 231 and continuing to 292 of the redline draft in Attachment A.
4 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
4.Miscellaneous Changes
Proposed Changes:
•Clarifications to code references and removal of potentially conflicting language
The code includes other minor changes and clarifications to the appeals chapter. These include
removal of potentially conflicting code regarding record keeping. City record keeping
timeframes are imposed by other City Code and State law and the code change reduces the
language to simply refer to those in order to avoid conflicts. These changes begin on line 208 of
the draft code in Attachment A. They also include changes to reflect and reference the current
types of city applications and processes the Appeals Hearing Officer has authority over. Those
changes are in the Authority section, starting on line 16 in Attachment A. Changes clarifying
that there is an application and fee for appeals is included in the “Procedure” section, starting
on line 96 in Attachment A. There are also deletions of the reference to the “Historic
Preservation Appeal Authority” shown in the draft. Those are intended to reflect a recently
adopted ordinance that deleted that entity, which has just not yet been incorporated or
“codified” into the official city zoning text.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration
criteria in Attachment C. The proposed code changes implement best practices by ensuring the
code is up to date, does not conflict with other applicable State or City Code, and complies with
the City’s zoning purposes by ensuring that City ordinances can be legally administered and
enforced.
Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable
recommendation on this request to the City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed
text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing
and additional public hearing on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council
may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning
text amendments.
If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new
City ordinance standards.
5 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
This attachment includes a “clean” version of the code without strikethroughs and underlines
that show deleted and new text, and a “draft” version that identifies such deletions and new
text with strikethroughs and underlines, respectively.
6 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version
SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter
21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
Chapter 21A.16
APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
21A.16.010: Authority
21A.16.020: Parties Entitled to Appeal
21A.16.030: Procedure
21A.16.040: Appeal of Decision
21A.16.050: Stay of Decision
21A.16.010: AUTHORITY:
A.Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of
this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide or make determinations regarding:
1.Appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning
administrator, the planning commission or the historic landmark commission involving
the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code;
2.Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or
subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of
this code;
3.Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title;
4.The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying
structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38,
“Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and
5.Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where
specifically authorized by a provision of this code.
B.State and Federal Law: The appeals hearing officer shall not hear and decide or make
determinations regarding any of the following:
1.Appeals alleging an error in the application, administration, enforcement or compliance
with a provision of state or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state
and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law;
7 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version
2.Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to
provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and
federal common law;
3.Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law.
An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to
the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor.
C.Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer
has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in
district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and
decide.
D.Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has
authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have
authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims
the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does
not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and
exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear
and decide.
21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL:
An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or an adversely affected party, as that term is
defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, may appeal to the appeals hearing
officer.
21A.16.030: PROCEDURE:
Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission
or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures:
A.Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning
administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information
required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision
appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the
reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be
accepted.
B.Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable
deadline, together with all applicable fees.
C.Time for Filing an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal are:
1.Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days;
8 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version
2.Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days;
3.Historic landmark commission: thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten
(10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal.
D.Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the following fees:
1.The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and
2.The fees established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this
title.
All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete
until all applicable fees are paid.
E.No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision
appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise.
F.Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant,
Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator,
planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until
the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is
necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a
provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing
officer.
G.Notice Required:
1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning
administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in
accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth
in chapter 21A.10 of this title.
2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or
planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the
appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent.
a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or
planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to
hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and
place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of
twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting.
b.The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the
appeals hearing officer a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the
9 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version
hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, chapter 2.60
of this code.
H.Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the
filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and
withdrawn by the appellant.
I.Standard of Review:
1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection I2 of this
section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew,
based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to
the decision below.
2.An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission
shall be based on the record made below.
a.No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence
was improperly excluded from consideration below.
b.The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards
and shall determine its correctness.
c.The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect
when the decision was made.
J.Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect.
K.Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written
decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may
modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the
decision is rendered.
L.Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be
sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision.
M.Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded.
Recordings shall be retained by the planning division for a period that is consistent with city
retention policies and any applicable retention requirement set forth in state law.
N.Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures,
consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal
hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal.
10 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version
O.Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent
written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled
meeting date.
21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION:
Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a
petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision
is rendered.
21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION:
The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing
officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah
code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor.
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section
21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as
follows:
21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION:
A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050
or its successor.
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That
section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission
may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title.
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of
Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION:
A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the
planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title.
11 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version
B.Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a
special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the
date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning
commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section
21A.160.30F.
SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of
Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a
conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter
21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission
pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A16.030F of this title.
SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of
the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission
Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application
for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the
provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of
the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under
section 21A.16.030F of this title.
12 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 1
21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 2
amended to read as follows: 3
Chapter 21A.16 4
APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 5
6
21A.16.010: Authority 7
21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To to Appeal 8
21A.16.030: Procedure 9
21A.16.040: Appeal Of of Decision 10
21A.16.050: Stay Of of Decision 11
12
13
21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: 14
15
A.Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of16
this title, the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall hear and decide or make determinations17
regarding:18
19
1.Aappeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zZoning20
aAdministrator , or the Administrative Hearing Officer in the administration or21
enforcement of this title, as well as administrative decisions of the Pplanning22
Ccommission or the historic landmark commission involving the application,23
administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code;.24
25
2.Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or26
subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of 27
this code; 28
29
3.Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title;30
31
4.The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying32
structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, 33
“Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 34
35
5.Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where36
specifically authorized by a provision of this code. 37
38
B.State and Federal Law: The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer may shall not hear and decide or39
make determinations regarding any of the following:40
41
1.Aappeals alleging an error in the application, administrative decisions made by the42
Historic Landmark Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter.43
13 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, 44
including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal 45
constitutions and state and federal common law; 46
47
2.Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to48
provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and 49
federal common law; 50
51
3.Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law.52
53
An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to 54
the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. 55
56
C.Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer57
has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in 58
district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and 59
decide. 60
61
D.Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has62
authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have 63
authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims 64
the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does 65
not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and 66
exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear 67
and decide. 68
In addition, the Appeals Hearing Officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as per 69
chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or 70
modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and 71
standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of 72
this title. 73
As described in section 21A.06.080 of this title, the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may 74
hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions of the Historic Landmark 75
Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 76
77
21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: 78
79
An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or any other person or entityan adversely 80
affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, by a 81
decision administering or interpreting this title may appeal to the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer. 82
For decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant may appeal to either 83
the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority or the Appeals Hearing Officer. 84
85
86
87
88
89
14 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: 90
91
Appeals of administrative decisions by the zZoning aAdministrator, hHistoric lLandmark 92
cCommission or pPlanning cCommission shall be taken in accordance with the following 93
procedures: 94
95
A.Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning96
administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information 97
required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision 98
appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the 99
reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be 100
accepted. 101
102
B.Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable103
deadline, together with all applicable fees. 104
105
AC. Time for Filing Of an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal 106
are:All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with 107
the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, 108
including every theory of relief that can be presented in District Court. The deadlines for 109
filing an appeal are as indicated below: 110
111
1.Administrative decisions made by the zZoning aAdministrator: tTen (10) days;.112
113
2.Planning cCommission decisions: tTen (10) days;.114
115
3.Historic lLandmark cCommission: tThirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant,116
ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal.117
118
BD. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable following fees: 119
120
1.The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and121
122
2.. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of allThe fees established for123
providing the public notice required by chapter chapter 21A.10 of this title.124
125
All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete 126
until all applicable fees are paid. 127
128
CE. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision 129
appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. Stay Of Proceedings: 130
An appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 131
stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order, 132
requirement, decision, determination, or interpretation was made unless the Zoning 133
Administrator certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation 134
15 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
Appeal Authority, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay would, in the Zoning 135
Administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the City. 136
137
F.Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant,138
Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator,139
planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until140
the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is141
necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a142
provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing143
officer.144
145
DG. Notice Required: 146
147
1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zZoning148
aAdministrator, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer shall schedule and hold a public hearing149
in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set150
forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title.151
152
2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or153
pPlanning cCommission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the154
appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent.155
156
a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or157
pPlanning cCommission, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation158
Appeal Authority shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant159
and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given160
to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance161
of the meeting.162
163
b.The cCity shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the164
aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, a minimum165
of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to166
receive notice pursuant to title Title 2, chapter chapter 2.60 of this cCode.167
168
3H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the 169
filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and 170
withdrawn by the appellant. 171
172
EI. Standard oOf Review: 173
174
1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection E2 I2 of this175
section, shall be de novo. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal176
Authority shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and177
standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below.178
179
16 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
2.An appeal from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or pPlanning 180
cCommission shall be based on the record made below. 181
182
a.No new evidence shall be heard by the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic183
Preservation Appeal Authority unless such evidence was improperly excluded from184
consideration below.185
186
b.The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall187
review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its188
correctness.189
190
c.The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall191
uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or192
it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made.193
194
FJ. Burden Oof Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is 195
incorrect. 196
197
GK. Action bBy tThe Appeals Hearing Officer Or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority: 198
The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall render a 199
written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or 200
may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the 201
decision is rendered. 202
203
HL. Notification oOf Decision: Notification of the decision of the aAppeals hHearing 204
oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall be sent to all parties to the appeal 205
within ten (10) days of the decision. 206
207
IM. Record oOf Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. on 208
audio equipment. The audio Rrecordings of each appeal hearing shall be retainedkept by the 209
planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable 210
retention requirement set forth in state law. minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written 211
request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of 212
time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as determined by the Appeals Hearing Officer or 213
Historic Preservation Appeal Authority. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may be 214
provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The Appeals Hearing Officer 215
and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may have the appeal proceedings 216
contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. 217
218
JN. Policies aAnd Procedures: The Pplanning Ddirector shall adopt policies and procedures, 219
consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal 220
hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. 221
222
KO. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer and 223
Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted 224
a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 225
17 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
226
227
228
21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: 229
230
Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer or 231
Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may file a petition for review of the decision with the 232
Ddistrict Ccourt within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 233
234
21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: 235
236
The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing 237
officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah 238
code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. 239
The Appeals Hearing Officer and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may stay the issuance 240
of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the 241
District Court in any appeal of the decision. 242
243
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 244
21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as 245
follows: 246
21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: 247
248
A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 249
or its successor. The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approval 250
based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of 251
the decision. 252
253
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That 254
section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 255
amended to read as follows: 256
Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission 257
may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The 258
filing of an appeal shall stay the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission pending the 259
outcome of the appeal. 260
261
18 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
262
263
264
Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of
Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: 265
A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the266
planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title.267
B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a268
special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the269
date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning270
commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section271
21A.16.030F. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision.272
273
SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of 274
Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission 275
Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 276
21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 277
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a 278
conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 279
21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe filing of the appeal shall not 280
stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for 281
under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a 282
decision. 283
SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of 284
the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission 285
Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 286
21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 287
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application 288
for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the 289
provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe 290
filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome 291
of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the Planning 292
Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 293
19 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
20 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment B: Existing Code Text
CHAPTER 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
SECTION:
21A.16.010: Authority
21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To Appeal
21A.16.030: Procedure
21A.16.040: Appeal Of Decision
21A.16.050: Stay Of Decision
21A.16.010: AUTHORITY:
As described in Section 21A.06.040 of this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and
decide appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning
administrator or the administrative hearing officer in the administration or enforcement of
this title, as well as administrative decisions of the planning commission. The appeals
hearing officer may hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions
made by the historic landmark commission pursuant to Section 21A.16.020 of this chapter.
In addition, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as
per Chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence,
expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant
to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses and
Noncomplying Structures", of this title.
21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL:
An applicant or any other person or entity adversely affected by a decision administering
or interpreting this title may appeal to the appeals hearing officer.
21A.16.030: PROCEDURE:
Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark
commission or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following
procedures:
A.Filing of Appeal:
All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection
with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision
to be in error, including every theory of relief that can be presented in district court.
The deadlines for filing an appeal are as indicated below:
1.Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days.
2.Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days.
3.Historic landmark commission: Thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the
applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal.
B.Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt
Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for
21 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment B: Existing Code Text
payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter
21A.10 of this title.
C.Stay of Proceedings:
An appeal to the appeals hearing officer shall stay all further proceedings
concerning the matter about which the appealed order, requirement, decision,
determination, or interpretation was made unless the zoning administrator certifies
in writing to the appeals hearing officer, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay
would, in the zoning administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the city.
D.Notice Required:
1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by
the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold
a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for
conduct of the public hearing set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title.
2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark
commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record.
Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant
and the respondent.
a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark
commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall
schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and
respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall
be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12)
calendar days in advance of the meeting.
b.The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen
by the appeals hearing officer, a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in
advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice
pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.60 of this code.
3.Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty
(180) days of the filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time
frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant.
E.Standard of Review:
1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in Subsection E.2
of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the
matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for
approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below.
2.An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning
commission shall be based on the record made below.
a.No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such
evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below.
b.The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable
standards and shall determine its correctness.
c.The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported
by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance
in effect when the decision was made.
22 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Attachment B: Existing Code Text
F.Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is
incorrect.
G.Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer:
The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such
decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the administrative
decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered.
H.Notification of Decision:
Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent to all parties
to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision.
I.Record of Proceedings:
The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded on audio equipment. The
audio recording of each appeal hearing shall be kept for a minimum of sixty (60)
days. Upon the written request of any interested person, such audio recording shall
be kept for a reasonable period of time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as
determined by the appeals hearing officer. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may
be provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The appeals
hearing officer may have the appeal proceedings contemporaneously transcribed by
a court reporter.
J.Policies and Procedures:
The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the
provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing,
and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal.
K.Matters Delayed:
For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent written
materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the
rescheduled meeting date.
21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION:
Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may
file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after
the decision is rendered.
21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION:
The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approvals based on its
decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of the
decision.
23 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment
is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any
one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider
the following:
CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE
1.Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies
of the City as stated
through its various
adopted planning
documents;
The proposed
amendments are
generally
consistent with
the goals and
policies the
City’s plans.
None of the existing adopted Salt Lake City master plans
specifically address the proposed amendments.
However, the changes clarify the code and remove
conflicts to ensure that the ordinance is enforceable.
Master Plan provisions involving land use are
implemented through the zoning ordinance and so an
enforceable zoning ordinance is consistent with the City’s
Master Plans. The proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance relating to the appeals process will clarify
processes and reduce legal issues with the code, which
supports implementation of the City’s adopted plans and
policies.
2.Whether a proposed
text amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance;
The proposal
generally
furthers the
specific purpose
statements of
the zoning
ordinance by
ensuring their
enforcement and
administration.
The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to “promote the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake
City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and
carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use
Development and Management Act (State Code). The
proposed amendments reduce conflicts between City and
State Code, better allowing enforcement and
administration of the City’s zoning ordinance. The
proposed changes maintain conformity with the general
purpose statements of the zoning ordinance and ensure
that the code can be legally administered and enforced to
further those ordinance purposes.
3.Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which
may impose additional
standards; and
The proposal is
consistent with
and does not
impact the
enforceability of
any existing
appeal process
references in any
zoning overlays.
The proposed amendments will impact appeals relating
to all sections of the zoning ordinance, including any
overlays. Various overlays reference the appeals process
in the affected code sections. Those references will remain
in place and will continue to be enforceable.
4.The extent to which
a proposed text
amendment implements
best current,
The proposed
changes
eliminate legal
conflicts,
The proposed changes eliminate legal conflicts in the
code, allowing for better enforceability and
administration of City Code provisions. Legal,
enforceable code is a best professional practice in urban
24 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
professional practices of
urban planning and
design.
improve
enforceability
and
administration
of City Code,
and so
implement best
professional
practices.
planning. The regulation changes do not pertain to
professional practices of design.
25 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities, related to the proposal:
•Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out June 18, 2020
o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community
councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage
o One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present
the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee
▪Staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal,
and answered questions.
o No formal input was received from any community councils.
o No public comments were received.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
•Public hearing notice published to newspaper September 30, 2020
•Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv on
September 30, 2020
26 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
Planning Staff Note: This text amendment generally does not impact most other City
departments and so other departments did not provide any concerns. Appeals can be submitted
regarding building permits issued by Building Services; however, Building Services did not have
any concerns with the changes.
27 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment
PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020
c. Agenda/Minutes
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
October 14, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect
remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings
how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on
the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email;
planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-10142020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
1. Union Pacific Hotel Time Extension Request - Mark Sanford, project representative, is requesting a one-
year time extension for the Union Pacific Hotel Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design
Review, located at 2 S. 400 West. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed to finalize
financing for the proposed hotel project. The Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design
Review was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2018 for an 8-story, 225-room hotel to
be located on the west side of the existing Union Pacific Railroad Station. All new construction in the Gateway-
Mixed Use zoning district must be reviewed as a planned development. The subject property is located within
Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227
or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2018-00617 & PLNSUB2018-00618
2. Edison House Conditional Use Time Extension Request - Bubba Holdings, LLC, applicant, request a one-
year time extension for the Edison House Conditional Use at 335 South 200 West. The Planning Commission
approved the conditional use on October 9, 2019. The project is a 3-story structure that would house a
membership-based social club. In the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District, a Conditional Use review
is required if a structure is 3 or more stories in height and contains commercial uses but no residential uses.
Indoor and Outdoor Bar Establishments are also subject to a Conditional Use review in this zone. Building
permit plans have been submitted but the applicant needs additional time to solve technical issues resulting
from the permit plan review. The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros.
(Staff contact: Wayne Mills at (801) 535-7282 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-
00671
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Height & Grade Change Special Exceptions at approximately 333 N Federal Heights Circle - Scott and
Jennifer Huntsman, the property owners, are requesting special exception approval to construct a new
single-family detached structure that exceeds the maximum permitted building and wall height and maximum
allowable grade changes in the FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District. The subject property is located at
333 N Federal Heights Circle and is currently vacant. The proposed structure will exceed the height limit of
28’ by 2’-8" at two points on the rear and middle of the structure. The requested grade changes in the
rear yard will exceed the permitted 4 feet in the setback area and 6 feet in the buildable area. The subject
property is located in the FR-3/12,000 (Foothills Residential) zoning district and within Council District 3,
represented by Chris Wharton (Staff contact: Kristina Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or
kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00639
2. 800 South & State Street Design Review at approximately 754 S. State Street - Aabir Malik, an applicant
with Colmena Group, is requesting Design Review approval to develop a portion of the former Sears property
into an 11-story, 120 foot tall, mixed-use development consisting of ground floor retail and 360 multi-family
residential units on the upper floors. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for
additional building height, modification to the spacing of building entrances and to exceed the maximum
street facing facade length. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district and is
located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at (801)
535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00439
3. Kozo House Apartments Design Review at approximately 157 & 175 North 600 West, & 613, 621, 625,
& 633 West 200 North – A request by David Clayton for Design Review approval to develop a 312-unit
mixed use building on six parcels located at 157 North 600 West, 175 North 600 West, 613 West 200 North,
621 West 200 North, 625 West 200 North, and 633 West 200 North. These properties are located in the TSA-
UC-T Zoning District. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow the proposed building to
exceed the maximum street facing façade length and to modify the spacing of building entrances. The project
is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315 -
8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00258
4. West End Rezone at approximately 715 W Genesee Ave - A request by Maximilian Coreth, property
owner, to rezone the parcel located at approximately 715 W Genesee Avenue and a portion of a city owned
public alley at approximately 740 W 900 South. The properties are currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M-
1) and the request is to rezone them to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The purpose of the requested rezone
is to accommodate a future multi-family residential development on a portion of the subject site. The property
is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston
(Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-
00268
5. Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The City Council is requesting amendments to the
zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are
those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the
administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with
state law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily
clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and
when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning
ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes
would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or
daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings.
Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually
occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 14, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING EXCERPT
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, October 14, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:56:09 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson,
Brenda Scheer; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes,
Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay,
Planning Deputy Director; Paul Neilson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Wayne Mills,
Planning Manager; Kristina Gilmore, Principal Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; Caitlyn Miller,
Principal Planner; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; and Marlene
Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
-------------------------------------------
8:43:00 PM
Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The City Council is requesting amendments
to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative
decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning
Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify
City Code to align with state law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The
amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who
can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect
Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended
as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801)
535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352
Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on who oversees the hearing officer to determine whether the property analyzing City
code issues versus State code issues
• Clarification on the difference between applying State law and interpreting it
PUBLIC HEARING 8:54:33 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed
the Public Hearing.
MOTION 8:55:33 PM
Commissioner Scheer stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 14, 2020 Page 2
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00352
Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon,
Paredes, Scheer, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8:57:50 PM
PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020
d. Presentation Slides
Salt Lake City
Planning Commission
October 14, 2020
Administrative Decision Appeals
Zoning Text Amendment
Planning Commission
Admin. Appeals Text Amendment
Appeals Chapter 21A.16
•Regulates appeals of administrative decisions
Decisions by:
•Planning Commission
•Historic Landmarks Commission
•Other Administrative decisions
•Zoning Administrator/Planning Director/Staff
•Appeals heard by an appointed Appeals
Hearing Officer
•Technical changes to Appeals chapter
•Comply with recent state code and case law
Planning Commission
Admin. Appeals Text Amendment
•Clarify authority of Appeals Hearing Officer
•Authority over City code appeals only, not state code
•Align allowed appellant definition with State Code
•(2) "Adversely affected party" means a person other than a land use applicant
who:
(a) owns real property adjoining the property that is the subject of a land use
application or land use decision; or
(b) will suffer a damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that of
the general community as a result of the land use decision.
•Stays of decisions with appeals
•Appeals will not automatically stay decisions
•Appeals Hearing Officer would decide on stay requests from
appellants
•Appellant must demonstrate potential substantial harm
•Other wording, clarification changes
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
City Council Announcements
May 5, 2020
For Your Information
A. Billboard Ordinance Amendments 6:13:46 PM
In October 2019, the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office let the Council know about
areas of the City's zoning ordinances pertaining to billboards that need updating
to be in line with state law. Those changes include:
• amending the zoning code to remove the City billboard bank
• clarify the scope of administrative land use appeals
The City Council may wish to initiate a petition requesting those amendments be
made. The Attorney’s Office would work with other City departments to process
those changes and then transmit them to the Council for final consideration.
➢ If the Council supports this text amendment, it may officially be initiated
during tonight’s (May 5) formal meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive
Council Director, said the ordinance needed to be updated to adhere to
State law. She said in order for this to go through the proper procedure, it
would be best if the request was made by the Council. She said it was
scheduled for action tonight during the formal meeting unless objections
were raised. Councilmember Dugan asked if this would increase the
chance for more billboards. Ms. Gust-Jenson said no. Council Members
had no objections.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: July 20, 2021
RE: Rezone: 329-331 South 600 East
PLNPCM2021-00268
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing July 20, 2021
Set Date: July 20, 2021
Public Hearing: Aug, 17 2021
Potential Action: Aug, 24 2021
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on a proposal to that would rezone the property at 329-331 South 600 East
from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use
District). The proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for a café eatery within the existing building, which is
not currently permitted under the existing RMF-35 zoning designation. This property houses the offices of
Encircle Family and Youth Services Center a nonprofit working with LGBTQ+ people and their friends and
families. A master plan amendment is not needed to facilitate this zoning change.
PUBLIC PROCESS
The proposed rezone went through the required public process outlined in city code See page 2 of the
transmittal letter for details.
Notice was sent to the Central City Community Council and the East Central Community Council
on April 28, 2021.
o Neither requested a presentation on the proposed rezone
Online Open House held beginning on May 3, 2021.
Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday June 23, 2021.
o Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Page | 2
Vicinity Map
Page 2 of the Transmittal Letter
Page | 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The primary reason for the rezone request is so the applicant will have the ability to establish a
small café within their existing office building, which is not currently allowed under the existing RMF-
35 zoning district but is allowed as a permitted use under the requested R-MU-35 zoning district.
All uses permitted in the existing zoning district are allowed in the proposed R-MU-35 zone except for
a community recreation center; this is a conditional use in the RMF-35 zone but would not be allowed
in the R-MU-35 zone. Attachment C of the Planning Commission Staff report shows a complete list of
the permitted and conditional uses for both zoning districts.
The Planning Commission Staff report (page 3) noted the following key issue for consideration.
Existing City Plan Guidance
Central City Master Plan - The Future Land Use Map associated with the Central City Master
Plan indicates the subject property is intended to be a medium residential/mixed use land use
which is consistent with the proposed zoning map amendment.
Plan Salt Lake - encourages the development of small businesses, entrepreneurship, and
neighborhood business nodes. The proposed zoning change would allow for the establishment
of this small business and support the spirit of Plan Salt Lake.
Zoning District Comparison
RMF-35 R-MU-35
Minimum Lot Area
Non-residential use
5,000 square feet No minimum
Max Height 35’
Thirty-five feet (35')
Buildings taller than thirty-five
feet (35'), up to a maximum of
forty-five feet (45'), may be
authorized through the design
review process. i
Front Yard Twenty feet (20')Minimum five feet (5')
Maximum fifteen feet (15')
Rear Yard
Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot
depth, but not less than twenty feet
(20') and need not exceed twenty-
five feet (25').
Twenty five percent (25%) of lot
depth, but need not exceed
thirty feet (30')
Page | 4
Interior Side Yard At least ten feet (10').
No setback is required unless
an interior side yard abuts a
Single- or Two-Family
Residential District. (subject
property does not abut
single/two family residential)
Max Building Coverage Sixty percent (60%) of the lot area N/A
Landscape Yard
The front yard, corner side and, for
interior multi-family lots, one of the
interior side yards shall be
maintained as landscape yards.
Buffer yard
Where a lot abuts a lot in a single-
family or two-family residential
district, a landscape buffer shall be
provided in accordance with chapter
21A.48
Where a lot in the R-MU-35
District abuts a lot in a Single-
Family or Two-Family
Residential District, landscape
buffers shall be provided as
required in chapter 21A.48,
"Landscaping And Buffers"
i Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'), except that nonresidential
buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections E1, E2, E3 and E4 of this section. Buildings taller than thirty five feet (35'),
up to a maximum of forty five feet (45'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title);
and provided that the proposed height is supported by the applicable master plan.
1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Twenty feet (20').
2. Nonresidential uses are only permitted on the ground floor of any structure.
3. Nonresidential uses in landmark sites are exempt from the maximum height for nonresidential buildings and the
maximum floor area coverage limitations.
4. For any property abutting a Single-Family or Two-Family Residential District, the maximum height is limited to
thirty-five feet (35') and may not be increased through any process.
Salt Lake City
City Council Briefing
July 20, 2021
Planning Commission
Encircle Family and Youth ServicesZoning Map Amendment(PLNPCM2021-00268)
•Positive Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION –
Planning Commission
•Located in the RMF-35 Residential Zoning District
•Proposed Zoning is R-MU-35
•Applicant seeks to establish a small café in their offices to serve their clients and clients’ families
•0.22 acres in size
REQUEST DETAILS –Zoning Map Amendment
Planning Commission
•Consistent with adopted planning documents.
•Furthers purpose statements of zoning ordinance.
•Effect on adjacent properties.
•Consistent with purposes of zoning overlays.
•Adequacy of public utilities and infrastructure.
APPROVAL STANDARDS –Zoning Map Amendment
•Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a Positive Recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION –
•Positive Recommendation
PUBLIC PROCESS –
•Early notification to property owners
•Public Hearing notice
•Public Comments
Encircle Rezone –PLNPCM2020-00268
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Encircle Family and Youth Services Center Zoning Map Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner: (385)-315-811 Caitlyn.Tubbs@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Approve an ordinance amending the Zoning Map of approximately
0.23 acres at 329-331 South 600 East from RMF-35 to R-MU -35 as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: McKay Ozuna and Wade Budge, representing the property
owner, are requesting a Zoning Map Amendment for their client’s property at 329-331 South 600
East. This property houses the offices of En circle Family and Youth Services Center (the
“Center”) which is a nonprofit working with LGBTQ+ people and their friends and families. The
Center offers services to the LGBTQ+ community and is looking to establish a small café within
the existing envelope of the building to serve refreshments to its clients. Restaurant uses are not
permitted in the RMF-35 Zoning District (existing) but are allowed in the R-MU -35 Zoning
District (proposed).
The subject property is located within the Central City Master Plan area. The future land use map
designates the subject property as a medium density residential/mixed use area wh ich supports
the proposed zoning designation of R-MU -35. A master pla n amendment is not needed to
facilitate this zoning change.
July 8, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 8, 2021 15:03 MDT)
07/08/2021
07/08/2021
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Councils and Early Public Notification:
A notice was sent to the Central City Community Council and the East Central Community
Council on April 28, 2021 providing information about the Zoning Map Amendment request and
where to obtain additional information. Since the subject property is within 600 feet of two
Recognized Community Organizations a n online Open House blogpost was also created. This
blo gpost can be accessed by clicking here. Neither the Central City Community Council or the
East Cen tral Community Council requested this item to be heard at their meetings or reached out
to Staff for additional information.
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this matter on Wednesday June 23,
2021. One citizen provided an email indicating their support of the request. No further public
comments were received at the hearing. The Planning Commission found the request compliant
with the goals of the Central City Master Plan and goals of Salt Lake City and unanimously
forwarded a positive recommendation of the request to the City Council.
Pla nning Commission (PC) Records
a)PC Agenda of June 23, 2021 (Click to Access)
b)PC Minutes of June 23, 2021 (Attached following memo)
c)Planning Commission Staff Report of June 23, 2021 (Click to Access)
EXHIBITS:
i)Project Chronology
ii) Notice of City Council Hearing
iii)Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations
iv)Notice Letter to Neighbors
v)Public Comments
vi)Original Petition
vii)Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning of property located at 329-331 South 600 East
from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to
R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 329-331 South
600 East from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU-35
Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00268.
WHEREAS, Wade Budge on behalf of the property owner, Encircle Family and Youth
Resource Center, submitted an application to rezone the property located at 329-331 South 600
East (the “property”) from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-
MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00268 (the
“petition”); and
WHEREAS, in addition to the underlying RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family
Residential District zoning, the parcels are further zoned with overlay zoning designations of
Groundwater Source Protection and Local Historic District Overlays ; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held
a public hearing on June 23, 2021 on the petition, had a discussion, and voted to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) to rezone
property located at 329-331 South 600 East (Tax ID No.16-06-428-003-0000) (the “Property”)
from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU-35
Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00268; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map to change the underlying zoning
as set forth herein is in the city’s best interests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to retain the overlay designations of the Groundwater
Source Protection and Local Historic District Overlays, and, nothing contained herein should be
construed to remove those existing designations.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated by reference shall be and hereby are rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been
published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code
§10-3-713.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney
6/29/2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned
329-331 South 600 East
Tax ID No. 16-06-428-003-0000
BEGINNING 43.58 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 39,
PLAT “B”, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 59.51 FEET
EAST 10 RD S 59.51 FT W 10 RD TO BEGINNING. 5052-833,834,835,5052-0840 1979-622
7296-2893
CONTAINS 10,018.8 SQUARE FEET OR 0.23 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically
Wednesday, June 23, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for
a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and
presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson,
Amy Barry; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, and
Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Carolynn Hoskins and Sara Urquhart were excused from the
meeting.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; John Anderson,
Planning Manager; Hannah Vickery, Attorney; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal
Planner; Linda Mitchell, Principal Planner; Aubrey Clark, Administrative Secretary.
APPROVAL OF THE June 9, 2021, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION
Commissioner Jon Lee moved to approve the June 9, 2021 meeting minutes. Commissioner
Adrienne Bell seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bell, Lee, Paredes voted “Aye”.
Commissioner Bachman and Lyon abstained. Commissioner Young-Otterstrom had not yet
joined the meeting. The motion passed with 4 “aye” and 2 abstaining.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Scheer reported that Planner Chris Earl had passed away.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Nick Norris, Planning Director, reported that Commissioner Matt Lyon is at the end of his two terms and
this is his last meeting.
Matt Lyon spoke about his experience on the Planning Commission.
Nick Norris also reported that the Planning Commission meetings will be moving to a hybrid protocol
starting in July. He also discussed the budget passed by City Council and plans for new staff.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner Adrienne Bell recused herself, due to a conflict of interest, from the Bueno Avenue
Apartments project.
Bueno Avenue Apartments - Planned Development, Conditional Use, Zoning Map and Master Plan
Amendment at approximately 129 S 700 East - Kevin Perry, representing the property owner, is
requesting approval for a new residential development, the Bueno Avenue Apartments, at the stated
location. The project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures with two
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 2
buildings: a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story apartment building on the interior
of the site. The apartment building would consist of a “Rooming House” with 65 units ranging from 1
bedroom to 4-bedroom units. The total site is approximately 1.55 acres. The proposed project is subject
to the following applications:
a. Planned Development - The Planned Development is needed to address modifications to the
RMF-45 zoning requirements. Changes comprise of reducing the side (proposed 2.8’,
required 8’) and rear yard (proposed 15.4’, required 30’) setbacks, additional 5’ in height,
reduction of lot width (66’ proposed, 80’ required) and allowing the accessory building in the
front yard.
b. Conditional Use - Requesting a “Rooming House” land use designation, which is allowed in
the RMF-45 zoning district as a conditional use.
c. Zoning Map Amendment – The current zoning of 7 of parcels on the site is SR-3, and zoning
on 3 of the parcels is RMF-45. The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map
designation of the seven parcels zoned SR-3 to RMF-45.
d. Master Plan Map Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Central Community
Master Plan currently designates the property as "Medium Density Residential". The petitioner
is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to be "Medium High Density
Residential".
The project is located within the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District zoning
district) within Council District 4, represented by Analia Valdemoros (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (385)
226-8499 or katia.pace@slcgov.com). Case numbers PLNPCM2021-00045, PLNPCM2021-00046,
PLNPCM2021-00048 & PLNPCM2021-00047
Katia Pace, Principal Planner, reviewed the request outlined in the staff report. She stated that Staff
recommends the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to city council for the Zoning
and Master Plan amendments She also stated that Staff recommends the Commission approve the
request for Planned Development and Conditional Use with conditions. She outlined the conditions:
1. That the Zoning and Master Plan amendments are approved by the City Council.
2. That the 10 parcels be consolidated into one parcel.
3. Provide an access easement for the property at 135 S 700 East.
4. That a housing mitigation plan be submitted to the City's Planning Director and the Director of
Community and Neighborhoods and be accompanied by a housing impact statement.
5. That each bedroom on this project be limited to single occupancy and that parking is provided
according to the Salt Lake City Parking Ordinance.
The Commission had no comments prior to the applicant’s presentation.
Kevin Parry, the applicant, stated the Bueno Avenue project is a new style of project to Salt Lake City
stating it is a co-living project. He mentioned that this type of housing is attainably priced. He stated the
company is looking to implement social impact investing into their operations. He outlined why they are
requesting the proposed changes, stating the site currently lacks utility infostructure. The Master Plan
allows for 40 units per acre and they are seeking 42 units per acre with the proposal. He remarked on
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 3
the standing structures on Bueno Avenue being in major disrepair. He stated that renovating the current
homes is cost prohibitive and shared slides showing the disrepair of the homes.
Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the Commission for questions.
Commissioner Barry asked about management. Kevin Parry said there will be a manager on site.
Commissioner Scheer asked about a price point. Kevin Parry stated that it will rent at market value at
$869 month for a single furnished bedroom.
Commissioner Lyon asked why they were seeking the Planned Development. Kevin Parry discussed the
fire turn around being the reason.
Commissioner Scheer asked about a possible outlet on the east 600 side. Kevin Parry sighted then
grading on the site not allowing for that option.
Commissioner Scheer opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Cassy McDonough is in opposition to the project. He stated he feels it is the wrong location.
Cindy Cromer is in opposition to the project. She remarked on the Fair Housing Act and asked whether
limiting the occupancy to one person per room is legal.
Jen Colby, East Central Community Council, does not support the project. She asked the Planning
Commission to deny the applications.
Monica Hilding is on opposition to the project.
Rich Wilcox is in opposition to the project.
Aaron Woodall in opposition to the project and stated that the rooms are not affordable.
Jeff Taylor represents the current owners – said they cannot fix up the existing structures and maintain
affordability.
Nick Norris relayed an email sent on behalf of Dorian Owen and Jamie Skinner who were not able to join
the meeting that are opposed to the project
John Anderson read into the record two emails that were sent prior to the meeting. The first one is from
Glenna Wallis. She is opposed to the setback reduction. The second email read into the record was from
Eran Rosines who is in favor of the rezone but in opposition to the height setback.
Commissioner Scheer, seeing that no one else wished to speak, closed the public hearing.
The Commission and the Applicant discussed:
• The Fair Housing Act
• The protection of interior blocks
• The setbacks and the fire lanes and how that ties in with attainably priced housing
• Whether a similar project has come before the Commission previously
MOTION
Commissioner Matt Lyon stated, I make a motion to table the Planned Development PLNPCM2021-
00045 pending the City Council approval of the Master Plan zoning amendment and a motion to
table Conditional Use PLNPCM2021-00046 until additional clarity on the fair housing act can be
supplied.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 4
Commissioner Jon Lee seconded the motion. Commissioner Bachman, Lee, Lyon, Paredes,
Young-Otterstrom voted “aye”. Commissioner Barry voted “no”. The motion to table passed 5 to
1.
Commissioner Matt Lyon stated, based on the initial staff report and the information presented
and the input received in a public hearing with the Planning Commission forward a favorable
recommendation to the City Council for the Master Plan Amendment PLNPCM2021-00047 and
the Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-00048.
Commissioner Amy Barry seconded the motion. Commissioner Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon voted
“aye”. Commissioners Paredes and Young-Otterstrom voted “no”. The motion passed 4 to 2.
Commissioner Adrienne Bell rejoined the meeting.
Encircle Family Services Rezone at approximately 331 South 600 East - Wade Budge and McKay
Ozuna, representing the property owner, are requesting a zoning map amendm ent to allow for the
establishment of a small café within the property owner’s building located at the address listed above.
The current zoning is RMF-35 and the Applicants have requested the zoning designation of R-MU-35.
The subject property is located in Council District 4 represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff contact is
Caitlyn Tubbs at caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com or 385-315-8115). Case number PLNPCM2021-00268.
Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner, reviewed the request outlined in the staff report. She stated that Staff
recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council.
Adrienne Bell asked if height restrictions were looked at.
The Applicant, Wade Budge, spoke about the reason for requesting the rezone.
Jacob Dunford spoke on the purpose of Encircle.
Wade Budge shared concept drawings.
Commissioner Scheer opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Scheer closed to the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Amy Barry stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a Positive Recommendation to the City Council for the requested Zoning Map
Amendment from RMF-35 to R-MU-35 for 0.22 acres at approximately 331 South 600 East for
petition PLNPCM2021-00268.
Commissioner Maurine Bachman Seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry. Bell,
Lee, Lyon, Paredes, Young-Otterstrom all voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 5
Cowley ADU at approximately 738 E 1700 S - Cody Cowley, property owner, is requesting Conditional
Use approval for a conversion of the existing loft space above the detached 2-car garage into an
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at approximately 738 E 1700 S. No changes to the exterior are proposed.
The subject property is located in the R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district and is located
within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at 385-386-2763 or
linda.mitchell@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2021-00259
Linda Mitchell, Principal Planner, reviewed the request outlined in the staff report. She stated that
Planning Staff is recommending approval for this ADU as proposed.
Commissioner Scheer asked if the applicant wished to speak. The applicant did not wish to speak but
said he was willing to answer any questions if there were any.
Commissioner Scheer opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council member, is in favor of the application.
Commissioner Scheer closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated, Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the
information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning
Commission approve the Conditional Use request (PLNPCM2021-00259) as proposed.
Commissioner Matt Lyon seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Lee, Lyon,
Paredes, and Young-Otterstrom voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Legislative Update - Staff from the Department of Community and Neighborhoods will provide an update
from the 2021 Legislative session, including changes to state law that impact the function and duties of
the Planning Commission
Angela Price gave a presentation providing the Commission with updates regarding the 2021 Legislative
session. There were 17 bills reviewed.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:29 pm.
1. Project Chronology
Project Chronology
Encircle Family and Youth Services Zoning Map Amendment – PLNPCM2021-00268
March 23, 2021 Wade Budge and McKay Ozuna of Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. filed the zoning map
amendment application on behalf of the property owner, Encircle Family and
Youth Services Center. The subject property is located at 329-331 South 600
East and encompasses approximately 0.23 acres (10,019 square feet).
April 23, 2021 Application assigned to Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner.
April 28, 2021 Sent notifications to Central City Community Council and East Central
Community Council and surrounding neighbors.
May 3, 2021 Open House Blogpost published; public input period opens.
June 9, 2021 Sign posted on subject property.
June 10, 2021 Public hearing notice sent out and posted to city website.
June 14, 2021 Public input period closed.
June 23, 2021 Planning Commission held public hearing and forwarded a positive
recommendation of the requested zoning map amendment to the City Council.
June 24, 2021 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s Office.
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM20 21-00268 – Zoning Map
Amendment at 329/331 South 600 East – Wade Budge and McKay Ozuna, on behalf of the
property owner, are requesting a zoning map amendment to allow for the establishment of a
small café within the property owner’s building located at the address listed above. The current
zoning is RMF-35 and the Applicants have requested the zoning designation of R -MU-35. The
change is consistent with the Central City Master Plan . The Master Plan is not being changed.
The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff
contact: Caitlyn Tubbs at (385) 315-8115 or caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com )
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). Please visit
https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually -attend -city-
council-meetings/ to learn how you can share your comments live during
electronic City Council meetings. If you would like to provide feedback or
comment, via email or phone, please contact us at: 801-535 -7654 (24-
Hour comment line) or by email at: council.comments@slcgov.com .
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Caitlyn Tubbs at 385-315-8115 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e -mail at caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include
alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least
two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535 -7600, or relay service 711.(P 19-19)
3. Notice Letter to Recognized
Community Organizations
Recognized Organization Input Notification
331 South 600 East – Encircle Family and Youth Resource Services Rezone
TO: Bekka Carlson, Chair, Central City Community Council
Esther Hunter, Chair, East Central Community Council
FROM: Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
(caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com or 385-315-8115)
DATE: April 28, 2021
RE: PLNPCM2021-00268 – Zoning Map Amendment (Rezone)
The Planning Division has received the below request
and is notifying your organization to solicit comments
on the proposal:
Request Type: Rezone
Location: Approximately 331 South 600 East
Current Zone: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District)
Request Description:
A request by McKay Ozuna, representing the owner of
the property (Encircle Family and Youth Resource
Services), to rezone a parcel from RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential) to R-MU
(Residential Mixed Use). There is an existing building
on the property where the property owner provides
their services. The property owner intents to establish
a café eatery within the existing building that is not
currently permitted under the existing RMF-35 zoning
designation.
Rezone requests require a recommendation from the
Planning Co mmission and final approval from the City
Council. I have attached information submitted by the
applicant relating to the project to facilitate your
review.
Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization
As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The
project is within the boundaries of the Central City Community Council, and borders the East Central
Community Council area. The purpose of the Recognized Organization review is to inform the community of
the project and solicit comments/concerns they have with the project. The Recognized Organization may also
take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required.
Per City Code 2.60.050 - The recognized community organization chair(s) have forty five (45) days to provide
comments, from the date the notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held, nor will a final decision be made
about the project within the forty five (45) day notice period. This notice period ends on the following day:
June 14, 2021
Comment Guidance
Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However, you
should submit your organization’s comments within 45 days of receiving this notice in order for those comments
to be included in the staff report.
As a Recognized Organization, we ask that you address the following questions in your comments:
• What issues were raised at the meeting and whether any suggestions were made to address the issues.
• The number of persons that attended the meeting (not including those with the applicant or City Staff).
• Whether a vote was taken on the matter and if so, what the vote tally was.
Comment Submission Address
You may submit your written comments via e-mail to caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com or mail them to:
ATTN Caitlyn Tubbs
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State St Rm 406
PO Box 145480
Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480
Open House
The Planning Division will also be holding an online Open House to solicit comments on this
project because the project is located within 600 FT of two community council districts.
If you have any questions, please call me at (385)-315-8115 or contact me via e -mail.
21A. 50.050: Standards for Zoning Map Amendments
A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter
committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard.
In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following:
1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and
policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents;
2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning
ordinance;
3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties;
4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including,
but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection,
schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection.
4. Notice Letter to Neighbors
Notification of a Project in Your
Neighborhood
Salt Lake City has received a request for a zoning
map amendment from McKay Ozuna ,
representing Encircle Family and Youth
Resource Center (property owner), to rezone
one parcel from RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-family Residential District )
to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use District).
There is an existing commercial building already
on the property where the property owner
provides their services. The proposed rezone to
R-MU would allow for the establishment of a café
eatery within the existing building which is not
currently permitted under the existing RMF-35
zoning designation.
This type of request requires a recommendation
from the Planning Commission and a final
decision by the City Council. A public hearing
with the Planning Commission has not been
scheduled. You will be notified of the public
hearing at a later date in advance of the meeting.
The purpose of this notice is to make you aware
of the proposed change and let you know how you
may obtain more information about and
comment on the project early in the review
process. If you would like additional
information, please contact the project planner ,
Caitlyn Tubbs at (385)-315-8115 or caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com. Please refer to petition number
PLNPCM2021-00268 or the “Encircle Rezone.” You may also find information that includes submitted
plans online at https://aca.slcgov.com/citizen/ by clicking under “Planning” and typing in the petition
number s referenced above.
The Planning Division will also be holding an online Open House to solicit comments on this project. Notice
of this application has also been sent to the Central City and East Central Community Council Chairs. The
Community Councils may choose to schedule the matter at an upcoming meeting. Please contact the Central
City Community Council Chair Bekka Carlson at bekkacarlson@gmail.com or the chair of the East Central
Community Council Esther Hunter at eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com for more information on whether
the community council s will review the matter and details at their meeting.
5. Public Comments
From:Kyle Deans
To:Tubbs, Caitlyn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 331 S 600 E
Date:Friday, June 11, 2021 2:10:12 PM
Caitlyn,
I fully support the zone change to allow for a cafe within the property. Any addition to retail
with the East Downtown Neighborhood is a positive addition to the city and it's overall
walkability.
Kyle Deans
SLC Resident
6. Original Petition
Updated 11/20/2020
Zoning Amendment
F Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance F Amend the Zoning Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Received By: Date Received: Project #:
Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Name of Applicant: Phone:
Address of Applicant:
E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax:
Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:
F Owner F Contractor F Architect F Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner:Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,058 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,058, plus fees for newspaper notice.
Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is
submitted.
SIGNATURE
Î If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SALT LAKE CITY PLANNINGSnell & Wilmer, L.L.P. (Wade Budge; McKay Ozuna)801-257-1906; 801-257-1807
wbudge@swlaw.com; mozuna@swlaw.com
William@encircletogether.org 801-513-8334
✔
331 South 600 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
15 W. South Temple, Suite 1200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
✔
Encircle Family and Youth Resource Center (Attn: William Bates, Esq.)
03/23/2021
Updated 11/20/2020 Staff Review SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the
Amendments ordinance.)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance?
If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online.
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
MO
✔
✔
✔
✔
4832-6016-3038
ENCIRCLE FAMILY AND RESOURCE CENTER’S
APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT
Statement of Purpose and Description
This firm (the “Applicant”) represents Encircle Family and Resource Center (“Encircle”)
in its interest to amend the zoning map for Encircle’s property located at 331 South 600 East, Salt
Lake City (“City”), Utah 84102 (the “Property”). The Property is more particularly identified in
Salt Lake County’s official records as Parcel ID No. 16-06-428-003. The Property is currently
zoned as RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District (“RMF-35”), and is also
located, in pertinent part, in the Central City Local Historic and Central City National Historic
overlay districts (collectively, the “Historic Overlays”).
Encircle is a non-profit organization whose mission is to bring family and community
together to enable LGBTQ+ youth to thrive. It accomplishes this important mission by providing
LGBTQ+ youth educational and social programs, a safe environment to socialize, and therapy.
Originally founded in 2016, Encircle continues to expand its operations throughout Utah, including
the Property, and plans to eventually expand into surrounding states for the betterment of the
LGBTQ+ community. Similarly, the operations and services Encircle has to offer have likewise
expanded. As part of this expansion effort, Encircle would now like to offer its patrons food and
beverages from a small café on the Property. This additional use of the Property would ease
socialization amongst those who use the Property and further Encircle’s mission. However, under
the RMF-35 zoning district a restaurant or retail use is not a permitted or conditional use.
The Applicant, on behalf of Encircle, thereby submits this Application for a Zoning
Amendment to amend the zoning map for the City from RMF-35 to R-MU-35, Residential/Mixed
Use District (“R-MU-35”). The City’s development file shows that the Property has historically
been used for office uses from at least the 1970s. Moreover, the Property is adjacent to the TSA-
UN-C, Transit Station Area, Urban Neighborhood-Core (“TSA-UN-C”), which permits high-
intensive uses such as a grocery chain, numerous restaurant chains, and other commercial and
retail operations. A buffer between the high-intensive uses of the TSA-UN-C zoning district and
RMF-35 is appropriate and this zoning map amendment will provide that transition and buffer
area. Further, this rezone and map amendment will assist the City in accomplishing its stated goal
of blending uses more harmoniously.1
The R-MU-35 is an appropriate zoning designation for the Property. As described above,
the Property is surrounded by more intensive uses on neighboring properties and the R-MU-35
acts as a transition between potentially incompatible uses.2 Again, this is likewise consistent with
the present and historical use of the Property. Moreover, this zoning district change is explicitly
supported by City’s master plans. Under the Central Community Master Plan, the Future Land Use
Map provided therein designates the Property as either “Medium Residential/Mixed Use” or “High
Density Transit Oriented Development”3 – both of which are consistent with the R-MU-35 zoning
1 See Note 8 below.
2 Aside from other neighboring properties zoned as RMF-35, other neighboring properties are zoned to include R-MU
west of the Property and the TSA-UN-C is adjacent to the south of the Property.
3 See Central Community Master Plan (adopted Nov. 1, 2005), at Page 2,
4832-6016-3038
district. Moreover, the change to the R-MU-35 accomplishes the master plan’s fundamental goals
of creating (i) livable communities and neighborhoods; (ii) vital and sustainable commerce; (iii)
unique and active places; and (iv) increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility.4 Finally, the R-
MU-35’s permitted and conditional uses better encourage services for residents within walking
distance of their homes, focuses commercial activity to such residents without competing with the
Central Business District, and provides more diverse and pedestrian oriented activities with a
mixture of retail, entertainment, and restaurants.5
Similarly, under the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the Property is designated as
within the proposed “MU-RH, Mixed Use Residential Host” and “Sub Area 2: Brownstone-
Apartment Mixed Use,” which permits such uses as “General Commercial” and “Service
Commercial.”6 A change to the R-MU-35 zoning district will help accomplish the City’s vision of
the East Downtown Neighborhood as “Utah’s premier, vibrant, diverse, mixed use urban
neighborhood.”7 Additionally, the change in zoning district blends with the existing character of
the area.8
Finally, the proposed change of zoning district from RMF-35 to R-MU-35 does not disrupt
the goals of either aforementioned master plan as to the Historic Overlays. Under both master
plans, preservation of the historical nature of the existing buildings is an important consideration.
Encircle is committed to such preservation efforts, as shown by its 2019 renovations to the historic
structure on the Property, which maintained and revitalized the historic integrity of the structure.
The proposed rezone to the R-MU-35 zoning district would not impair these historic values or
diminish the historic nature of the structure.
In light of the foregoing, the Applicant respectfully requests that this Application for a
change to the existing zoning map of the City be favorably recommended and approved by the
City. The requested zoning change for the Property to the R-MU-35 is supported by the present
and existing uses of the Property, the surrounding intensive uses in the area, and the guiding
principles of the master plans. Moreover, a change to the R-MU-35 zoning district will help
promote Encircle’s mission and enable it to better serve the LGBTQ+ youth of the City and State
of Utah.
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/cent.pdf.
4 See id. at Page 3.
5 See id. at Page 5.
6 See East Downtown Neighborhood Plan (adopted 1990), at Pages 8 and 11 (respectively),
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/ED.pdf.
7 Id. at Page 1.
8 See id. at Page 8.
7. Mailing List
Name Street City State ZIP
VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
WILLIAMSEN SOUTH JORDAN INC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
MAKOA HOLDINGS, LLC 580 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
UTAH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 564 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
MERCER SLC, LLC 333 WASHINGTON BLVD MARINA DEL REY CA 90292
BAMBOO LLC 1008 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
BAMBOO LLC 1008 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
DAVID KIMBERLY; MEGAN KIMBERLY (JT)618 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
MARY L PICIOCCHI; PAUL J SVENDSEN (JT)908 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BASES LOADED INVESTING LLC 636 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
RAVINDER SINGH AHLUWALIA 640 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
BIRTOK LLC 561 KEYSTONE AVE RENO NV 89503
SACHA S MASEK 644 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 3-303 MURRAY UT 84107
ELEVATE HIGHLAND LLC; ELEVATE BOULDER LLC 104 E MAIN ST BOZEMAN MT 59715
EFFROSENE K SERGAKIS; GEORGE M SERGAKIS (JT)9499 S CANDLE TREE LN SANDY UT 84092
ESSEX TPV LLC 1816 11TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98122
KINGSPORT, LLC 2280 S MAIN ST SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115
SIXTH EAST, LLC 321 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2840 E WILLOW HILLS DR SANDY UT 84093
ENCIRCLE FAMILY AND YOUTH RESOURCE CENTER 893 S 1100 E OREM UT 84097
VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
400 SOUTH ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS LC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
400 SOUTH ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS LC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
400 SOUTH FOOD CORP 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
PAYSON PLACE LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
VINCENT COURT, LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107
OCCUPANT 650 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 655 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 580 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 564 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 556 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 602 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 612 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 618 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 630 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 636 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 640 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 624 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 644 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 315 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 343 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 318 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 350 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 575 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 321 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 323 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 329-331 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 316 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 609 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 613 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 332 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 332 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 621 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 325-329 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
OCCUPANT 331 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
PLANNING DIVISION C/O CAITLYN TUBBS PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer, Policy Analyst
DATE:July 20, 2021
RE: ROSEWOOD PARK STREET VACATION AND ALLEY VACATION
(PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037)
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal from City Real Estate Services to vacate five alleys and six streets
within Rosewood Park at approximately 1400 North 1200 West in City Council District One. Rosewood Park was
constructed in 1977 on part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887. The
subdivision was platted for residential lots with alleys and streets servicing the parcels. The subject streets and
alleys were never constructed and do not physically exist.
Rosewood Park includes numerous parcels, streets, and alleys as shown in the image below. The Administration
is requesting vacating these alleys and streets to consolidate them and the parcels within the park into one
parcel. This will simplify the permitting process for future park improvements.
City Planning staff noted the platted streets and alleys are not connected to any established road network
system, do not provide access to adjacent private property, or serve a connectivity function. Planning further
noted the City’s Transportation Master Plan does not include proposals for the subject streets or alleys and
vacating them will not negatively affect future area development. If approved by the Council, Planning advises
the Administration to amend Section 15.04.350 Salt Lake City Code to include an updated description of
Rosewood Park.
Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forwarded positive recommendation to the City Council
for the proposed street and alley vacations, and the planning commission forwarded a positive recommendation
after their public process.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 20, 2021
Set Date: July 20, 2021
Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Page | 2
Aerial image of Rosewood Park showing proposed street vacations in red and alley vacations in blue
Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed street and alley vacations, address questions Council
Members may have and prepare for a public hearing.
POLICY QUESTION
1.Is the Council supportive of vacating the subject streets and alleys in Rosewood Park?
2.Is the Council interested in an update of proposed improvements at Rosewood Park, and the extent to
which these vacations/closures facilitate those improvements?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Attachments E and F of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 31-35) are an analysis of factors related to the
City’s street and alley closure policies. Planning staff found the proposed street and alley vacations comply with
all factors. For the complete analysis, please refer to the transmittal.
During City department review of the proposal no responding department found issues with the proposal.
The proposed ordinance includes a requirement for parcels within Rosewood Park to be consolidated into one
lot.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations during analysis of the project which are summarized below. For
the complete analysis, please refer to pages 19-20 of the Administration’s transmittal.
1. City Goals and Policies
None of the adopted City master plans providing guidance for Rosewood Park specifically address street
and alley vacations. However, the Northwest Master Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Salt Lake City
Transportation Master Plan, and Plan Salt Lake emphasize the importance of recreational facilities and
the ability to maintain and improve facilities as the city grows. Planning found the proposed street and
alley vacations will allow for a more efficient and flexible manner for the City to improve Rosewood
Park.
Page | 3
2. Lack of Connectivity
Streets and alleys dedicated in the subdivision were planned to service parcels within it. However,
Rosewood Park was built on many of these parcels so they will not be developed. Rosewood Park has its
own connections to the road network system that do not coincide with platted streets and alleys within
the park. It is Planning staff’s opinion the subject streets and alleys are not needed.
PUBLIC PROCESS
December 2, 2019 – Notice of the project and request for comments sent to Chairs of the Rose Park and
Capitol Hill Community Councils. Neither Chair responded to the request.
December 12, 2019 – Proposal presented at the Planning Division Open House.
January 10, 2020 – Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property
within 300 feet of the streets and alleys.
January 22, 2020 – Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. No one
spoke at the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the
City Council.
August 26, 2020 – Street closure (closed to travel, but property remains a street) petition amended to
street vacation (closed to travel and property no longer listed as a street). The Planning Commission
reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. No one spoke at the hearing. The Commission
unanimously voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
ALLEY CLOSURE PROCESS
The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with
regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein.
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF
CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy
considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable
plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been
materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe
conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the
alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section.
Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a
recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council.
A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not
the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
Page | 4
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning
property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block
or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate
community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and
5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid.
B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete
petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed
disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning
commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the
subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city
departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property;
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to
the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the
policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which
address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative
transportation uses;
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or
has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been
completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of
it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the
planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject
alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the
proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
Page | 5
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density
residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential
use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses.
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties
which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and
abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the
value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential
properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value.
(Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property
may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision
becomes final, in the 3rd district court.
STREET CLOSURE PROCESS
Street closure process is dictated by Section 10-9a-609.5 Utah State Code which is included below for reference.
10-9a-609.5. Petition to vacate a public street.
(1)In lieu of vacating some or all of a public street through a plat or amended plat in accordance with
Sections 10-9a-603 through 10-9a-609, a legislative body may approve a petition to vacate a public street in
accordance with this section.
(2)A petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement shall include:
(a)the name and address of each owner of record of land that is:
(i)adjacent to the public street or municipal utility easement between the two nearest public street
intersections; or
(ii)accessed exclusively by or within 300 feet of the public street or municipal utility easement;
(b)proof of written notice to operators of utilities and culinary water or sanitary sewer facilities located
within the bounds of the public street or municipal utility easement sought to be vacated; and
(c)the signature of each owner under Subsection (2)(a) who consents to the vacation.
(3)If a petition is submitted containing a request to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility
easement, the legislative body shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-208 and
determine whether:
(a)good cause exists for the vacation; and
(b)the public interest or any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation.
(4)The legislative body may adopt an ordinance granting a petition to vacate some or all of a public street or
municipal utility easement if the legislative body finds that:
(a)good cause exists for the vacation; and
(b)neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation.
(5)If the legislative body adopts an ordinance vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility
easement, the legislative body shall ensure that one or both of the following is recorded in the office of the
recorder of the county in which the land is located:
(a)a plat reflecting the vacation; or
(b)(i)an ordinance described in Subsection (4); and
(ii)a legal description of the public street to be vacated.
(6)The action of the legislative body vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement that
has been dedicated to public use:
Page | 6
(a)operates to the extent to which it is vacated, upon the effective date of the recorded plat or ordinance, as
a revocation of the acceptance of and the relinquishment of the municipality's fee in the vacated public
street or municipal utility easement; and
(b)may not be construed to impair:
(i)any right-of-way or easement of any parcel or lot owner;
(ii)the rights of any public utility; or
(iii)the rights of a culinary water authority or sanitary sewer authority.
(7)(a)A municipality may submit a petition, in accordance with Subsection (2), and initiate and complete a
process to vacate some or all of a public street.
(b)If a municipality submits a petition and initiates a process under Subsection (7)(a):
(i)the legislative body shall hold a public hearing;
(ii)the petition and process may not apply to or affect a public utility easement, except to the extent:
(A)the easement is not a protected utility easement as defined in Section 54-3-27;
(B)the easement is included within the public street; and
(C)the notice to vacate the public street also contains a notice to vacate the easement; and
(iii)a recorded ordinance to vacate a public street has the same legal effect as vacating a public street
through a recorded plat or amended plat.
(8)A legislative body may not approve a petition to vacate a public street under this section unless the vacation
identifies and preserves any easements owned by a culinary water authority and sanitary sewer authority for
existing facilities located within the public street.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 – Rosewood Park Street Vacation
and Alley Vacation
STAFF CONTACT: Chris Earl, Associate Planner, christopher.earl@slcgov.com, (801)535-
7932
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve
the proposed street vacation and alley vacation. Upon completion of lot consolidation, Section
15.04.350: OTHER PARKS will need to be amended to reflect the changes to the description of
Rosewood Park.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services
Department of Salt Lake City for street vacations and alley vacations within Rosewo od Park in
order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement
projects. The original Street Closure petition was amended to a Street Vacation petition.
Rosewood Park is located at approximately 1400 N and 1200 W in the Rose Park area of Salt
Lake City. The park is located between 1200 W and I-15 and encompasses approximately 28
acres.
Rosewood Park was constructed in 1977 over a portion of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved
Subdivision, recorded in 1887, that was originally platted for residential lots with alleys and
March 22, 2021
streets servicing those parcels. These alleys and streets were never constructed and do not
physically exist, but they still exist legally on paper. The area where Rosewood Park is located is
broken up into numerous parcels due to the existence of these platted streets and alleys. The alley
vacation and street closure applications are requesting to remove these alleys and streets from the
plat in order to consolidate the parcels and form one parcel to simplify the building permit
process for future improvement projects.
The platted streets and alleys within Rosewood Park are disconnected from any established road
network system, do not provide access to adjacent private property and would not serve a
broader connectivity function. The City’s Transportation Master Plan does not show proposals
for these roads or alleys and the deletion of these will have no adverse effects to any future
development in the area. Rosewood Park, as well as the adjacent land to the north, are zoned OS
Open Space, which would further limit other types of development of the area.
Staff finds that the subject streets and alleys provide no significant pedestrian or vehicular
connection and hinder the goals of adopted area master plans which emphasize the importance of
recreational facilities and the ability to maintain and improve the facilities to match City growth.
Once the streets and alleys within Rosewood Park are vacated and the parcels contained within
are consolidated into a singular parcel, the Salt Lake City Ordinance Section 15.04.350: OTHER
PARKS will no longer reflect an accurate description of Rosewood Park. Because of this, it is
advised that Real Estate Services or the Parks Department seek an amendment to this section of
the ordinance in order to update and reflect the correct description of Rosewood Park.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Staff held an Open House at the Salt Lake City Main Library on December 12, 2019.
Staff discussed the project with attendees who generally supported the project. One
comment was received that was in support of the project.
• A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on January 22, 2020. No one
from the public commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the
request and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• Due to the amendment of the Street Closure application to Street Vacation, a second
public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on August 26, 2020. No one
from the public commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the
request and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Planning Commission Record (January 22, 2020)
a) Hearing Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda and Minutes
4) Planning Commission Record (August 26, 2020)
a) Hearing Notice
b) Memo to Planning Commission
c) Agenda and Minutes
5) Public Comments
6) Original Petition
7) Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ________ of 2021
(Vacating five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city-owned streets, situated
within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street)
An ordinance vacating five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city-
owned streets situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West
Street, pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on August
26, 2020 to consider a request made by Olga Crump with the Salt Lake City Capital Asset and
Real Estate Services Division (“Applicant”) (Petition Nos. PLNPCM2019-01036 and
PLNPCM2019-01037) to vacate five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city-
owned streets; and
WHEREAS, at its August 26, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation on said petitions to the Salt Lake City Council; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there
is good cause to vacate the alleys and streets described below, and that vacating the city-owned
alleys and streets described below will not materially injure the public interest or any person; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alleys. That five unimproved, city-owned alleys
situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street, which are
the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2019-01037, and which are more particularly described on
Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby are, vacated and declared not presently necessary or
available for public use as alleys.
SECTION 2. Vacating City-Owned Streets. That six unimproved, city-owned streets
situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street, which are
the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2019-01036, and which are more particularly described on
Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby are, vacated and declared not presently necessary or
available for public use as streets.
SECTION 3. Requirement. In connection with the adoption of this ordinance, the
unimproved streets and alleys described herein and all lots adjacent to them constituting the land
area of Rosewood Park shall be consolidated into one lot. The lot consolidation may occur
concurrently with the recording of this ordinance or shortly thereafter.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of
______________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
February 4, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
COMBINED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT ALLEYS AND STREETS
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 15, Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat, as
recorded in Book 'A', Page '89', of Subdivisions in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office and
running thence along the north line of 1400 North Street West 957.25 feet more or less to the
west line of Mill Street; thence along said west line North 600.00 feet to the south line of 1500
North Street; thence along said south line East 1188.25 feet more or less to the west line of I-15
right-of-way and the Northeast Corner of Parcel # 08-23-379-002; thence along said west line the
following 3 courses: 1) S21°11'30"E 25.00 feet to a 23,003.30 foot radius curve to the left; 2)
along said curve 584.62 feet (chord bears S21°34'48"E 584.60 feet); 3) S22°35'00"E 117.04 feet
to the Northeast Corner of Parcel # 08-26-203-002; thence West 60.00 feet to the Northwest
Corner of Block 18, said Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat; thence South 175.00 feet to
the Southwest Corner of Parcel # 08-26-203-001 and the Southwest Corner of Lot 10, Block 18,
said Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat; thence West 440.00 feet to the Southeast Corner of
Parcel # 08-26-126-012 and the Southeast Corner of Lot 3, Block 20, said Kinney & Gourlay's
Improved City Plat; thence North 250.00 feet to the point of beginning.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 22, 2020
A. HEARING NOTICE
B. STAFF REPORT
C. AGENDA AND MINUTES
4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD - AUGUST 26, 2020
A. HEARING NOTICE
B. MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION
C. AGENDA AND MINUTES
5. ORIGINAL PETITION
6. MAILING LABELS
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037
November 1, 2019 Petitions received by the Planning Division.
November 12, 2019 Petitions assigned to Chris Earl, Associate Planner, for staff analysis
and processing.
December 2, 2019 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs of
the Rose Park and Capitol Hill Community Councils. Neither Chair
provided response to the request for comment.
December 12, 2019 Proposal presented at the Planning Division Open House.
January 10, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of
property within 300 feet of the streets and alleys.
January 22, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public
hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
August 26, 2020 Street Closure petition amended to Street Vacation. Planning
Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing.
The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the
City Council.
2. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-
01037 Rosewood Park Street Closure and Alley Vacation - A request by Olga Crump of the
Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City for alley vacations and street closures within
Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future
improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s
Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at
801-535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com)
a. Street Closure A street closure is required in order to remove the existing platted
streets within Rosewood Park to prepare for lot consolidation. Case number
PLNPCM2019-01036
b. Alley Vacation An alley vacation is required in order to remove the existing platted
alleys within Rosewood Park to prepare for lot consolidation. Case number
PLNPCM2019-01037
The property is located in OS Open Space and is located in Council District 1, represented by
James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at 801-535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com)
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Room 315
City & County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Chris Earl at 801-535-7932 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at christopher.earl@slcgov.com
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests
for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other
auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make
a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-
7600, or relay service 711.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Hearing Notice
August 26, 2020
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
August 26, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Chris Earl, Associate Planner
(801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com
Date: January 16, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2019-01036 – Rosewood Park Street Closure
PLNSUB2019-01037 – Rosewood Park Alley Vacation
Street Closure and Alley Vacation
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Approximately 1400 N 1200 W
MASTER PLAN: Northwest Master Plan; Rose Park Small Area Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: OS Open Space
OVERLAY DISTRICT: AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District Zone H
REQUEST: A request by Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City for
alley vacations and street closures within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to
simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted
as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never
constructed.
The Planning Commission’s role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council
for the street closure request. The City Council will make the final decision regarding the requests.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the request
to close the streets and vacate the alleys within Rosewood Park with the following conditions:
• The closed streets and vacated alleys, as well as remaining parcels, will be consolidated into
one parcel.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Property Photographs
C. Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision Plat
D. Application Materials
E. Analysis of Standards – Street Closure
F. Analysis of Standards – Alley Vacation
G. Public Process and Comments
H. Department Review Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rosewood Park, developed in 1977, is located at approximately 1400 N
and 1200 W in the Rose Park area of Salt Lake City. The park is located between 1200 W and I-15 and
encompasses approximately 28 acres which is mostly grass (primarily used as soccer fields) but has
amenities such as baseball and softball fields, a playground, tennis courts, a dog park and a skate park.
The proposed street closure and alley vacation involves six unimproved streets and 5 unimproved alleys
within Rosewood Park dedicated in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision. The subdivision
was platted in 1887 but never developed as intended.
No modifications will be made to Rosewood Park as part of these applications. Rosewood Park was
constructed in a part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s subdivision that was originally platted for residential
lots with alleys and streets servicing those parcels. Although these alleys and streets do not physically
exist, they still exist legally on paper. The area where Rosewood Park is located is broken up into
numerous tiny parcels due to the existence of these streets and alleys. The alley vacation and street
closure applications are requesting to remove these alleys and streets from the plat in order to
consolidate the parcels and form one parcel to make it easier to obtain building permits for future
improvement projects.
When construction occurs on any property within Salt Lake City, a building permit is required.
Building permits are issued based on the parcel in which the construction will occur. If construction
will occur on multiple parcels, a building permit would be required for each parcel and zoning
regulations would apply to each individually.
It was a common practice for the City to construct parks or other public facilities over multiple parcels
and right-of-ways when the City owned all of the land within the development. Because a separate
permit must be pulled for each parcel, this would often create problems when trying to meet zoning
requirements such as setbacks or lot coverage for each of the separate parcels within the development.
Building within public right-of-ways can also present challenges since permissions could be required
from Salt Lake City Engineering or Real Estate Services Department in order to build within these
right-of-ways. With the large number of parcels that exist within Rosewood Park, an improvement
project could require multiple permits. Tracking multiple building permits through the permitting
* Existing parcels within Rosewood Park
process as well as the inspections process is a daunting task. One that would be streamlined if only one
permit were required.
If Rosewood Park were to be consolidated into one singular parcel, it would greatly increase the ease
and efficiency of obtaining and tracking building permits as well as meeting the standards for zoning
requirements.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
Consideration 1: City Goals and Policies
Although none of the City master plans that provide guidance for these properties specifically address
street closures, the Northwest, Rose Park Small Area, Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plans and
Plan Salt Lake help to determine if the request is in line with city goals and is in the city’s best interest.
The Northwest Master Plan, adopted in 1992, recognizes the importance of recreation to the residents
of Salt Lake City. It was indicated that with increased population, there is a need for new recreational
facilities as well as improvements to existing facilities. The current Northwest Master Plan intends to
continue the efforts to meet recreational needs outlined in the 1977 Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation
Plan and the 1980 Northwest Master Plan.
The citywide master plan, Plan Salt Lake, adopted in 2015, contains sections that align with the
Northwest Master Plan vision. One of the guiding principles of that plan is to protect and enhance
existing parks, recreational facilities and trails allowing for modifications to enhance usability and
promote activity.
The City’s Major Street Plan, approved in 2018, which is part of the City’s Transportation Master Plan,
shows that the platted streets and alleys within Rosewood Park do not exist nor are they proposed for
the future. This suggests that these alleys and streets are not crucial to current or future transportation
goals.
These adopted plans emphasize the importance of recreational facilities and the ability to maintain and
improve the facilities to match City growth. This proposal will make the permitting process easier for
future improvements and will allow for a more efficient and flexible manner in which the City can
improve Rosewood Park.
Consideration 2: Lack of Connectivity
The streets and alleys dedicated in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision were planned to service the
parcels that were platted within the subdivision. However, Rosewood Park has been built in place of a
number of these parcels. Because of the existence of the park, the parcels will no longer be developed
as intended and the need for the streets and alleys no longer exist. The parcels that neighbor the park
to the south are now part of a number of amendments of the Rose Park Plat. Development in the area
did not follow the street pattern the plat created, leaving the dedicated streets and alleys disconnected
from a road network system. Rosewood Park currently has its own connections to the road network
system that do not coincide with any platted street or alley within the park, and thus, the platted streets
and alleys are not needed.
The parcels to the north of Rosewood Park are currently undeveloped. When development does occur
on these properties, it will be limited due to the parcels being zoned OS Open Space, but they will have
access to the road network system via 1200 W.
The alleys and streets within Rosewood Park are disconnected from any type of future development to
the east due to the I-15 freeway that abuts along the eastern edge of these properties, further decreasing
their need.
DISCUSSION:
The Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision was recorded in 1887 before the existence of the current
adopted master plans that effect future growth of the area. Since the recording of the plat, there has
been a stronger emphasis for recreational facilities for the growing number of residents. Rosewood
Park was built over these streets, alleys and parcels which was common in the past making their
existence unnecessary and a hindrance to the future improvements of the park. With Rosewood Park
in place along with the current Open Space zoning, there is an unlikeliness that the park will be
redeveloped and puts in question the likelihood of these streets and alleys ever being developed as
intended.
The public benefit of maintaining these dedicated streets and alleys in its current situation is close to
none because they only exist on paper and therefore, do not serve a transportation or public purpose.
That is especially relevant when considering that with the current development, these “paper streets”
have become obstacles to future improvement to Rosewood Park. Eliminating these dedicated streets
and alleys could help in fulfilling the goals of applicable master plans.
NEXT STEPS:
After the Planning Commission reviews the request, their recommendation will be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration. The City Council will make the final decision with respect to these
requests.
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP
1200 W Dupont Ave
N
N
Rosewood
Park
Rosewood
Park
Rose Park
Golf Course
ATTACHMENT B: PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS
Photos of the grassy areas of Rosewood Park
including baseball/softball fields and soccer fields
Skate Park Playground
Tennis Courts Dog Park
Houses on Dupont Ave and their rear yards that abut Rosewood Park
1200 W looking north adjacent
to Rosewood Park
Rosewood Park access to 1200 W
ATTACHMENT C: KINNEY AND GOURLAY’S
SUBDIVISION PLAT
ATTACHMENT D: APPLICATION MATERIALS
ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS – STREET
CLOSURE
In 1999, the City Council adopted a street closure policy that includes the following provisions:
Factor Analysis Finding
1. It is the policy of the City
Council to close public
streets and sell the
underlying property. The
Council does not close streets
when the action would deny
all access to other property.
The platted streets which were never
constructed do not provide access to
adjacent private property and do not
serve a broader connectivity function.
Due to the design of the park and the
surrounding development, the streets
as depicted in the Kinney and Gourlay’s
Subdivision Plat would not provide
connection to any established
development or right-of-way.
Complies
2. The general policy when
closing a street is to obtain
fair market value for the
land, whether the abutting
property is residential,
commercial or industrial.
This application was initiated in order
to consolidate Rosewood Park into one
parcel for ease of permitting for future
improvement projects to the park. No
property will be sold and will remain
under City ownership.
Complies
3. There should be sufficient
public policy reasons that
justify the sale and/or
closure of a public street and
it should be sufficiently
demonstrated by the
applicant that the sale and/or
closure of the street will
accomplish the stated public
policy reasons.
Adopted master plans take into
consideration the need for recreation
facilities and the ability to provide
improvements to existing facilities. As
discussed in the Key Considerations of
this staff report, the streets in the
Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision exist
as a platted streets, but not as a physical
streets. The platted streets, alleys and
parcels make the permitting process
difficult due to the need to pull permits
for each individual parcel when
improvement is required. The
permitting process can be simplified by
consolidating the parcel into one parcel.
The parcel cannot be consolidated until
the streets have been closed. A
simplified permitting process will allow
for a more streamlined and cost-
effective approach to improvement
projects; which will help achieve the
goals set forth by the adopted master
plans.
Complies
4. The City Council should
determine whether the
stated public policy reasons
outweigh alternatives to the
The alternative to this request is to
maintain the property as it currently
exists. However, this makes
improvement projects more difficult
Complies
closure of the street. and there is no public benefit since these
dedicated streets do not physically exist
and do not serve a transportation or
public purpose. Eliminating these
streets would allow for easier
improvement to occur once the
property is consolidated and help
achieve city goals.
ATTACHMENT F: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS – ALLEY
VACATION
Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, VACATION
or Abandonment of City Owned Alleys
The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy
considerations:
A. Lack of Use: The city’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an
applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist
or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way.
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity
or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area.
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element.
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of
the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden.
Discussion: The applicant cites policy considerations A – Lack of Use, C – Urban Design and D –
Community Purpose in their narrative. The applicant states that the streets and alleys exist on the
Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision Plat but were never constructed and do not physically exist. In
addition, the argument is made that the existence of the streets and alleys, along with the many parcels
that exist along with the streets and alleys, create complications for project permitting that are costly
and time consuming to navigate. The streets and alleys are not needed for the design of the park and
hinder improvements efforts.
Finding: The proposed alley vacation complies with policy consideration A – Lack of Use and C – Urban
Design, as discussed in this staff report.
14.52.030B: Processing Petitions – Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning
Commission
Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning
Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the
conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation
to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive
recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
Factor Rationale Finding
1. The City Police
Department, Fire
Department,
Transportation Division,
and all other relevant
City Departments and
Divisions have no
objection to the proposed
disposition of the
property;
No objections were received from City
Department review.
Complies
2. The petition meets at
least one of the policy
considerations stated
above;
Consideration A: Lack of Use
The platted streets and alleys within
Rosewood Park are disconnected from any
established road network system, do not
provide access to adjacent private property
and would not serve a broader connectivity
function. The City’s Transportation Master
Plan does not show proposals for these
roads or alleys and the deletion of these will
have no adverse effects to any future
development in the area.
Consideration C: Urban Design
Keeping the platted streets and alleys
would be a hindrance to urban design.
Because of the development that has
occurred around Rosewood Park, the
undeveloped streets and alleys have been
left disconnected, and would make it
difficult to develop the parcels as they
currently exist. These constraints most
likely would not create a cohesive design
with the current surrounding
development.
Consideration D: Community Purpose
The petitions align with adopted master
plans regarding improvement to public
recreation facilities by helping
improvement efforts within Rosewood
Park by simplifying the permitting process
through the removal of streets and alleys
which will allow for lot consolidation. With
Rosewood Park being one singular parcel,
permits will be simpler to obtain making
for more cost effective and time efficient
improvements to the park.
Complies
3. The petition must not
deny sole access or
required off-street
parking to any adjacent
property;
The petition will not have an impact with
accessing any surrounding property or
development of the subject area.
Complies
4. The petition will not
result in any property
being landlocked;
Landlocked parcels will be created by the
removal of the streets and alleys within
Rosewood Park. Because of this, a lot
consolidation will be required. Once the
consolidation is complete, the one
remaining parcel will have street frontage
along 1200 W.
Complies
5. The disposition of the
alley property will not
result in a use which is
otherwise contrary to the
policies of the City,
including applicable
master plans and other
adopted statements of
policy which address, but
which are not limited to,
mid-block walkways,
pedestrian paths, trails,
and alternative
transportation uses;
No pedestrian paths, trails or walkways or
any other alternative transportation use
will be affected by the disposition of the
alley property.
Complies
6. No opposing abutting
property owner intends
to build a garage
requiring access from the
property, or has made
application for a building
permit, or if such a
permit has been issued,
construction has been
completed within 12
months of issuance of the
building permit;
No opposing property owners have been
identified. No permits have been proposed
or issued for garages that require access
from the subject property.
Complies
7. The petition furthers the
City preference for
disposing of an entire
alley, rather than a small
segment of it; and
The entirety of all streets and alleys will be
disposed and no partial segments shall
remain.
Ordinance 54 of 1955 vacated the west line
of Mill Street to the west line of Marion
Street from the north line of 1100 N to the
north line of 1300 N, leaving segments of
alleys and streets remaining. These
petitions would complete the closure and
vacation process and remove all remaining
Complies
streets and alleys,
8. The alley is not necessary
for actual or potential
rear access to residences
or for accessory uses.
There are no residences within the subject
area.
Complies
ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities,
related to this project:
Public Notices:
− Notice of the project and request for comments were sent to the Chairs of the Rose Park and
Capitol Hill Community Councils on December 2, 2019 in order to solicit comments. No
comments were received.
− Open House notice was mailed on November 21, 2019.
− Open House was held at the Salt Lake City Main Library on December 12, 2019. Staff discussed
the project with multiple attendants and received one written comment. The comment
received was generally in favor of the project.
Public Hearing Notice:
− Public hearing notice mailed on January 10, 2020.
− Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on January 1o, 2020.
− Sign posted on the property on January 12, 2020.
Public Comments:
− At the time of the publication of this staff report, one public comment was received and is
attached to this report. Any comments received after the publication of this staff report will be
forwarded to the Commission.
ATTACHMENT G: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Transportation, Building, Zoning, Fire and Police found no issues with the request.
Public Utilities, Engineering and Sustainability provided no comments.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes
August 26, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
AMENDED
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No.
2 of 2020 (2)(b)
August 26, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission
Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning
Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are
interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following
platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide
general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-08262020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
Planning Commission Meeting will begin at 5:30 pm
Approval of Minutes for AUGUST 12, 2020
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of the Director
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City
is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the
permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and
Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. These requests were brought before
the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation.
The request for a street closure has been amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is
zoned OS (Open Space) and is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris
Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019-
01037
2. West End Alley Vacation at approximately 740 West 900 South - Maximilian Coreth, property owner, is
requesting to vacate a small triangular portion of the alley abutting the west side of the property at the above said
address. This is not a request to vacate the entire alley. The applicant is requesting to vacate this portion of the alley
in order to acquire the property to square off the southwestern corner of his property for future development. The
property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew
Johnston. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00268
3. Izzy South Design Review at approximately 534 East 2100 South - Ryan McMullen, Applicant, is requesting
Design Review approval for a proposed 71-unit mixed use building located at approximately 534 East 2100 South
by the name of “Izzy South.” The Applicant is requesting a modification of the maximum height requirement to
accommodate architectural features on the front-facing façade of the proposed building. The property is zoned CB
(Community Business) and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Caitlyn
Miller at (385) 202-4689 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00222
4. Gateway Storage Planned Development at approximately 134 South 700 West - Austin Lundskog, Applicant,
is requesting Planned Development and Design Review approval of a proposed self-storage facility 103,500 sq. ft.
in size at approximately 134 South 700 West. The property is zoned GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) and is located within
Council District 4, represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or
caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00182 and PLNPCM2020-00399
5. Stanford Commons Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 2052 E Michigan
Avenue – Jessica Sluder from Alta Development Group, LLC, representing the property owner, is requesting
approval for a new residential development at the above listed address. The proposal includes demolishing the
discontinued pool area on the site and subdividing the property into four (4) lots for a proposed construction of three
(3) single-family attached dwellings. The proposed project is subject to the following petitions:
a. Planned Development – Planned Development is requested to modify the required front yard setback, grade
changes greater than four feet (4’) within a required yard and required lot area from 3,000 square feet to approximate
lot area ranging between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet for the new lots. Case number PLNPCM2020-00230
b. Preliminary Subdivision – Preliminary Plat approval is needed to create four (4) new lots. Case
number PLNSUB2020-00231
The property is zoned RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 6,
represented by Dan Dugan (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at (385) 386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com)
6. Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1301 & 1321 South State Street - Glen Anderson, representing the
property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street
currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) to the FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) zoning district. This
zoning amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in
height. The applicant feels that the intent of the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the
corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). The FB-
UN2 also has design standards that were created to reduce the impacts of increase height and density. The
properties are located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535-
6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00328
7. ADU & Special Exception at approximately 1362 South 1300 East - Dwight Yee, property owner
representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the
rear yard of the property located at 1362 S 1300 E. The ADU will measure 640 square feet with a height of
approximately 16 1/2 feet. The applicant is also requesting Special Exception approval for grade changes and
retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height. The requested grading and retaining walls are located within the rear and
side yards. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential and is located within Council District 5,
represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (801) 535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case
numbers PLNPCM2020-00358 & PLNPCM2020-00454
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted
two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
Wednesday, August 26, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:30:17 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners;
Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart,
and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Chairperson Adrienne Bell was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay,
Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Katia Pace, Principal
Planner; Amanda Roman, Principal Planner; and Rosa Jimenez, Administrative Secretary.
Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Directory provided participation information for the public.
APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 12, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:32:32 PM
MOTION 5:32:41 PM
Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the August 12, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner
Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom,
Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. Commissioner Urquhart abstained from voting as she was not present
for the said meeting. The motion passed 7-1.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:09 PM
Chairperson Bell was not present for the said meeting.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:17 PM
Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided the commission with updates on projects that the commission
has previously seen that are now up before the City Council.
5:40:09 PM Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation.
5:41:16 PM
Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt
Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the
property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were
platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never
constructed. These requests were brought before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking
a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation. The request for a street closure has been
amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is
located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-
7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019-01037
Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 2
Christopher Earl, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:46:07 PM
Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson
Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 5:46:51 PM
Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy
considerations for street vacation and alley vacation, and the input received I move that the
Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the street
vacation and alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 with the
condition listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart,
Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:19:41 PM
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
Petition PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037
5. MAILING LABELS
GATEPARK CORPORATION 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
GUADALUPE HOLDING COMPANY 1385 N 1200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CANAL STREET, LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
TESORO LOGISTICS OPERATIONS LLC PO BOX 592809 SAN ANTONIO TX 78259
DAVIS STREET, LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
JOSE M NEGRETE; MARGARITA C GUERRERO (JT)1246 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ANTHONY J BONNER; TAYLEE A FOULGER (JT)1236 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1230 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
EBRIMA BAH; SUKAINATOU JALLOW (JT)1222 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ROBERT S BLACKHAM; SUZANNAH C BLACKHAM (JT)1216 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
VIRGILIO G MERCADO; ROSELIA MERCADO (JT)1206 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MICHAEL J BASSETT; CHRISTINE M BASSETT (JT)1323 N VALENTINE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
TIFFANY K BARNES 648 E REDONDO AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
CLARISSA AVILA; JESUS AVILA (JT)1316 N VALENTINE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SARAH CHALUPA; NATHAN J OMANA (JT)1333 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
NATHAN R KENNARD 1319 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
GILBERT A ULIBARRI; EVELYN E ULIBARRI (JT)1198 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
JOSEPH R BOOROM; NINA L BOOROM (JT)13073 S CHARING WY RIVERTON UT 84065
RUDY PEREZ 271 E MILLPOINT PL SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115
KEVIN S BAKER; JENNIFER L BAKER (JT)1166 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ELAINE TUCK FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/25/2018 1154 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MICHAEL BAILEY; KRISTINA BAILEY (JT)1142 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
BRIAN D ANDERSON 1130 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1120 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
FRED TOMINAGA & BETSY M TOMINAGA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 06/17/201 8066 TOP OF THE WORLD DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1127 N COLORADO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
RAQUEL GAMEZ; JOSE A GAMEZ (TC)1082 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
STEVEN L MELLEN; BROOKE W MELLEN (JT)1072 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
BEAU DELAMARE; AMY DELAMARE (JT)1064 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
RIN FM TRST 1056 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MICHAEL H DIXON; SHEILA F DIXON (JT)1048 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1038 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
RICK L JACKSON; SUZANNE B JACKSON (JT)1028 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CELESTE T ROSENLOF; BRANDEN D ROSENLOF (JT)1018 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
DIXIE L F SORENSEN; RICHARD B SORENSEN (JT)1008 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
HAL T PECK 996 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
KIMBERLY YOUNG; ANDREW YOUNG (JT)1334 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SHANNON S BREA 1320 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
LAURENT D COURTEILLE; SARAH A COURTEILLE (JT)1333 N CAPISTRANO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
JERRAD L HINKLE 1321 N CAPISTRANO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
1334 CAPISTRANO LLC PO BOX 17843 HOLLADAY UT 84117
CLAY CHURCH; JESSICA CHURCH (JT)715 SUNDANCE HILLS RD DURANGO CO 81303
RESTORE UTAH, LLC 1600 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
RAMON VILLA VAZQUEZ; DE VILLA, IRMA RIOS VAZQUEZ (JT)1319 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
WAYNE B LUECK 1334 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
KYLE M NIXON; AGNES ROBL (JT)1320 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
G B NUGTER; MARIE F EATON-NUGTER (JT)1323 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MARY LOUISE BARBER REVOCABLE TRUST 01/08/1996 1313 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
DAVID CRITTENDEN 1055 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CHAD T ANDERSON 568 E CARMEL DR MIDVALE UT 84047
ROSALINO SANTOS; DIONICIA FELIX (JT)1041 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1033 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MARIA D GARDUNIO 1025 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
GORDON H WELLINGTON; JONNIE MAE WELLINGTON (JT)1009 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MAKA A MANU; ANA M MANU (JT)1005 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
COLBY TAKAHASHI; JAZMIN TAKAHASHI (JT)995 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 820 N MAIN ST CENTERVILLE UT 84014
TAMMY GRAINGER 988 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
WILLIAM BACUS; DALENE BACUS (JT)1332 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
LYNNE E WOLF; MYRLE B ANDERSON (JT)1324 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1316 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
JOSE T HERNANDEZ; MARCELINA HERNANDEZ (JT)1306 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 1510 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1468 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1490 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1209 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1316 N VALENTINE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1333 N BUCCANEER DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1198 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1188 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1178 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1112 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1100 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1092 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1334 N CAPISTRANO DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1322 N CAPISTRANO DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1333 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1319 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1334 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1320 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1323 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1313 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1055 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1049 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1321 N VICTORIA WAY Salt Lake City UT 84116
Chris Earl - Salt Lake City Planning Division PO Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Kira Luke, Russell Weeks, Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analysts
DATE: July 20, 2021
RE: FUNDING OUR FUTURE Transit Update: Interlocal Agreement with Utah Transit Authority
Addenda 4 and 5
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Funding Our Future: in 2018, following significant public engagement, the City approved a 0.5%
sales tax rate increase to address unfunded critical needs for projects and services, including
improved transit service. To this end, the Council set four priorities to improve transit:
Increasing coverage for under-served areas, particularly the West side but not excluding
other underserved areas of the City;
Increasing ridership, particularly in the City’s downtown core;
Building out infrastructure on Transit Master Plan routes;
The budget and timeline are based on 1000 North, 600 North, 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South. 400
South will be the last route implemented.
The Council prioritized 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South for the first phase of transit improvements, with later
improvements planned for 600 North and 1000 North. i
NEW INFORMATION
The resolution included for the Council’s consideration would approve a fourth addendum (4) the Interlocal Agreement
(ILA) governing the City and Utah Transit Authority (UTA)’s collaboration, continuing service on East-West
connecting Routes 2 (200 South), 9 (900 South) and 21 (2100 South). The resolution also approves a fifth addendum
(5), which initiates mobilization on Route 1 (1000 North) by January 2022. The addenda can be found on page 43 of
the administrative transmittal.
Addendum 4
Addendum 4 authorizes funding and continued City sponsorship for enhanced (more frequent service and extended
hours on nights and weekends) services on routes 2, 9, and 21. Once service reaches a specific threshold in terms of
riders served, UTA assumes sponsorship and funding of that service, and City-funded sponsorship is no longer
required. This was realized on Route 2 in Addendum 3, which resulted in a -$156,175.35 savings to the City.
Information provided in Addendum 4 notes that Route 21 has also met UTA’s weekday threshold, but since that route
was not prioritized in UTA’s 5-year plan, UTA is not sponsoring service at this time. The 5-year plan was adopted
February of 2021, and receives biennial updates. More information about the threshold evaluation standards can be
found on page 77 of the Administrative transmittal.
Addendum 5
Mobilization is distinct from operating costs in that funding covers additional vehicles and hiring needed to
accommodate the new services. Service funding will be requested at a later date; mobilization will allow UTA to gather
the resources needed to launch the new service.
Page | 2
With the mobilization of 1000 North, the City is drawing closer to the routes originally prioritized during the 2018
Funding Our Future discussions. Those priorities were strongly influenced by the Transit Master Plan Tier I route
priorities, as well as Council direction from constituent feedback. In the spirit of equity, Funding Our Future routes
have historically focused on improving east-west connectivity, so routes identified in the TMP focusing on North-South
have not been contemplated. The envisioned path of 1000 North appears to fall within the spirit of the TMP
recommendation of service on South Temple. More information on the Transit Master Plan can be found on page 5.
BUDGET IMPACT
Items Funding Bu dget Estimates
200 South, 900 South, 2100
South/2100 East FTN
Operating costs
$3,761,154.74
Fuel Costs $221,200.49
Vehicle Costs $493,061.40
Addendum 4 Totals $4,500,000 $4,475,416.63
Items Funding Bu dget Estimates
500 North mobilization $1,100,000 $949,322
Addendum 5 Totals $1,100,000 $949,322
Addendum 4 & 5 Totals $5,600,000 $5,424,739
Amount Remaining in
the budget allocation $175,261
Fiscal Year 22
Addenda 4 & 5
Addendum 4
Addendum 5
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Excess allocation: The Council may wish to discuss the Administration’s recommendation or other potential
uses for the available $175,261.37
2.Route 9: earlier drafts of Route 9 indicated connection to North Temple, although service to date has yet to go
farther North than 400 South, due to first/last mile considerations and plans for new transit hubs. The
Council may wish to ask for an update on planned hubs and whether North Temple connectivity is still
anticipated in future addenda.
3.Alternate transit modes: How will UTA’s study of downtown light-rail extensions and the City’s study of
livable streets affect discussions of future addenda?
4.Fare pass analysis: $30,000 from the FY18-19 Funding Our Future allocation was authorized for an outside
study of fare pass efficacy and recommendations to increase transit use and accessibility throughout the City.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on this analysis.
5.Additional routes: During the Fiscal Year 2020-21 discussions, the Council received an update that UTA
plans to sponsor (cover costs for) 600 North. However, staff understands that there are significant delays or
increased costs to implement those routes as planned in addition to lingering pandemic-related uncertainty.
The current Phase I Map does not yet include a projected route for 600 North. The Council may wish to
request a formal update detailing implementation plans for 600 North.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Interlocal Agreement Background
Routes
The ILA categorizes the City’s service improvements as Frequent Transit
Network (FTN) routes and refers to the City’s Transit Master Plan (TMP) for
the controlling definition. The minimum service for routes serving 200 South,
900 South, and 2100 South is as outlined below. UTA may choose to provide
Page | 3
additional service with no cost to the City; any City-requested service expansions are subject to additional negotiation
and funding.
The map on page 50 of the Administrative transmittal currently reflects a modified Route 9 from the original plans,
ending at 400 South instead of continuing to North Temple. This was due to multiple factors involving pending plans
for a Westside Transit Hub, the location of which is anticipated to affect multiple westside bus routes, and changes at
the eastern end of the line, where 2019 realignment to all routes on the University of Utah campus
resulted in changes to several routes, including Route 9.
Source: Administrative Transmittal, Page 51
Responsibilities in the Interlocal Agreement
City UTA
Provide funding to support route operation; appropriate funding and
notify UTA of available funding annually
Manage and operate routes, equipment,
personnel, insurance and accounting
May construct new bus stops, in compliance with UTA’s standards;
enhanced* maintenance to be negotiated prior to construction and
funded by the City
Produce/install branded bus stop signs
Send designee (City Transportation Director) to technical working group Send designee (UTA Planning Director)
to technical working group
Regularly exchange information to assess performance and report to the parties**
Share fuel costs via a semiannual “true-up”
*The Addendum template provides a section to define baseline (non-enhanced) services.
**Performance metrics could be added to the Funding Our Future website
The interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority has two parts – a 20-year master
agreement, and specific addenda, which are negotiated each year. The master agreement is scheduled to end June 30,
2039. The master agreement is intended to form the framework of how transit improvements in the City’s Transit
Master Plan will be implemented.
Addendum 2, Amendment 1 (2.1)
The second addendum governed the first year of services from August 2019 to August 23, 2020, the latter half of which
has been impacted by COVID-19 since adoption.
An Amendment to the second addendum addressed impacts on services from COVID-19. During the peak of the “Stay
Safe, Stay Home” phase, UTA sharply reduced services, including those governed by the ILA. The amendment takes
this reduction into account, along with decreased costs for fuel, and a slight increase in actual miles funded and
amends the addendum to reflect a net reduction of $511,472. The amendment proposes to credit this amount to the
City for the next service period governed by Addendum 3 (August 2020-August 2021).
Addendum 3 (3)
The third addendum authorized funding for frequent transit network (FTN) service from August 2020 to August 2021,
including operator wages, benefits, service administration, vehicles and maintenance, fuel, paratransit, and customer
service for Routes 2, 9, and 21. As of August 23, 2020, UTA restored services system wide to 91% of pre-pandemic
levels, which includes frequent service on Routes 2, 9, and 21.
Transit Master Plan (TMP) Implementation
The agreement contemplates following the Frequent Transit Network as identified in the Transit Master Plan.
Page | 4
Source: Transit Master Plan
The plan laid out a number of recommendations for short term implementation, many of which are reflected in the
priorities for Funding Our Future distributions. Tier 1 Recommendations can be found on page 53 of the Transit
Master Plan.
The Transit Master Plan used a formula based on transit industry standards to develop the Frequent Transit Network
recommendations. According to the plan, the formula can be used in the future to help determine when the plan’s
recommendations can be revised to reflect population or job growth within the City. Here is the formula:
o Operate light rail in areas where there are 12 to 24 or more households per acre and/or 16 to 32 or more jobs
per acre.
o Operate Bus Rapid Transit in areas where there are 10 to 15 households per acre and/or 12 to 20 jobs per acre.
o Operate buses every 15 minutes in areas where there are 10 to 12 households per acre and/or 12 to 16 jobs per
acre.
o Operate buses every 30 minutes in areas where there are 6 to 10 households per acre and/or 8 to 12 jobs per
acre.
o Operate buses every hour in areas where there are 3 to 6 households per acre and/or less than 4 jobs per acre.ii
According to the Administration, the thresholds are best practices based on current industry research and should be
used as guidelines rather than standards. Transit planning would take a variety of local conditions into consideration
about appropriate densities, as would UTA in establishing service levels. The guidelines also can be helpful to
communicate the relationship between density and successful transit.
Glossary
Frequent Transit Network – FTN
Fiscal Year - FY
Interlocal Agreement – ILA
Transit Master Plan - TMP
Utah Transit Authority – UTA
Attachments
UTA’s 5-year service plan
Page | 5
Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan
i Videotape, Council work session, Russell Weeks, October 9, 2018, 1:09.
ii Transit Master Plan, Page 6-4, 6-5. (Attachment 1)
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Utah Transit
Authority (UTA), Addendum No. 4 and Addendum No. 5 – Continuation of FTN (Frequent Transit
Network) Routes on 200 S, 900 S, and 2100 S and mobilization for a 2022 route on 1000 N
STAFF CONTACT: Julianne Sabula, Transit Program Manager, julianne.sabula@slcgov.com or
801-535-6678
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution (Exhibit 1) authorizing the
Mayor to enter into the proposed addenda Nos. 4 and 5 to the ILA with UTA (Exhibit 2).
Addendum No. 4 (Exhibit 3) would continue FTN service on Routes 2, 9 and 21, and Addendum
No. 5 (Exhibit 4), which would initiate mobilization for Route 1.
BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impacts are twofold. The budget impact of Addendum No. 4
is $4,475,416.63 for the FTN service to be provided during FY 21-22 along Routes 2, 9 and 21,
which is currently funded to run until August Change Day 2021. This covers the cost of labor,
fuel, paratransit service, vehicles, and maintenance. The budget impact of Addendum No. 5 is
$949,322 and covers the cost of recruitment, hiring and training of operators and mechanics, as
well as vehicle procurement, for the future Route 1 that will begin operation in 2022 and which
will operate on 1000 North from Redwood Road to 300 West and then along South Temple
Street to the University of Utah. These are included in the Mayor’s recommended budget, and
cost details appear in Exhibit 5.
June 9, 2021
Lisa Shaffer June 17, 2021
June 17, 2021
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The ILA is a twenty-year agreement that has the goal of full
implementation of the Frequent Transit Network as described in Salt Lake City’s Transit Master
Plan. Council adopted the Plan in 2017 with the intent that six corridors would be included in the
implementation of phase one. These corridors are 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South, 1000
North, 600 North and 400 South.
Council has since approved Addendum No. 1, along with a corresponding $2,047,473 budget
appropriation, to mobilize for service on the Routes 2 (200 South), 9 (900 South) and 21 (2100
South/2100 East), which began operations in August 2019. Addendum No. 2 and the
corresponding $4,308,021 budget, sponsored additional frequency and hours of operations on
these routes. UTA does periodic “true-ups” to determine whether actual costs came in at, above
or below projections. This yielded an amendment to Addendum No. 2, which was approved in
January 2021 and resulted in a credit to Salt Lake City in the amount of $467,540. This amount
was applied to the initial invoices for sponsored service in 2020. Addendum No. 3, along with a
corresponding $4,565,380.45 budget appropriation, also approved in January, extended service
on the 2, 9 and 21 from August 2020 to August 2021. If approved, Addendum No. 4, along with
a corresponding $4,475,416.63 budget appropriation will continue that service until August
2022, and Addendum No. 5, along with a corresponding $949,322 budget appropriation, will
prepare for the launch of Route 1 next year.
During Funding Our Future discussions, Council expressed the intent to allocate $8-12 million
annually to a comprehensive transit program with frequent service as its foundation. While that
level of funding has yet to be realized, it is anticipated that as ridership on sponsored routes
grows, resources can be reinvested in additional FTN routes. This occurred last year during the
first “true-up”, when Route 2 met UTA productivity thresholds during some of the service miles
that were previously City-sponsored. Addendum No. 4 reflects this cost decrease to the City, and
Addendum No. 5 anticipates the City’s ability to shift resources toward the launch of Route 1
(1000 North/South Temple St) in 2022, particularly since UTA anticipates launching service on
600 North in 2022, independent of City sponsorship and supported by Trips to Transit service.
Exhibit 6 summarizes the timeline related to implementation of the Transit Master Plan.
PUBLIC PROCESS: The Transit Master Plan public process was very robust and included 16
stakeholder interviews, 18 mobile events, and over 2000 unique online comments. The
Transportation Advisory Board and Bicycle Advisory Committee provided guidance on both the
Master Plan and the guiding principles for the ILA. Specific to the ILA, addenda, and
corresponding City budget appropriations, the process included City-hosted public hearings on
the ILA and prior addenda. This year’s budget process, including public hearings, will provide
for additional public comment on the transit service and mobilization line items. In addition,
UTA holds a public hearing process for each “change day”, of which there are three per year for
the purpose of making service changes. That process will occur in advance of the August 2021
change day during which continuation of service levels would be confirmed.
EXHIBITS:
1) Resolution
2) Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation
Interlocal Agreement
3) Addendum No. 4
a) Description of the 2021-22 FTN Routes
b) 2021-22 Baseline Services
c) Funding for 2021-22 Transit Service
4) Addendum No. 5
a) Description of the 2022-23 FTN Routes
b) Funding for Mobilization
5) 2021 Cost Calculator
a) 2017 National Transit Database (NTD)
b) 2018 NTD
c) 2019 NTD
d) 2017 Paratransit
e) 2018 Paratransit
f) 2019 Paratransit
g) Baseline Methodology
h) 2019 Baseline Service
i) 2020 Baseline Service
j) 2021 Baseline Service
k) Addendum 1 2019-20 Mobilization
l) Addendum 2 2019-20 Sponsored Service
m) Amendment 1 to Addendum 2, True-Up
n) Addendum 3 2020-21 Sponsored Service
o) Addendum 4 2021-22 Sponsored Service
p) Addendum 5 2022-23 Mobilization
6) Transit Timeline
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION ________ OF 2021
Authorizing approval of Addenda Nos. 4 and 5 to an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority providing for transfer of
City funds for implementation of the Transit Master Plan.
WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 13 allows public entities to enter into cooperative
agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, Salt Lake City Council authorized that the City enter
into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit
Authority providing for transfer of City funds for implementation of the Transit Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement contemplated that the parties would enter into an
annual addendum to provide funding for the frequent transit network routes and other transit
improvements; and
WHEREAS, a draft agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as
follows:
1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following:
THE FOURTH AND FIFTH ADDENDA TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF CITY FUNDS FOR THE THIRD YEAR OF
CITY-SPONSORED SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH
TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF CITY FUNDS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSIT MASTER PLAN.
2. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah or her designee is hereby authorized to
approve, execute, and deliver said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, in
substantially the same form as now before the City Council and attached hereto, subject to
such minor changes that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City
thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute
conclusive evidence of such approval.
PASSED by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
___________________________________
CHAIR
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
________________________
CITY RECORDER
Approved as to form:
__________________________
Rusty Vetter
City Attorney’s Office
Date: June 8, 2021
EXHIBIT2
C'r:1-y /r1q tk..r//t'j AJu .
00-3-19 -!J-'-f'-I
RECORDED
MAR 1 3 2019
CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
THIS TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENT A TlON INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this Ce±k_day of ,t1a--t.d, 2019, by and between UTAH
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public transit district organized under the laws of the State of
Utah ("UTA"), and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation
("City").
RECITALS
A. Utah Code § 11-13-202 provides that any two or more public agencies may enter
into an agreement with one another for joint or cooperative action; and
B. UTA and the City are public agencies as contemplated in the referenced section
of the Utah Code (more specifically referred to as Utah Code § 11-13-101, t::l st::q., known as the
"Interlocal Cooperation Act"); and
C. The City and UTA both serve the transit-riding public in Salt Lake City; and
D. UTA is responsible for the equitable distribution of transit service in the region ,
of which Salt Lake City is a major travel market; and
E. UTA currently provides transit services to , from and within Salt Lake City at
levels that reflect this equitable distribution of service; and
F. The City adopted a Transit Master Plan ("Plan") on the 5th day of December,
2017;and
G. This Plan was jointly developt::d by UTA and tht:: City and it is the Parties'
shared intent to implement the Plan over the next twenty years; and
H. The Plan recommends a suite of transit improvem e nts (the "Transit
Improvements"), including the expansion of UT A 's current service level within the City to
include higher frequencies, expanded serv ice hours, and adjustments to alignments that UTA is
ab le to provide with current financial resources; and
I. The Transit Improvements also in clude alternative transportation programs
enhancing first-mil e/last-mile connections, capita l improvements, and oth er improv ements
de sc ribed in the Plan ; and
sa l
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTA H TRA NSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
IMP LEi\d ENTA TION AG REEM ENT
Page I of 11
J. UTA and the City agree the Transit Improvements are complementary to UTA's
current transit service and enhance each Party's goal of having attractive and effective transit
service for people working, studying and living in and around Salt Lake City;
K. The City desires to fund the incremental costs associated with the addition of the
Transit Improvements for building out infrastructure on Citywsponsored routes to increase
coverage and ridership, particularly in the City's downtown core for underwserved areas,
specifically the West side and other underwserved areas of the City;
L. The City desires initially to prioritize funding the incremental costs associated
with increased frequency of routes on 1000 North, 600 North, 200 South, 900 South, 2100
South, with routes on 400 South likely being the last routes initially implemented; and
M. This Agreement is intended to form the framework of how the Transit
Improvements (including, without limitation, the currently p lanned and future potential
frequent transit network service routes in the City) will be planned and coordinated by UTA
and the City.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE AND INTENT. UTA and the City share a desire to grow and
improve the transit system in which efficiencies are reinvested. UTA and the City recognize
that the Plan's success is interdependent with the Wasatch Front Regional Council Regional
Transportation Plan ("RTP") and that local and regional investments should be complementary
to maximize the benefits of each. The coordinated planning of the Pinn und the RTP should
consider additional revenue sources that become available to fund the RTP during the term of
this Agreement. UTA and the City desire to enable people and businesses to rely on transit and
encourage permanence and stability in services. UTA and the City recognize the value of
establishing a process for decision making and a methodology for calculating the cost of Cityw
funded service enhancements. UTA and the City are implementing a plan driven by data
analysis and public engagement, and transparency and accountability should shape the
execution of the program. As such, it is the intent of the Parties to continue to work together to
suppo1t the implementation of the Transit Improvements identified in the Plan. Both Parties
have sustainability goals and agree to consider clean technologies (such as electric vehicles)
and infrastructure in the implementation of the Plan, where feasible.
sal
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTA H TRANSIT A UTHORJTY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 2 of 11
2. COOPERATION. The City and UTA shall each designate a primary
representative responsible for the implementation of this Agreement and shall each also provide
additional subject matter experts to comprise a technical working group who will aid the
primary representative. City and UTA staff will confer in good faith and regularly exchange
relevant information to report progress to their respective organizations.
3. FREQUENT TRANSIT NRTWORK ROUTES.
(a) As of the date this Agreement is executed, the term "Baseline Service" shall
mean the level of transit service that UTA provides on the UT A change day immediately
preceding the commencement of the initial City-sponsored service, "Baseline Service" will be
re-evaluated on an annual basis based on then-current UTA service design guidelines, including
propensity and productivity factors. The routes/fre quency of routes identified by the City, in
cooperation with UTA, to be sponsored by the City shall be identified as the frequent transit
network routes ("FTN Routes") and shall further depicted and described in addenda to this
Agreement. Typical addendum content is shown in Exhibit "A." UTA and the City shall
coordinate the implementation of the FTN Routes with the RTP.
(b) No service shall be funded using the City funds provided pursuant to thi s
Agreement except as described and depicted in an addendum issued in accordance with this
Agreement. For each year that money is appropriated by the City to fund the FTN Routes, the
Parties shall execute an addendum that identifies the City-sponsored FIN Routes and describes
the City's payment obligations (including the calculation of the Annual Service Mileage Cost
as described in -Section 5 of this Agreement). The Parties may, upon mutual agreement in
writing, further modify the addendum from time-to-time as necessary to implement this
Agreement.
4. UTA'S OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO FTN ROUTES.
(a) UTA shall continue to manage and operate the FTN Routes. UTA shall be
solely responsible for operations, management, ad mini stration, and service delivery functions,
including provision of vehicles, vehicle maintenance, insurance, and accounting for the FTN
Routes. Except as specifically provided herein, the City shall have no responsibility for the
operations and management of the FTN Routes. The City shall have no responsibility for, nor
autho rity or control with respect to, the supervision and management of any employees , third-
party consultants, or UTA agents of any kind.
sal
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 3 of 11
(b) UT A shall accommodate specially branded bus stop signs at all UT A s ign post
and shelter locations that are located along the FTN Routes. UTA shall cause the production
and, installation of the specially branded bus stop signs. The design and cost responsibility for
such specially branded bus stop signs shall be negotiate d and memorialized in an addendum
subsequently executed between UT A and the City.
(c) UT A's obligations with respect to the FTN Routes are subject to UTA's receipt
of the City Funding (as defined by and as provided in Section 6 of this Agreement).
(d) Nothing in this Agreement prohibits UTA from using other (non-City) funding
sources to provide services in addition to, or complementary with, the FTN Routes. As
additional revenue sources that become available to fond the RTP during the term of this
Agreement, UTA shall, in cooperation with the City and other regional stakeholders, work to
program additional funding to coordinate with and enhance the FTN Routes and other Transit
Improvements.
( e) UTA shall annually calculate an annual cost (the "Annual Service Mileage
Cost") for the FTN Routes in accordance with Section 5 below.
5. CALCULATION OF ANNUAL SERVICE MILEAGE COST. The Annual
Service Mileage Cost shall be calculated annually and memorialized in the addend um executed
by the City and UTA for the applicable period.
(a) The Annual Service Mileage Cost shall be derived from UTA's then most
recently reported total bus operating expenses (the "Total BOE Amount"), as published in the
National Transil Database ("NTD"), and as adjusted by the following methodology.
(b) The reported Total BOE Amount will first be adjusted to: (i) deduct total fuel
expenses allocated to bus operations in the NTD reporting year as identified in UT A's financial
statements for such year or as certified by UT A's Comptroller; and (ii) add the capital
maintenance expenses allocated to bus operations in the NTD reporting year as identified in
UTA's financial statements for such year or as certified by UTA's Comptroller. The resulting
amount (after applying the deduction in item (i) above and the addition in item (ii) above) shall
then be escalated at a rate equal to two and two-tenths percent (2.2%), per year, from the NTD
reporting year to the upcoming service year. The adjusted and escalated number will be known
as the "Adjusted BOE Amount."
( c) The Adjusted BOE Amount shall then be divided by the total annual bus miles
sal
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORJTY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page4 of 11
most recently reported in the NTD to determine an "Adjusted Per Mile BOE Rate."
(d) The Adjusted Per Mile BOE Rate includes administrative and overhead costs.
The Adjusted Per Mile BOE Rate shall be discounted by twenty percent (20%) to reflect the
administrative and overhead expenses that would be incurred by UTA regardless of the
sponsored service. For the purposes of this Agreement, administrative and overhead expenses
for bus operational support are listed in the table attached as Exhibit "B." Because the Parties
are estimating the administrative and overhead expenses that are attributable to the City-
sponsored service, the Parties agree to review the actual costs incurred by UTA every two
years, and adjust the administrative discount based on any actual increases or decreases directly
attributable to the City-sponsored service relative to the transit system as a whole. To facilitate
the Parties' review, UTA agrees to provide a breakdown of bus administration, bus operational
support, and administration for all modes agency-wide (and supporting information showing ,
how the cost information is calculated into the reported NTD data) every year by September 30
of the year after the service is provided, in a reporting format substantially similar to the format
attached as Exhibit "D." UTA further agrees to cooperate with the City in the review and
provide further information in a timely manner if requested by the City.
(e) After application of the administrative and overhead discount set forth in Section
5(d), the Adjusted Per Mile BOE Rate shall be multiplied by the total sponsored revenue miles
to arrive at the "Service Mileage Cost, Without Fuel or Paratransit Costs."
(1) A charge for paratransit service shall then be added. The charge for paratransit
services shall be a sum equal to a fixed percentage of the Service Mileage Cost; Without Fuel
or Paratransit Costs. The percentage factor applied to determine the paratransit service charge
shall be determined by dividing the most recently reported NTD Annual Vehicle Revenue
Service Hours for Demand Response services by the most recently reported NTD Annual
Vehicle Revenue Service Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail transportation modes.
(g) The estimated fuel costs for the total sponsored revenue miles shall then be
added to determine the "Annual 8ervice Mileage Cost."
(h) The methodology for calculating the Annual Service Mileage Cost is set forth in
Exhibit "C."
6. CITY OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO FfN ROUTES.
(a) The City shall contribute funding (the "City Funding") to UTA to support the
Sil l
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
llvf PLEMENTA110N AGREEMENT
Page 5 of 11
operation of the FTN Routes. The City Funding shall consist of: (i) a mobilization charge (as
applicable) to be set forth in the annual addendum, which mobilization charge s hall reflect one-
time costs to be incurred by UTA with respect to FTN Routes; (ii) capital lease charges for the
new buses necessary to support the FTN Routes; (iii) the Annual Service Mileage Cost; and (iv)
other costs, as may be agreed between the City and UTA. The total amount of City Funding
during any year shall not exceed the amount set forth in the applicable addendum.
(b) All City Funding is subject to the annual appropriation b y the City's legislative
body. The City shall notify UTA of the appropriated funding for each upcoming year, as soon
as such information is publicly available.
(c) The City s hall have the right to-construct new bus stops with respect to the FTN
Routes. Any bus stops constructed by the City must comply with the siting requirements and
minimum standards set forth in UTA's Bus Stop Master Plan. The City may include additional
functional and ai1istic amenities with respect to the bus stops. Howc:v er, any incremental
maintenance costs associated with additional amenities wHl be: (i) d e te rmined thro ugh
negotiation prior to the construction of the bus stops; and (ii) funded by the City pursuant to
subsequent addenda through the remaining term of this Agreement.
7. INVOICING AND PAYMENT. UTA shall submit invoices for m obilization
charges in accordance with each addendum. UTA shall submit invo ices for the monthly capital
lease charge for buses supporting the FTN routes thirty (30) days prior to the date that UTA is
required to pay such monthly lease charges. UTA s hall also submit monthly invoices to the
City for Annual Service Mileage Cost in u m o nthly amount equal to one-twelfth (1 /1 2) of the
total Annual Service Mileage Cost. Monthly charges for each component of the City Funding
may be combined on invoices, as appropriate. The City shall pay all approved invoices within
thirty (30) days of receipt. If the City does not approve an invoice, a written explanation of
disputed items will be sent within ten (10) business days of the City's receipt of the invoice.
The City agrees not to withhold approval of any invoice amounts unreasonably, and further
agrees to cooperate with UT A in good faith to resolve di sputes concerning invoices in an
expeditious manner. Undisputed amounts will be paid within thirty (3 0) days of receipt. Any
undisputed amounts which are not paid within thirty (30) days ofreceipt shall accrue interest at
a rate equal to the higher of two percent (2%) or the daily Public Treasurer's Investment Fund
interest rate.
sal
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRA NSIT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 6 of 11
..
8. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN FUEL COSTS. Fuel is included in the Annual
Service Mileage Cost. As described in Section 5, the Annual Service Mileage Cost will be
calculated by UTA, and paid by the City, based on UTA's budgeted fuel costs for the period
covered by the applicable addendum. Except as provided below, the Annual Service Mileage
Cost shall be based on budgeted, and not actual, fuel costs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Annual Service Mileage Cost shall be subject to a semi-annual "true-up" payment/credit in the
event that the average daily fuel costs for any six-month period covered by an addendum varies
from the budgeted cost by more than thirty percent (30%).
9. ADDITIONAL TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS. The City and UTA may use
this Agreement, and the addenda contemplated hereunder, to address commitments with respect
to other elements of the Transit Improvements (beyond the FTN Routes), as mutually agreed.
10. ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING. Nothing in this Agreement shall
prevent either Party from collecting contributions, fees, or other funding to help defray the cost
of the Transit Improvements. UTA shall not be a party to the assessment or collection of such
special contributions, fees, or funding and shall not receive any direct allocation of or credit for
such special fees or contributions collected by the City. The City Funding and any additional
funding provided by the City shall be used solely to supplement UTA funding of the Transit
Improvements and will not be used to supplant any funding for the Baseline Service.
11. RECORDS. UTA will maintain full and complete financial records and
detailed operations information regarding the FTN Routes and any other Transit Improvements
-funded-by the City pursuant to thi s Agreement. City shall have access to alJ financial
information regarding the FTN Routes upon request.
12. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. The Transit Improvements performance
will be monitored during the term of this Agreement based upon the metrics derived from the
goals set forth in the Plan including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Improve Air Quality.
(b) Increase Transit Riders hip.
(c) Provide a Safe and Comfortable Transit Access and Waiting Experience.
(d) Provide Access and Opportunity to Vulnerable Populations.
(e) Create Economically Vibrant, Livable Places the Support Use of Transit.
Representatives from the Parties shall meet regularly to exchange relevant information and
Sal
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSJT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 7 of 11
discuss performance related issues.
13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION, Th t.! Pnt·ti e~ will use th e Pinn as th e basis for their
go al s nnd dec isio ns. ospednll y where th en! is n lack of co nse nsus betwe en the Pn t'ti es. Whcl'e
appli cabl e, th e Pinn in clud es n,etri cs Lhnt mn y pro v id e objective. dnta-dl'iv en guid ance in
deci sion *mnkin g. Withdrawal fr om this Agree ment should be n lnst resOl't fo ll ow in g a good •
faith dTort to ward resolution nt both the prnj ect level.
14 . TERM. The term of this Agreement is intended to run con current ly with the
Plan, w hi ch has a 20-year horizon , and shall be deemed to have begun on the Effective Date
and sha ll remain in effect until June 30, 2039, unless terminated earlier by either Party. I f the
Parties decide to continu e to provide funding and service for some but not all of the Transi t
Improvements, this Agreement shal l remain in effect on ly as to t hose roules specifica ll y
funded , as provided specifica ll y in the exhibits.
15. TERMINATION. E ither Patty may terminate this Agreeme nt on twe lve (12)
months written notice to the other Patty , which enables appropriate changes in service to be
made w ith the UT A change day process.
16. STATUS OF PARTIES.
(a) Ind ependent Contractors . The Patties agree that the status of each Patty s hall be
that of a n independent contractor to the other, and it is not intended, nor shall it be construed ,
that one Party or any officer, employee, agent or contractor of s uch Party is an employee,
officer, agent, o r representative of the oth er Parly. Nothing contained in the Agreement or
documents in corporated by reference herein or othe rw ise c reates any pattnership, joint ventur e,
or other assoc iation or relationsh ip between UTA and the City. Any approval, revi ew,
inspection, direction or instruction by UTA or any party on behalf of UTA sha ll in no way
affect either Party 's independent contractor status or obli gation to perform in accordance w ith
this Agreement. Neith er Party ha s authorization, express or implied, to bind the other to any
agreements, liability, nor un derstanding except as expressly set fo1th in thi s Agreement.
(b) Insurance. As b etween the Parties, llTA sha ll be responsible for a ll appl icab le
federal and state taxes and contributions for Social Security, unemployment insurance, income
withholding tax, and other taxes measured by wages paid to employees, as well as any
subcontractor or vendor. UTA shall be solely respons ible for its own actions, its employees
a nd agents.
sal
SALT LAKE CITY CO RPORATIO N AND UTAH TRA NSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLA N
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 8 o f 11
(c) Legal Advice. As independent parties, UTA and the City shall be responsible
for each obtaining its own legal services/advice.
17. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. Each of the Parties is a governmental
entity for purposes of the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code Ann. Section 63G,
Chapter 7. Consistent with the terms of this Act, it is mutually agreed that each party is
responsible and liable for its own wrongful or negligent acts which it commits or which are
committed by its agents, officials, or employees. No party waives any defenses otherwise
available under the Governmental Immunity Act.
18. NO THIRD-PARTY R:RNEFICIARIES.The Parties expressly agree that
enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to
such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the Patties, and nothing contained in this
Agreement shall give or allow any such claim or right of action by any other or third person on
such Agreements, including but not limited to subcontractors, subconsultants, and suppliers.
The Parties expressly intend that any person other than the Parties who receives services or
benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an incidental beneficiary only.
19. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS. This
Agreement does not contain any multiple-fiscal year financial obligations by either party that
extend beyond its current fiscal year, that are not subject to annual appropriation of sufficient
funds by its governing body. Nothing herein obligates either Pa1ty to budget, authorize or
appropriate funds for any future fiscal year.
20. LEGAL AUTHORITY. The City and UTA represent and warrant to each other
that they have all necessary authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform their
obligations hereunder and that this Agreement does not conflict with any other agreement that
each Party is subject or to which it may be bound. The person signing and executing this
Agreement on behalf of either Party represents that he/she has been fully authorized to execute
this Agreement and to validly and legally bind a Party to all the terms, performances and
provisions herein set forth.
21. NO ASSIGNMENT. Except as otherwise provided in the Agreement, neither
party may assign the Agreement and/or any of its rights and obligations hereunder without the
written consent of the other Party.
22. WRITTEN AM.1!:NJJM.ENTS. This Agreement may be modified or amended
~c1I
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 9 of 1 I
only by a written document duly t:xecuted by both Parties.
23. NOTICES. Correspondence regarding this Agreement shall be sent to:
lfto UTA:
Utah Transit Authority
A ttn:
669 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
If to City:
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Transportation Division
349 South 200 East, Suite 450
P.O. Box 145502
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5502
With a copy to:
Managing Attorney
Utah Transit Authority
669 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
With a copy t o:
City Attorney's Office
451 South State Street, Rm SOSA
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
The addresses or contacts may be changed by the Parties by written notice.
24. EXHIBITS. The exhibits attached hereto and specifically incorporated h er ein
by reference are as follows.
(a) Exhibit "A" Typical Addendum Template
(b) Exhihit "B" Table of Administrative Costs for Bus Operations
(c) Exhibit "C" Methodology for Calculating Annual Service Mileage Cost
(d) Exhibit "D" Form of Annual Administrative Cost Report
25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The terms and provision s of this Agreement,
including but not limited to the Recitals above and the Exhibit(s) incorporated by reference
herein, represent the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this
Agreement, and merge, incorporate and supersede all prior communications between the City
and UTA concerning that subject. No representations or warranties are made by the City or
UT A except as set forth here in.
26. W AIYER AND BREACH. The waiver of any breach of a term hereof shall
not be construed as a waiver of any other term, or the same term upon a subsequent breach.
27. GOVERNING LAW; VENUE. Each and every term, provision, condition, of
this Agreement is subject to the provisions of Utah law. This Agreement is subject to such
modifications as may be required by changes in Utah or federal law, or their implementing
sal
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 10 of 11
regulations. Any such required modification shall automatically be incorporated into and be
part of this Agreement on the effective date of such change as if fully set forth herein. Venue
for any action arising hereunder shall be in the Salt Lake City District Courts for the State of
Utah.
28. SEVERABILITY. The Parties expressly agree that if any part, term, or
provision of this Agreement is by the courts held to he illegal or in conflict with any law of the
State of Utah, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the
rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not
contain the particular part, term, or provision held to be invalid.
29. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement shall be executed in two counterpa11s
eac;h of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all of which shall
together constitute one and the same instrument.
30. INTERLOCAL ACT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) This Agreement shall be approved by each party pursuant to § 11-13-202.5 of the
Interlocal Act;
(b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with
applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each party, pursuant to§ 11-13-202.5
of the Interlocal Act;
(c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the
keeper of records of each pa11y, pursuant to § 11-13-209 of the lnterlocal Act;
(d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible
for its own costs of a:ny action done pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such
costs.
( e) No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. To the extent
that this Agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be
administered by the UTA Board of Trustees and Salt Lake City. No real or personal prope1iy
shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result of this Agreement. To the extent that a party
acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative
undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such pa1ty shall do so in the same manner that it
deals with other property of such party.
(f) Either party may withdraw from the joint or cooperative undertaking described
sal
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT A UTHOIUTY TRAN!:J'JT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 11 of 11
in this Agreement only upon the termination of this Agreement.
(g) Voting of each Party shall be based on one vote per Party.
(h) The functions to be performed by the joint or cooperative undertaking are those
described in this Agreement.
[THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]
sal
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
Page 12 of 11
WHEREFORE, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date executed and
approved by each of the Party's governing body.
CITY:
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ,
a Utah municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lak ttorney ' ffi
B
Senior City All m y
1 Date: v] l l / 5"
ATTEST & COUNTERS IG N:
Salt Lake C ity Recorder's Office
, By «~
~it y Recorder
UTA:
APP
RECORDED
MAR 13 2019
CITY RECORDER
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a Utah
public transit district organized under the la ws
By: ---~----\------
1 ts:
13
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~~-un_s_e_l -------
Date s igned: 3 -/ -z.o 19
Exhibit A
Typical Addendum Template
ANNUAL ADDENDUM No.
To Interlocal Agreement Between Utah Transit Authority
and Salt Lake City Corporation
THIS ANNUAL ADDENDUM No._ to that certain Salt Lake City Corporation and
Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement ("[LA") is
made this __ day of ____ , 20_, by and between UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a
public transit district organized under the laws of the State of Utah ("UTA"), and Salt Lake City
Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation ("City"). UTA, and City arc hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Parties" and each may be referred to individually as "Party," all as governed by
the context in which such words are used.
RECITALS
A. On -, 2018, the Parties entered into the ILA, whereby the parties
agreed to participate jointly in planning and funding for public transportation improvements in
and around the City; and
B. The Parties desire to specifically identify certain components of the Salt Lake
City Transit Master Plan to be governed by this Addendum No._, pursuant lo the terms of the
ILA (the "Addendum No._").
NOW, THEREFORE , the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Pursuant to Section 22 of the ILA written changes may be made to the ILA upon
the mutual consent of the Parties.
2. Pursuant to Section 3 of the ILA, the City, in cooperation with UT A, identified as
the City-sponsored frequent transit network routes ("FTN Routes ") to be provided by UTA from
change day of August of20_until change day of August 20_.
3. The description of Transit Services for the Addendum No._ is set forth and
outlined on Attachment 1, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
4. The description of the Baseline Services is set forth as outlined in Attachment 2 .
5. The calculation of the cost per service mile of the City-sponsored F1N Routes
and detailed description thereof is outlined in Attachment 3.
6. This Addendum No._ may be executed in one or more counterparts, t::mch uf
which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument.
7. This Addendum is limited to the terms expressly provided herein and except as set
forth herein, the Original Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its
terms. If there is a conflict between this Addendum and the ILA, the terms of this Addendum shall
prevail and control.
8. This Addendum No. will be effective _____ , 20_
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Addendum effective the date
first set forth herein.
[Signature pages t o follow]
[Signature pages to Addendum No._ to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority
Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement]
UTAH T RANS IT AUTHORJTY
By _______________ _
Its ----------------
By _______________ _
It s ----------------
Approved as to Form
UTA Legal Counsel
3
[Signature pages to Addendum No._ to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority
Transit Mastt:r Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement]
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
By: ___________ _
Senior City Attorney
Date: ------------
ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN:
Salt Lake City Recorder's Office
By:------------
City Recorder
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
By _______________ _
Its ----------------
[Attach Salt Lake City Council Resolution Approving Addendum]
4
ATTACHMENT 1
Description of Transit Services
For This Addendum No.
5
ATTACHMENT 2
Description of Baseline Services
For This Addendum No.
6
ATTACHMENT 3
Funding for Transit Services
For This Addendum No.
7
ATTACHMENT4
Funding for Transit Services
For This Addendum No.
8
Exhibit B
Table of Administrative Cos ts for Bus Operations
Motor Bus (less FLEX) NTD Administration Cost Centers
2017
Cost Category Ops Support Admini stration
ACCOUNTING 737,110.99
APPLI CATION DEVELOPMENT !,246,608.34
ASSET MANAGEMENT 11,264.4 5
BOARD COORDINATI ON 153,595.51
CHIEF COMMUNICIATIONS OFFICER 396,216.78
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFF ICER 279,921.65
CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER 160,487.28
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER 399,621.16
CIVI L RIGHTS 204,762 .3 3
CORPORATE & BOARD SUPPORT 129,367.41
CORPORATE SUPPORT 399,282.54
CUSTOMER SERVICE 1,395,613.69
DATA QUAI LI TY & RIDERSH IP 147,378.30
FACILITIES 6,854,609.52
FARE STRATEGY & OPERATIONS 417,903.87
FED ~UNDS 8.3 1
FINANCIAL SERVICES 4 16,364.11
GENERAL COUNSEL 1,396,792.90
GENERAL MANAGER 793,591.89
HUMAN SERVICES 1,288,48 2.41
INTERNAL AUDIT 206,113.25
MAJOR INVESTEM ENT STUDIES 5,UU.Ul
MAJOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 1,490,541.69
MATERIALS 204,000.39
NETWORK SUPPOR T 1,892.080. 72
ORGAN IZATIONA L EFFECTIVENESS 817,445.48
PLANNING & PROGRAMMING 887,7 11.67
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & SA LES 295,611.85
PUBLIC HELATIONS & MARKETING 1,433,703 .71
PURCHASING & CONTRACTS 583,080.28
QUALITY ASSURANCE 64,370.02
QUALITY ASSURANCE & STATS 47,640 .82
REA L ESTATE 479,169.27
RIDESHARE/VANPOOL 9,541.73
RISK MANAGEMENT 641,489.42
RIVERSIDE PARATRANSIT OPERATIONS 95,116.71
SAFETY 1,092,196.86
SALT LAKE INTERMOOAL EXPENSES 828.28
SECURITY 3,646,238.62
STRATEGIC THINK TANK 150,365.08
SUPPLY CHA IN AOMIN 161,775.98
T ECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT 326,861 .77
TECHN OLOGY DEVELOPMENT 31,237.84
T ECHNOLOGY SUPPORT S67,448.40
TE CHNOLOGY SU PPORT FACI LITY 284,603.%
TE LECOMMUNICATIONS 257,649.57
TRAINING 485,898.48
TRANSIT COMMUNICAT ION CENTER 411,902.61
TRANS IT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT 154,744.Sl
VEH ICLE DISPOSAL 7 ,336.37
VP OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL 281 ,382.32
WAREHOUSING 1,381,380.90
WORKFORCE SYSTEMS 335,183.27
973 (grant) (44,218.95)
9075 (grant) (30,705.90)
100-15 {grant) 1,056.49
Granil Tota l 17,100,656.00 18,385,331.92
Notes: Highlighted categories are bus operationa l support costs. Base year is defined
as the year or the most c urrent NTP data
Exhibit C
Methodology for Calculating Annual Service Mileag e Cost
Http,//WP!M rn;le,J!3 QOm(
669 'Nest 200 Sou tt,
Salt Lake C ty, UT B4101
Utah Transit Authority
2017 Annual Agency Profile
~ Arna Staotistics-2010 Census
Salt Lake City-West Valley City, UT
278 Square Miles
1,021 ,243 Population
42 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs
Otha-UZAs SeNed
General Information
s.,,,,;c., cons .... plion
364 ,859,219 Annual Passenger MIies (PMT)
45,078.919 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT)
155,4 37 Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
78,690 Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
29,651 Average Sunday Uninked Trips
77 Ogden-Layton, UT, 82 Provo-Orem, UT, 0 Utah Non-UZA
So,n;ice"""' Statistics
737 Square Miles
1,683.504 Population
Sema, Suppried
38.713,261 Annual Vehicle Revenue MIies (VRM)
2,11 0,811 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH)
Vehicles Operated
1,086 Vehicles Operated In Maximum Service (VOMS)
1.387 Vehicles Av ailable for Maximum Service (VAMS)
Modal Oliaracteristics
Database Information
NTOID: 800:J1
Reporter Type: Full Reporter
Financial lnfonn atlon
Sources of O perating Funds Expended Oper1Ung funding Sources
Fare Revenues $52 ,159,202
Local Funds $0
State Funds S270,e47,394
Federal Assistance $42.~2.677
Other Funds $9,195,344
l otal Opcraung F~mcfs Upended $37◄,734,$17
13.9%1
0.0%
72.3%
1 1.4%
2.5 %
100.0%
Sources of Capital Funds Expended 12 ,,,.
Fare Revenu es SO 0.0%
Local funds S2,S-50,116 1.9 %
State Funds $75,7 10 ,373 49.7%
Federal Assistance $73,741.341 48.4%
11.4% :..2.5%
n .•"I
Other Funds $0 0.0 % Capital Fundi ng Soim;.es
Total Capit.'41 Funds Expended $152.301.830 100.0%
illoda!Ovm-riew In II-um Service Uses of Capital Funds Summary of Operating Expenses (OE) -48.◄%
1.9%
Directly Pu1<:hased Revenue Systems and
Mode Operated Transportation Vehicles Guide ways
Commuter Bus 43 so S84.027
Commuter Rall 45 $475,980 S13,278,303
Demand R.esp:>nse 65 43 $4,267,530 $923,304
Light Rail 91 $7,756,217 $6,381 ,1 60
Bus 388 6 S27 ,549, 172 $1,740,977
Vanpool 405 $1,365,433 S162,618
T""'I u,31 411 $,dl 41,SJ.J' H'1.570.l89
~ Cbar.lcleri$tics
Operating Use.s of Annual
Mode Expenses Fare Revenues Capital Funds Passenger Miles
Commuter Bus S7,749 ,445 S501,682 $235,786 12,565.005
Ccmmuter Rail $34,4 38,729 $7,212 ,605 S 15,161.569 122,257.990
De-mand Respons.e S17.851 ,347 5591.545 $6,917,367 4,230,640
Light Rail S64,680,283 S17,968,710 S15,671 .687 92,586,564
Bus $129,545,459 $21,155,730 S34,780.,152 86,462,342
Vanpool $3,469,358 $4,728,930 $1,559 ,917 46,756,678
l<"1:tl SHT'34,sn SS2.1i;~ . .?ft-! ~74.326.472 364,,8.5~.219
Facilities and
Stations Other Total
$31,594 $120,165 $,35,786
$774,663 $632,623 S15,161,569
S1.103,067 $623.466 $6,917,367
$737,892 $796.418 $15,071,687
S3.563.409 $1,926.~94 $34,780,152
$5,244 S26,622 $1,559,9 17
'f.6.215.86! S4.125.~88 $74 ,326.-478
Annual Annual Vehicle Annual Vehicle
Unlinked Trips Revenue Miles Revenue Hours·
553,595 1,017,334 41 ,678
4,854,099 5,34 9,524 154,744
396,977 2 ,727,127 162,198
18,823,578 6,732,768 358,645
19,196,260 16.437,069 1,216,770
1,264,41 0 6.449,<39 176,776
•s.o;s,919 38.713,,61 2110.81'
Salary, Wages, Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased T ransportalion
OU-er Operating Expenses
Total Ope:rat.mg Expenses
Reronciling OE Cash Expenditures
P urchased Transportation
(Repcrted Separately)
Fixed Guideway
Direction.al
Route Miles
0 .0
174,5
0.0
93.9
2.1
0 .0
270 5
Ve hicles Available
for Maximum
Service
63
6 9
142
1 14
51 1
48 8
1,387
$188,208,688
$31,966,376
$4,165,973
$33,393,584
S257,734.6Z1
$1 16 ,999,996
$0
Ve hic les Operated
in Maximum Servi ce
43
45
108
9 1
394
4 05
1,086
73,0%
12..4%
1.6%
13.0%,
100,0% ":'
Percent
Spare Vehlc l es
3' ,8%
34.8%
23.9%
2 0 .2%
22.9%
17 .0%
21.7%
-48.7"'
Average
Fleet Age In
Years•
1 2,1
15.9
3.6
10.4
8.0
5.4
f'erfonnance Measures Service Efficiency Service Effectiveness
Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses pe1 Unlinked Trips per Unlinked Trips per
Mode
Commuter 8us
Commuter Rail
Demand Response
Light Rail
Bus
Vanpool
Tot.al
O~ratlng Expense per Vehicle
Revonue Mi.le· Bus
Vehicle Revenue Mlle
$7,62
$6.44
$6,55
$9,6'
$7,88
S0.54
SH!'
Operating Expense per Passenger
Mile.:Bus
"'"'· ""'~ ~;:' I a r: • a • e • !'.:
~,}J ========================t!.e.t\ SH.~------------\(••~ R~J ~~
Ve h icle Revenue H:>ur
S18: 94
S222 55
$11 0.06
$18C.35
$10€.47
SHL63
$1'22..lO
Mode
Commuter Bus
Comm1,Jler Rall
Demand Response
Light Rall
Bus
Van pool
Toi.al
Passenger Mile
S0.62
$0.28
S4.22
$0.70
$1 .50
$0,07
$0.71
Unlinked Passenger Trip Vehicle Revenue Mile
S 14.00 0,5
$7 .09 0 ,9
$46.13 0 .1
$3.44 2 8
S6,75 1.2
S2,74 0 ,2
UJ2 1i
Vehicle Revenue Hour
13 ,3
31 ,4
2 .4
52.5
15,8
7.2
21.4
l.kllinked Passertli; er Trip per Vehicle
Revenue Mile: Bas :~I'•. I • I •
~1>1'1 . -:-:::,.. ... ------~==-
at" EXPense P9" Vet:iicle • oo ~ ~ -":.. ""''"'"·, .. I ,..... ..
• a I Ir .,,., .,., .... . . ''"
••'1111
Operat ing Expense per Passenger
Mile: Ligrl Rall
Unlinked Passenge r Trip per Vehicle
R.evenue M ile: Light Rail
~ ---
O.~ JI!! 11> n 12 IJ U t~ !I\-1t ,S ~•MHl&1~1At',t,,1 ~-,;1 lll !I If' \ I II " I~ 11
I 1-· a -.. ft "" t==========;=;~~~=;=~~=~ [)OQ ot (II ltl II 12 t.1
"'" ~ .... . .,., . " ,; ,. "
~•.,-~ L ___ -::---;::-;:~;;---;;---;;--;;--... ('(• I" .. 'M u, lt ,1 •l ,. 1, ,~ 11
Ol II.fl 10 I\ I~ I) 1• ,§: I~ 17
Notes·
-Oemand Response-Taxi (DT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report Oeet age data,
EXAMPLE AGENCY PROFILE
Source: https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit -agency-profiles
So u rces:
Utah Transit Authority
Operating Cost pe r Mile by Mode
20_ Federa l Transit Administ ration's Nati onal Transit Database (N TD ), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles
20_ Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents
Bus Service
Commuter Bus
Commuter Rail
Lig ht Rail
Pa ratra nsit Service
Other Service
NTD To tals
Fuel Costs
NTD Plus Fuel
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2017 NTD
OQerating
ExQenses b~
Mode
--.
CAFR plus $0.00 (Capital Maintenance)
Difference
Less Fue l Cos t s
(D i esel, CNG Add Cap ital
and Gasoline) Maintenance
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ -$ $
$ -$ $
20
Debt Service
$
$
-$
-$
-$
-$
$
DeQreciation
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Costs
Cost Per Vehi cle
Revenue Mile
Without Fuel
Annua l Vehicle excluding Vehicle
Revenue Miles DeQreciation
-#D IV/0 !
-/.ID IV/0!
#DIV/0!
-#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
-#DIV/0!
Bus Service
Commuter Bus
Commuter Rai l
Light Rail
Para transit Service
Other Service
SPONSORED SERVICE PARATRANSIT COST -Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan
---------
#DIV/0!
Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (Most recent NTD)
Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (Most recent NTD)
Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (Most recent NTD)
Tot a I Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT
Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (Most recent NTD)
Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours
SPONSORED SERV I CE COST CALCULATOR -SLC TMP Implementation
VARIABLE VALUES
I I
Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue M ile, Bus Service (1 )
1-. ----------1.Annual escalator rate (2)
.__ ______ ___.N umber of Year s since NTD report
I !Admini strative Discount (3)
~==============~Spo nsored Revenue Miles: 200 South, 900 South and 2100 South
..__ ______ ___. Sponsored Paratransit Service rate (3)
I I Fu el Cost per Gallon (Service Year Budgeted Cost)
===============Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon {adjust per vehicle type)
I !
Sp onsored Vehicle Lease Costs
_ Sponsored Vehicles ..__ ______ __.
(1) NTD Cost per Revenue M ile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does
include approxi mately 2% for capital maintenance (e.g . eng ine replacement, etc).
(2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the PCE CP I over a twenty year
period.
(3) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported
total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue
hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail.
SPONSORED SERVICE COST
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Most re cent NTD Co st Per M ile -Bus Service
NDT rate Adj usted t o Se rvi ce Yea r Costs
Discoun t ed NTD Adju sted to Serv ice Ye ar Cos t s
0 Sponsored Revenue Miles
Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual
Add Paratransit Service
Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel
Fuel Cost per Ga llon
0.0 Bus M iles per Gallon
0 Sponso r ed Revenue Miles
Tota l Fuel Cost
Per Vehicle Principal+ 4 % Interest Ra t e, Annua l
0 Vehicles needed for spo nso red servi ce
Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service
TOTAL
ExhibitD
Form of Annual Administrative Cost Report
2015 2016 2017 I
Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) Motor Bus (les s FLEX) I All Modes (i ncluding Flex) Motor Bus (les, FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) I
Cost Category Ops Support Administration Oos Suooort Administration ~Ort Administration OesSupport Admi ni stratio n Ops Support Administration Op~port Adm inistratLon_
ACCOUNTING 577,081.27 1,164,328.01 666,909.3·2 1,314,805.28 737,110.99 1,419,810.26
APPLICATIO N DEVELOPMENT --1,030,426.48 -2,079,004.26 1,133,030.39 -2,332,332.99 1,246,608.34 2,401,195.1 2
ASSET MANAGEMENT -11,264.4S 821,605 00
eoARD COORDI NATION 82,699.67 166,856.12 36,773 .69 171,013.50 153,595.51 295,852.98
CHIEF COMMUNICIATIO~S OFFICER 186,786.52 376,863,35 201,183.0 1 396,630.37 396,216.78 763,185.82
CHI EF FIN ANCIAL OFFICER 233,436.31 470,984.68 237,494.S3 468,2.18.17 279,921.65 535,763.18
CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER 182,461.62 368 ,137.37 103,309.l O 203,672.90 160,487.18 309,127.79
CH IE F TECHNOLOGY OFFIC ER 141,536.56 2S5,566.33 138,519.79 273,090.4 2 399,622.16 767,399.37
CIVIL RIGHTS 147,136.38 296,864.62 153,964.53 303,539.s ·g 204,762.33 394,409 .60
CORPORATE & BOARD S,UPPORT -669,348.50 1,350,487.79 477,947.25 941,968.39 528,649.95 1,018,276.26
CUSTOMER SERVICE -1,071,5 19.44 2,161,914.06 1,169,413.90 2,305~488.22 1,395,613.69 2.6~.206 6 2
DATA °'UAILITY & RIDERSHIP ~-----147,378.30 413,730.76
FACILITIES 6,064,326.54 12.235,478_22 6 ,698,321.39 13,205,675.97 6,854,609.52 13,203,228.63
FARE STRATEGY ~ OPERATIONS --357,889.94 72~,084.24 390,610.36 770,084.56 417,903.87 804,959.10
FED FUNDS 8.31
FINANCIAL SER VICES 363,784.58 733,977.34 391,850.85 772,5;0.)7 416,364.11 801,993.LS
GE NERAL COUNSEL 1,18 0,592.01 '2,381,980.54 1,271,4 54.65 2,506,660.57 1,396,792.90 2,6904477 .98
~ENERALMANAGER 1,397,4 50.51 2 ,819,517.58 1,087,954.38 2,144,891.56 793,59).89 1,528,602.77
HUMA N >ERVICES 1,049,176.56 2,116,834,72 l,149,286,11 2,265,806.48 1,288,482 .41 2,481,852.L2
INTERNAl AUD[T 152,678 .46 30ll,046.40 187,564.37 369,761.35 206,113 .25 397,011.73
MAJOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT --1,173,627.69 2,367,929.22 1,598,408.03 3,151,2.4 6.00 l..1495,761.70 1,942,151.31
MATERIALS --174,665.82 352,408.44 178,74.S.97 352,40 1.86 204,000 39 39i,94! 97
NETWOR K SUPPORT 1 ,546,281.00 3,119,800.26 1,676,98 7.06 3.10G.1e3.a1 1 ,8 9 2,080.72 3,644,492, 70
ORGANIZATIONA L EFFECTIVENESS 467,582.39 943,401.39 500,31 1.15 986,358,60 817,445.48 2,185,345.52
PLANNING & PROGRAMMING 746,397.16 1,505,942,36 649.436 .. 68 :,280,358.14 887,711.67 1,709,894.65
PRODUCT DEVELO PMENT & SALES 63),281.36 628,336.07 295,611.85 569,402.37
PUBLIC RELATIDr!S & MARKETIN G 1,419,355.89 2,863,714,.20 1,204,454.3) 2,374,570.05 1,433,703.71 2,761,574.94
PURCHASING & CONTRACTS -500,184.57 1,009,180.0S 528,276,<2 1,041,491.87 583,080.28 1,123,119,00
IRADIO CONTROL --833,131.42 1,274,034.71 911,887.54 1,363,883.37
CUALITY ASSURANCE 64,370.02 197,775.48
CUALITY ASSURANCE & STATS 47,640.82 .91 ,764,92
RfAL ESTATE 294,302.97 593,790.18 643,445.15 1,268,54 5.90 4 79,169.27 922,967.45
RIDESHME/VAN ?OOL 188,001.73 2,796,086.27 9,54 1.73 2,982,175.05
RJSK MArMGEMENT 1,334,281 ,29 2,692,066 40 1,782,278 _96 3,513,745.76 64),489.42 1,262,704.53
RIVERSIDE PARATRANSIT OPERATIONS -12,617,157,0 2 I 3,280,748.59 96,:16 .71 13,993,787.71
SAFffi 724,357 15
~ ---1,461.474 )9 970,522.13 1,913,37 5.02 1,092,196.86 2,10 3,770.43
SALT LAKE INTERMODAL EX PENSES -81,l Sl.28 81,214.43 ~28.28 98,086.37
s ,cuR1n· -3,070,18).92 ~4.446.1_!-3,14613 72.21 6,203,042.45 3,646,238.6 2 7,018,159.59
STRATEGIC TH IN(TANK 149,609.50 301,8'5 4 .42 164,105.49 323,532.38 150,365.08 269,630.58
SJPPLY CH AIN AOM IN --115,212.20 232,453.90 131,738.C4 259,7'/fJ.27 161,775.98 311,610.06
TECHNOLO GY DEPLOYMENT --148,216.61 Z99,044 10 194,037.77 382,543.60 __ 3_26,861~ 6 29,595.4 1
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT -888,9C9.92 1,793,478.28 1,052,346.28 2,0741691.71 31,237.84 59,619.78
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT 220.720.32 445,328 .70 265,26• 18 522,965.78 567,448.40 2,101,819.07
T~CflNOLOGY SUPPORT FAClllT) -42 5,164.4 5 857,818.32 --974,013.82 284,603 96 999,665.9 3
T:LECOMMU NICATIONS -481,0~6.36 9)0,647.22 -1__;067,755.90 257,649.57 1,211,818.55
T'IANSIT :OMMUNICATION CENTER -411,902.61 l ,463,666.14
nANSIT :lRIENTED DEVELOPMENT -43s,an,oG 879,432.24 142,805.7 5 281,540.lS 154,/44.51 311,306.05
!TRAININ G ~ 663,882.11 1,339,458.73 1,986,983.77 485,898.48 1,812,74 8.77
VEHICLE DISPOS;.L 7,336.37 14i'l31.00
VP OPERATIO NS AND CAPITAL -~ 281,382.32 545,579.00
WAREHOUSI NG 507 ,666.93 1,024,276.58 1,019,706.04 2,010,340.62 1,381,380.9 0 2,660,791.67
WORKfORCE SYSTEMS 466,000.16 940,209.06 702,725.91 1,385,417 35 335,183 27 675,667 63
973 (grant) {44 ,218.95)
9075 (cram ) (30,705.90)
100·15 (grant) 1,056.49
Gra nd Total 14 727 722.82 16 947 303.42 29,307,975.36 47,716130.62 15 647,610 .41 17,411,835.87 33,376,216.39 52,181,107.64 17,415,106.79 18,070,811.13 37,376,825.96 _2b!~,626.ll
t,fote,; Highlighted rnogones ,ro bus oper,Tnal s uppon cosis Fare Ops 10 be excluded when r,rcs gencra1cd ,re.rcwmcd bJ LIA Ba« i•c,r is der,ned as 1hcye,r of the moSI c1,rrcnl NT D d"1o,
2018
Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex)
Cost Category
ACCOUNTING
APPLICAT ION DEVELO
ASSET MANAGEMENT
BOARD COORDINATIO
CHIEF COMMUNICIAT
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFF
CHIEF PEOPLE OFFl~E
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY 0
CIVIL RIGHTS
CORPORATE & BOARD
CUSTOMER SERVICE
DA-A QUAIUTV & P.IO
FACILITIES
-_ Ops Support Administration ~~ Ad mi~tra~
MENT ---I
INS OFFICER
ER
FICER
iUPPORT -
~
~SHI P --
IATIONS ~-
ElOPMENT --
CTIV'E NESS
1MING
NT & SALES
IARKETING
ACTS ---
I STATS
FARE STRA-EGY & OP
FED FUNDS
FINANCIALSERVICTS
GEr.ERAL COUNSEL
GEl.,ERA L MANAGER
HU\1AN SERVI CES
INTERNAL AUDIT
MAJOR PROGRAM DE
MATERIALS
NtWORK SUPPORT
ORGANIZATIONAL EF
PLANN ING & PROGRA
PRODUCT DEVELOPM
PUBLICRHATIONS &
PURCHASltlG & CONT• I RADIO CONTROL
QUALITY ASSURANCE
QUALITY ASSURANCE
REALEST ATE
RIDESHARE/VANPOO
RISK MANAGEME'l
RIVE.ASIDE PARATRAN IT OPERATIDNS
SAFETY
SALT LAKE I NTERMO
SECURITY
1l E)(PENSES
<
~EIIT
>M ENT
r
T FACI LITY
IS
STRATEGIC THINK TA
SUPPLY CHAIN ADM I
TECH NOLCGY DEPLO
TECH.,.NOl◊GY DEVEL
TECHNOLOGY SUPPO
TECHNOLOGY SUPPO
TELECOMMUNICATIO
TR ANSIT COMMU r'1CA
TRANSIT ORIENTED D
!TRAINING
TION CENTER
VE-ilCLE D SPOSAL
VP OPERArlONS AND
WAREHOUSING
WORKFORCE SYSTEM
973 (grant!
9075 (grant)
1oa-1s (grant)
Grand Total
VELOPMENT
:APITAL
--
--
-----
-
~
-
--
--
.:i1egones .:ire ous opernf Not~• ll1fhlightcd c
--------
--
NTD Administra1
2019 2020 I
Motor Bus (less FLE X) I All Modes (including Flex) Motor Bus ( less FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) I
Ops Support Administration Ops Support Administration Ops Support Administration Ops Suppo rt . Administration
I
I
.I
J
I
7
l
J
-------------~ ----
:ion Cost Centers ----------
2021 2022 2023 I
Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Fl ex) Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Fle x) I
Cost .f!!.4_"!'£....__ .Q~ssue(!!!rt Administration Oes Suee2!!_ Administration .QJ>s Sueeort Administration O~p,.!!i:t_ ~c!_m ini.stratLo!!.__ Op s Sueeort Administration OpsSu~".1 Administration
ACCOUNTING
APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT ---------ASSET M ANAGE M ENT ------i BOARD COO RO I riA TION
CHIEF COMM UN ICIATIO'IS OFFl~ER
CHIEF FIN ANCIAL OFFICER
CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
CIVIL RIGHTS
CORPORATE & a,ARD S.UPPORT --
CUSTOMER SJRVICE --I
OATA QUAIUTY & RIDERSHIP --FACILITIES I FARE STRATEGY!. OPERATIONS ~-
FED FUNDS
FINANCIAL SERViCES
GENERAL COUNSE L
GE NERA L M ANA:iER
l-4UMAN SERVICES
INTERNAL AUDIT
MAJOR PROGR~ '1 DEV.ELOPME NT -
MATERIALS -I
NETWORK SUPPORT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
PlANNING & PROGRAMMING
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & SALES
PUBLIC RElATIONS & MARKETING
PURCHASING & CONTRACTS -I RADIO CONTROL -
QUALITY ASSURANCE
QUALiTY ASSURANCE & STATS
REA L ESTATE
RlDESHA~E/VANPOOL
RISK MANAGEMENT
RIVERSIDE PARATRANSIT OPERATIO NS
SAFETY
SALT lAKE INTERMODAL EXPENSES
J -SECURITY -I
STRATEGIC THI NK TANK
~UPPLY CHAIN AOM IN --
TECH NOLOGY DEPLOYMENT --I
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT -·TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT I TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT FACILITY .
TELECOMMUNICATION S
TRANSIT COM M~Nl ~TION CENTE!\-_ I
TRANSIT OR IENT :0 DEV EL OPMENT .
!TRAINING I -
VEHICLE JI SPOSAL
VP OPERATIONS ANO CAPITAL --\oiAREHOUSING I WORKFORCE SYSTEMS --
973 (grartl
9)75 (grant )
ll)Q.15 (grant)
Grand Total
Notes 1-HghHght~d co 1cgori es are bus op,mll
Co>t Ca tegory
ACCOUNTltiG -
2024
Motor Bus (les s FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex)
OpsSu_ll~'!_ Administratio~ps ~po~inistr~
Motor Bus (less FLE X)
Ops Support Adminis tration
APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT
ASS ET MANAGEMENT
BOARD COORDINATION
------------
CH IEF COMMUNICIATIONS Of:
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
CHIEF PEOFLE OFFICER
CHIEF TECHNOLOGV OFFICER
CIV L RIGHTS
CORPORAE& BOARD SUPPO
CUSTOMER SERVIC[
DATA QUAllTY & ~IDERSHI P
FACILITIES
FICER
n
IS FARE STRATEGY & OPE RAT ON
FEO FUNOS
f lNANCIAl SERVICES
GHIERAL COUNSEl
GEJJERAL MANAGER
HUMAN SERVICES
INTERNAL AUDIT
MAJOR PROGRAM D EVELOPM
MATERIALS
ENT
lfSS
NElWORK SUPPORT
ORGANIZATIONAL =FFECTl'o/E
PLANNING&. PROGRAM MING
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & S,
PUBLIC RELATIONS & MAR<ET
PURCHASING & CONTRACTS
I RADIO CONTROL
QUALITY ASSURANCE
QUALITY ASSURANCE & STAT
REAL ESTATE
RIDESHARE/VANPOOL
\l£S
ING
-
-
-
--
-~
--
---
RISK MANAGEMENT
RIVERSIDE PARATRANSIT OPE ~ATIDNS
SAFETY
SALT LAKE I NTERMODAL EKP: NSES --
-----
ITY -
SECURITY
STRATEGICTH INKTANK
SUPPLY CHAIN AO MIN
TECH NOLO GV DfP_OYMENT
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
TECII NOLCGY SUP?ORT
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT FhCI
T£LECOMMUNl CATIONS
(TRANSIT COMMUIJICATIO~ C
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOP
ENTER -
!TRAIN IN G
VEH ICLE DISPOSAL
VP OPERATIONS AND CAPITA
WARfHOUSI NG
WORKFOR:E SYST,MS
973 (grant;
9075 (grant)
100-15 (g,ant)
Grand Total
No tes· H1£l1l1ghleo cn1egor1es
-~ENT --
--
---
arc biis opcc;u
----------------------~
I
2025 2026 I
I All Modes (including Flex ) M otor Bus (Jess FLEX ) I All Modes (including Flex) I
. Ops Suppo rt Administration Ops Support Administration Ops Suppo rt Administration
----l
J
I
I
J
J
j
I
I
l
------~--~~ ~---
EXHIBIT3
ADDENDUM NO. 4
TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UT AH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
TRANSIT MASTER PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
(2021-22 FTN Routes)
This Addendum No. 4 ("Addendum") to that certain Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah
Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement ("ILA") is made this
__ day of_~ 2021, by and between Utah Transit Authority, a public transit district organized
under the laws of the State of Utah ("UT A"), and Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal
corporation ("City"). UTA and City are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Parties" and each
may be referred to individually as "Party," all as governed by the context in which such words are
used.
RECITALS
A. On the 6th day of March, 2019, the Parties entered into the ILA, whereby the parties
agreed to participate jointly in planning and funding for public transportation improvements in and
around the City; and
B. Pursuant to the terms of the ILA, the Parties desire to specifically identify certain
components of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan to be governed by this Addendum.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Pursuant to Section 3 of the ILA, the City, in cooperation with UT A, identified as
the City-sponsored frequent transit network routes for the 2021-22 ("FTN Routes") to be provided
by UTA for a one-year period from the August 2021 change day until the next succeeding August
change day.
2. The description of those 2021-22 FTN Routes is set forth in Attachment 1.
3. The description of the 2021-22 Baseline Services is set forth in Attachment 2.
4. The calculation of the Annual Service Mile Charge for the City-sponsored 2021-
22 FTN Routes is set forth in in Attachment 3.
5. The final routing and implementation of the FTN Routes shall be determined in
accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and policies regarding transit service planning
(including, without limitation, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act) and operational considerations
shall be addressed in consultation with the City.
6. Invoicing for implementation of the FTN Routes will be according to Section 7 of
the ILA.
7. This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument.
8. This Addendum is limited to the terms expressly provided herein and except as set
forth herein, the ILA shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there
is a conflict between this Addendum and the ILA, the terms of this Addendum shall prevail and
control.
9. Any capitalized terms that are not specifically defined in this Addendum shall have
1
the meanings set forth in the ILA.
10. This Addendum will become effective upon Salt Lake City Council's adoption of
a resolution authorizing the Mayor or her designee to enter into this Addendum; and appropriation
of funding to meet the City's financial obligations under this Addendum (the "Effective Date").
[THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE JS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Addendum as of the Effective
Date.
[Signature pages to Addendum No. 4 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority
Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement]
UT AH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
By _______________ _
Its ----------------
By _____________ _
Its ----------------
Approved as to Form
UT A Legal Counsel
3
[Signature pages to Addendum No. 4 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority
Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement]
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
By _______________ _
Its ----------------
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
By: ___________ _
Senior City Attorney
Date: -----------
ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN:
Salt Lake City Recorder's Office
By: ___________ _
City Recorder
[ Attach Salt Lake City Council Resolution Approving Addendum]
4
ATTACHMENT A
Description of the 2021-22 FTN Routes
For This Addendum No. 4
5
ATTACHMENT B
2021-22 Baseline Services
For This Addendum No. 4
6
ATTACHMENT C
Funding for 2021-22 Transit Service
For This Addendum No. 4
7
N
A Phase I SLCTMP Implementation
LEGEND
Already Implemented
-2
1000NORTH
Future North
Temple/ Redwood
600NORTH
Mobility Hub -NORTH TEMPLE
Location TBD
POPLAR GROVE BLVD
Cl
"~ ~ ~ a::
Cl V)
0 Q ~ §
fa <(
a:: <= I 1--~ ~
0
0
"'
-
1--
~
0
0
CY)
1--~
0
0
CY)
400SOUTH ....,
~ "' ~ 0
0
1--s;;! 1--~ v,
-i =!:
V,
i!
;;j
V,
:.I
:::i --i
SOUTH TEMPLE
200SOUTH
UNIVERSITY BLVD
900SOUTH
-9
-21
To Be Implemented
-1
Unfunded
-4
Future
University of Utah
Mobility Hub
C,
§;;
I
)>
<:
-------------------· i
7300SOUTH
c:l '° 0
0 0
~ ~
V, V,
--i --i
2100SOUTH
0
w
0
0
~
V,
--i
0.5
-<
1
Miles
2
~
<(
~
~ :::,
(/)
w > ~ :::, u w
X w
z
<(
..I
D.
c,: w
Iii
<(
:I: ..
iii z g
~ u
!:!
<(
..I
!::; ;,;
"j
SALT LAKE CITY'S
Frequent Transit
Network
The Transit Master Plan provides a vision for
an expanded Frequent Transit Network (FTN);
it is a long-term, 20-year vision that identifies
the corridors where high-frequency service
should be provided in Salt Lake City. Building
off the existing grid network, the FTN is a
set of designated transit corridors that offers
frequent and reliable service connecting major
destinations and neighborhood centers seven
days a week throughout the day and evening.
The lines on the FTN map (following page) do
not represent individual routes, but are corridors
where frequent service would be provided
by a combination of bus or rail technologies.
Defining an FTN vision allows Salt Lake City to
work closely with Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
to set priorities for service provision now and
in the future.
Why a Grid Network?
Salt Lake City's existing, centralized hub model
is effective for regional connections but is
inefficient for some local trips. Currently, many of
UTA's routes terminate at Central Station, which
provides good connectivity to commuter rail
service, but creates challenges for people who
need to travel to other destinations throughout
the city, necessitating multiple transfers and/or
indirect trips. The FTN builds on Salt Lake City's
strong street network grid.
FTN Frequency and Span
Frequency
■15 minutes
(or better)
■30 minutes
Monday • Friday
Saturday
Sunday
4 6 8 W U 2 4 6 8 W U
AM PM AM
Hours of Service
Radial vs. Grid Network
Radial
(Hub and Spoke)
I --~-............... ---.................... -
Grid
1000 N
~
w
0
0 .....
w
0
0
O'I
w
0
0
M ....
Legend
0
-Funded
Unfunded
UTA Rail
0.5 1 Mile
8
Draft for Spring 2021 Approval Addendum 4: 2021 Baseline Service Please refer to the UTA Five-Year Service Plan adopted on 2/24/2021 for UTA's baseline service. www.rideuta.com/serviceplan Summary: • The Five-Year Service Plan includes FTN level service on Route 2 on weekdays as part of UTA's baseline service level. • UTA made improvements to the span of service on Routes 2, 9, and 21 in August 2020, which are now included in the baseline at not additional cost to SLC. • While Route 21 also meets UTA's Service Design Guidlines on Weekdays, it was not inclued in UTA's baseline service in the current Five-Vear Service Plan due to other needs taking priority. Annual August 2020 2021 Baseline Miles Total Miles Miles 2 213,344 173,704 9 476,251 120,704 21 374,658 278,290 Total 1,064,254 572,697 Annual August 2020 2021 Hours Total Hours Baseline Hours 2 24,712.33 18,271.60 9 45,458.27 2,042.00 21 34,891.40 25,192.87 Total 105,062.00 45,506.47 2021 Sponsored Miles 39,641 355,547 96,369 491,557 2021 Sponsored Hours 6,440.73 43,416.27 9,698.53 59,555.53 Route 2 9 21 LEGEND People-Based TPI WKD Pass/Hr SAT Pass/Hr exceeds standards (under served) meets standards partially meets standards does not meet standards (over served) SUN Pass/Hr
htto· 1/wy(,N rideuta com/ 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Utah Transit Authority 2019 Annual Agency Profile Executive Director: Ms. Carolyn Gonot (801) 262-5626 Urbanized Area Statistics• 2010 Census Salt Lake City-West Valley City, UT 278 Square Miles 1,021,243 Population 42 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs Other UZAs Served 77 Ogden-Layton, UT, 82 Provo-Orem, UT, O Utah Non-UZA Service Area Statistics 737 Square Miles 1,883,504 Population General Information Service Consumption 355,283,691 Annual Passenger Miles (PMT) 44,578,161 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) 152,903 Average Weekday Unlinked Trips 77,094 Average Saturday Unlinked Trips 29,486 Average Sunday Unlinked Trips Service Supplied 39,461,217 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) 2,236,481 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) 1, 141 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service {VOMS) 1,475 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service (VAMS) Modal Characteristics Database Information NTDID: 80001 Reporter Type: Full Reporter Financial Information Sources of Operating Funds Expended Fares and Directly Generated $63,441,106 Local Funds $265,436,369 State Funds $0 Federal Assistance $69,746,231 Total Operating Funds Expended $398,623,706 Sources of Capital Funds Expended Fares and Directly Generated $0 Local Funds $33,768,058 State Funds $7,286,829 Federal Assistance $16,395,069 15.9%■ 66.6%■ 0.0% 17.5% 100.0% 0.0% 58.8%■ 12.7%-28.5% Total Capital Funds Expended $57,449,956 100.0% Operating Funding Sources 17.5% II.I% Capital Funding Sources 21.5% Modal Overview Mode Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Uses of CaE!ilal Funds Summary of Operating Expenses (OE) Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Total Operation Characteristics Mode Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Total Performance Measures Mode Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Total Directly Purchased Revenue Systems and Operated Transportation Vehicles Guideways 41 $0 $0 50 $0 $6,668,392 64 46 $142,702 $50,668 89 $0 $18,486,994 416 5 $11,494,983 $8,750,091 430 $3,118,109 $47,753 1,090 51 $14,755,794 $34,003,898 Operating Uses of Annual Expenses Fare Revenues Capital Funds Passenger Miles $8,448,535 $522,214 $0 12,128,093 $44,291,302 $7,084,619 $8,932,406 133,685,517 $20,257,462 $349,801 $285,378 4,423,804 $71,152,658 $17,630,129 $19,630,942 83,098,538 $150,988,092 $18,988,821 $25,424,825 84,921,158 $15,911,105 $3,927,899 $3,176,407 37,026,581 $311,049,152 $48,503,483 $57,449,956 355,283,691 Service Efficiency Operating Expanses par Vehicle Revenue Mile $9.34 $620 $7.03 $10.83 $8.75 $2.47 $7.88 Operating Expanses par Vehicle Revenue Hour $239.23 $265.75 $111.46 $194.60 $116.93 $81.22 $139.08 Facilities and Stations $0 $2,237,066 $92,006 $1,077,775 $5,138,773 $0 $8,545,620 Annual Unlinked Trips 549,661 5,193,879 388,285 17,128,008 20,249,984 1,068,364 44,578,161 Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Operating Expanse par Passenger Mila: Mile: Bus Bus Unlnked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus $10.00 ,;=~;;;;;;;;;:;:~.::;;::;.;;;;;..:: $2,60 $8JIO I I I •• ..,... $2.00 ,-----<~.._-----~-~ $UICI : ........ ._ -$1.10 . I~ ~ $4JI0'-------------'1.00 .... ::'-------------=:c--=--------•ooE ,.. ... ,.oo .... .... Other $0 $26,948 $0 $66,173 $40,978 $10,545 $144,644 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 904,101 5,401,987 2,881,355 6,569,208 17,252,754 6,451,812 39,461,217 Mode Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Total Total Labor $214,935,053 69.1% $0 Materials and Supplies $57,731,526 18.6% $8,932,406 Purchased Transportation $4,681,383 1.5% $285,376 Other Operating Expenses $33,701,190 10.8% $19,630,942 Total Operating Expenses $311,049,152 100.0% $25,424,825 Reconciling OE Cash Expenditures $87,574,554 $3,176,407 Purchased Transportation $57,449,956 (Reported Separately) $0 Fixed Guideway Vehicles Available Annual Vehicle Directional for Maximum Vehicles Operated in Revenue Hours Route Miles Service Maximum Service 35,315 0.0 45 41 166,668 174.5 69 50 181,749 0.0 165 110 365,639 93.9 117 89 1,291,215 9.4 535 421 195,895 0.0 544 430 2,236,481 277.8 1,475 1,141 Service Effectiveness Operating Expanses par Passenger Mile $0.70 $0.33 $4.58 $0.86 $1.78 $0.43 $0.88 Operating Expanses par Unlinked Passenger Trip $15.37 $8.53 $52.17 $4.15 $7.46 $14.89 $6.98 Unlinked Trips par Vehicle Revenue Mile 0.6 1.0 0.1 2.6 1.2 0.2 1.1 Percent Average Fleet Spare Vehicles Age in Years• 8.9% 14.4 27.5% 17.5 33.3% 4.1 23.9% 12.3 21.3% 6.7 21.0% 5.6 22.&o/. Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour 15.6 31.2 2.1 46.8 15.7 5.5 19.9 Operating Expense per Ve hide Revenue Mile: Light Rail Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Light Rail Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Light Rail $16.00 I $1.00 ,--------~-... -----LOO µ1-------------$::: r.-..... _____ •~-■--r-"-• __ •_-__ ~~ >-•--•----•--~------~~ ~ e e I I I e $0JIO L. -------------$0.00 .~------------<OO L. -------------10 11 12 13 U 11 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,. 17 18 ,, 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,. 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,. 17 18 19 ~ •Demand Response -Taxi (OT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report fleet age data.
Sources: Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost per Mile by Mode 2019 Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 2019 Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/ About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents 2019 NTD 012erating Ex12enses b~ Mode Bus Service $ 150,988,092 Commuter Bus $ 8,448,535 Commuter Rail $ 44,291,302 Light Rail $ 71,152,656 Paratransit Service $ 20,257,462 Other Service NTDTotals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ 15,911,105 $ 311,049,152 Less Fuel Costs {Diesel, CNG and Gasoline) $ (8,534,028) $ $ (507,673) $ (5,613,091) $ $ $ (961,710) $ $ (905,831) $ $ (16,522,333) $ CAFR less revenue amortization (Capital Maintenance) Difference 2018 COST PER MILE De12reciation 25,412,263 57,000,066 57,000,066 4,171,785 2,527,944 146,112,123 Total Costs $ 167,866,327 $ 7,940,862 $ 95,678,277 $ 128,152,722 $ 23,467,537 $ 17,533,218 $ 440,638,942 $ 16,522,333 $ 457,161,275 $ 457,161,275 $ Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 17,252,754 904,101 5,401,987 6,569,208 2,881,355 6,451,812 39,461,217 Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Without Fuel excluding Vehicle De12reciation $ 8.26 Bus Service --$ 8.78 Commuter Bus $ 7.16 Commuter Rail $ 10.83 Light Rail $ 6.70 Paratransit Service $ 2.33 Other Service $ 7.46
DRAFT for Spring 2020 Approval Addendum 4: Paratransit Costs 2020-2021 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South 35,315 Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 365,639 Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 1,291,215 Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) ---------1,692,169 Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT 181,749 Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 11% Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and Light Rail
May 2021 Approval Addendum4 2021-2022 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South VARIABLE VALUES $ 8.26 2.2% 2 Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue Mile, Bus Service (1) Annual escalator rate (2) Number of Years since NTD report I 20%1Administrative Discount off the 35% built into NTD (3) 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles: 200 S weekends, 900 S, and 2100 S I 11%ISponsored Paratransit Service rate (4) I $ 2.251 Fuel Cost per Gallon (Service Year Budgeted Cost) 5 Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon (adjust per vehicle type) I $ 493,061 I Annual Sponsored Vehicle Lease Costs 10 Sponsored Vehicles .__ ______ _. (1) NTD Cost per Revenue Mile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approximately 2% for capital maintenance (e.g. engine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the PCE CPI over a twenty year period. (3) UTA will discount the administrative charges in proportion to the scale of the service increase in revenue miles. (4) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8.26 Most recent NTD Cost Per Mile -Bus Service 8.62 NDT rate Adjusted to Service Year Costs 6.90 Discounted NTD Adjusted to Service Year Costs 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 3,389,849.87 Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual 371,304.87 Add Paratransit Service 3,761,154.74 Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel 2.25 Fuel Cost per Gallon 5.0 Bus Miles per Gallon 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 221,200.49 Total Fuel Cost 49,306.14 Per Vehicle Principal+ Interest Rate 10 Vehicles needed for sponsored service 493,061.40 Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service 4,475,416.63 TOTAL
ADDENDUM NO. 5
TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UT AH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
TRANSIT MASTER PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
(Mobilization Funding for 1000 North)
This Addendum No. 5 ("Addendum") to that certain Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah
Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement ("ILA") is made this
__ day of June, 2021, by and between Utah Transit Authority, a public transit district organized
under the laws of the State of Utah ("UT A"), and Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal
corporation ("City") is made and entered into as of the date the Addendum is stamped by the Salt
Lake City Recorder's Office ("Effective Date"). UTA and City are hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Parties" and each may be referred to individually as "Party," all as governed by the
context in which such words are used.
RECITALS
A. On the fX th day of June, 2021, the Parties entered into the ILA, whereby the parties
agreed to participate jointly in planning and funding for public transportation improvements in and
around the City; and
B. Pursuant to the terms of the ILA, the Parties desire to specifically identify certain
components of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan public transportation improvements to be
governed by this Addendum.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. As contemplated in Section 3 of the ILA, the City, in cooperation with UTA, has
identified and funded a total of four corridors for City-sponsored frequent transit network routes
("FTN Routes") to be provided by UT A for a one-year period from the August 2021 change day
until the next succeeding August change day. The corridors are depicted in Attachment A to this
Addendum. hree of the corridors began service in August of 2019, and are subject to other
addenda. These are 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South. One additional corridor, 1000 North,
is proP.osed for mobilization in January of 2022, and is the subject of this Addendum. The service
characteristics of the FTN Routes, the additional vehicles necessary to support the FTN Routes,
and the Annual Service Mile Charge (as such term is defined in the ILA) applicable to the FTN
Routes shall all be memorialized pursuant to an additional addendum to be subsequently executed
by the parties.
2. The term of this Agreement is from the Effective Date until August _, 2022
("Term").
3. Pursuant to Section 6 of the ILA, UTA has identified a mobilization charge
reflecting the costs to be incurred by UTA to prepare for the sponsored FTN Routes (the
"Mobilization Funding"). The Mobilization Funding shall be utilized solely for implementation of
the FTN Routes according to the itemized description in Attachment B to this Addendum.
4. UTA shall submit invoices for the Mobilization Funding in accordance with the
milestone payment schedule included as Attachment B. To the extent that the hiring of additional
headcount contemplated in Attachment B does not match the proposed schedule identified in
Attachment B, then UT A shall adjust the invoices for milestone payments to reflect hiring of
1
additional headcount during the Tenn; provided, however, that any adjustment of amounts
invoiced shall not exceed $x during the Tenn of this Agreement. The City shall pay all approved
invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. If the City does not approve an invoice, a written
explanation of disputed items will be sent within ten (10) business days of the City's receipt of the
mv01ce.
5. This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
be an original , with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument.
6. This Addendum is limited to the terms expressly provided herein and except as set
forth herein, the ILA shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there
is a conflict between this Addendum and the ILA, the terms of this Addendum shall prevail and
control.
[THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Addendum effective the date
first set forth herein.
[Signature pages to Addendum No. 4 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority
Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement]
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
By _______________ _
Executive Director
By _____________ _
Chief Planning and Engagement Officer
Approved as to Form
UTA Legal Counsel
3
[Signature pages to Addendum No. 4 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority
Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement]
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
By _______________ _
Its ----------------
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
By: ___________ _
Senior City Attorney
Date: -----------
ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN:
Salt Lake City Recorder's Office
By: ___________ _
City Recorder
[Attach Salt Lake City Council Resolution Approving Addendum]
4
ATTACHMENT A
Description of FTN Routes
For This Addendum No. 5
5
ATTACHMENT B
Funding for Mobilization
For This Addendum No. 5
6
N
A Phase I SLCTMP Implementation
LEGEND
Already Implemented
-2
1000NORTH
Future North
Temple/ Redwood
600NORTH
Mobility Hub -NORTH TEMPLE
Location TBD
POPLAR GROVE BLVD
Cl
"~ ~ ~ a::
Cl V)
0 Q ~ §
fa <(
a:: <= I 1--~ ~
0
0
"'
-
1--
~
0
0
CY)
1--~
0
0
CY)
400SOUTH ....,
~ "' ~ 0
0
1--s;;! 1--~ v,
-i =!:
V,
i!
;;j
V,
:.I
:::i --i
SOUTH TEMPLE
200SOUTH
UNIVERSITY BLVD
900SOUTH
-9
-21
To Be Implemented
-1
Unfunded
-4
Future
University of Utah
Mobility Hub
C,
§;;
I
)>
<:
-------------------· i
7300SOUTH
c:l '° 0
0 0
~ ~
V, V,
--i --i
2100SOUTH
0
w
0
0
~
V,
--i
0.5
-<
1
Miles
2
Addendum 5 1000 North Mobilization (122,274 miles, 22,918 hours) Monthly Cost Mobilization FTE/Unit Position/Item per FTE/unit January February March April May June July Total 2 Mechanics $ 7,192 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 100,688 1 Fixed Supervisors $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 52,500 1 TCC Dispatch $ 5,234 $ -$ -$ -$ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 20,936 0 Para Supervisors $ 7,200 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -15 Operator Recruitment one time $ 3,000 $ 2,400 $ 1,800 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ -$ 9,000 15 Operator Training one time $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 275,500 15 Operator Service $ 5,964 $ 14,910 $ 47,712 $ 59,640 $ 89,460 $ 89,460 $ 301,182 4 Vehicle Procurement $ 3,912 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,648 $ 15,648 $ 31,296 Sub Total $ 24,884 $ 70,201 $ 84,511 $ 121,347 $133,275 $178,743 $178,143 $ 791,102 20% Administration $ 4,977 $ 14,040 $ 16,902 $ 24,269 $ 26,655 $ 35,749 $ 35,629 $ 158,220 TOTAL $ 29,861 $ 84,241 $101,413 $ 145,616 $159,930 $214,491 $213,771 $ 949,322 Mobilization Milestone Invoices Month Expense* Admin Total 1/1/2022 $ 24,884 $ 4,977 $ 29,861 2/1/2022 $ 70,201 $ 14,040 $ 84,241 3/1/2022 $ 84,511 $ 16,902 $ 101,413 4/1/2022 $ 121,347 $ 24,269 $ 145,616 5/1/2022 $ 133,275 $ 26,655 $ 159,930 6/1/2022 $ 178,743 $ 35,749 $ 214,491 7/1/2022 $ 178,143 $ 35,629 $ 213,771 Subtotal $ 791,102 $158,220 $ 949,322 * Expense costs represent a not-to-exceed amount, invoices will be based on actual FTE hires.
Sources: Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost per Mile by Mode 2017 Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 2017 Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents 2017 NTD Operating Expenses by Mode Bus Service $ 129,545,466 Commuter Bus $ 7,749,445 Commuter Rail $ 34,438,729 Light Rail $ 64,680,283 Paratransit Service $ 17,851,347 Other Service NTD Totals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ 3,469,358 $ 257,734,628 Less Fuel Costs {Diesel, CNG and Gasoline} $ {6,613,860) $ $ (4,740,099) $ $ $ {682,671) $ $ (751,355) $ $ {12,787,985) $ CAFR plus $20,602,• (capital maintenance) Difference Add Capital Maintenance 2,373,470 3,033,791 $ 12,963,472 $ 1,564,585 667,112 20,602,430 $ 2017 COST PER MILE Debt Service Depreciation $ 20,842,359 44,095,481 $ 51,793,725 44,095,481 $ 67,516,834 $ 5,678,317 $ 3,609,652 88,190,962 $ 149,440,887 Total Costs $ 146,147,435 $ 7,749,445 $ 128,621,627 $ 189,256,070 $ 24,411,578 $ 6,994,767 $ 503,180,922 $ 12,787,985 $ 515,968,907 $ 515,968,907 $ Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Without Fuel Annual Vehicle excluding Vehicle Revenue Miles Depreciation 16,437,069 $ 7.62 Bus Service 1,017,334 $ 7.62 Commuter Bus 5,349,524 $ 14.36 Commuter Rail 6,732,768 $ 18.08 Light Rail 2,727,127 $ 6.87 Paratransit Service 6,449,439 $ 0.52 Other Service 38,713,261 $ 9.14
l·tfn ... 0(·J~AM,• t df:·C:: t' ]d
tJ ~•-:. v'Ja-iit 2Cl03omt,
·~olt Lt .ce ct~. UT i!<:'IUI
Utah Transit Au1lhority
201·1'Annual Ag~ncy Profile·
Urbanized Area 51:i,;is!ICS"-:pfo census
$sit ..,-J~~ Cil:~-West)/i:ll=lV ety,U-
278 S quar•Mlln
l ,02'.243 !'l)puluUoo
General Information
S""'1ce Consu1T4Jtlon
3&4,859,218 Annual P u sen911tr ,.H (PMT)
~5 018 9 ~8 Annual UnHnhd Trip• (~T)
42 P op. Rank CIIJtOf 498 i..iz.-.s
Other UZAs Se,ved
;; CJden..L~IOn,t.r. l2 ">i:OVD-O=lil, J1 , 6uta~k6/\-IJ!A
155 437 Av1r1ge Wu k:day Unlink eel Tripi
78,iaJ: Avarqe·Saturday U"linlc e4 -Trfps
29 651 Avuage Sunday Unthk•d Tri pt
Sentce Area statistic•
7'37 S·quare Mll n
l .89.S,SQd. P opulation
Stll'Vlte Supplied
38 7 13 231 Annual V•hic l11ReY l!flue."M IH IVRM'
2 110,a 1t Annual Vahicl11ReYeiluotHours fVRH)
1.000 V.t!JcluOpented in M~ic imum Serv fi:e ~OMS)
t ,337 Vehlclu lwa,11 ,bl ■ r~r ~xl111 u m S ■rvice fl~MS}1
Modal Charaa:eristlcs
V'8hlcles Openled
Datsbue lntarm~Qn
NTCID, so,jo I
R•pcr1tr1~>•: 'FUl Re~-:irt=l'
Financial Information
Sources or OperatinR Funds. E>:~ended ---_-o-,-.,.-~-•-g_f _u_nd-fr"t,g Sc,urces
Fare.N',e,,.,enues $5<,l:5~.~IY,2 13S%
wocal F Urteli $0 0 O'¼
SlateFun<Js $27 l",t'~;'.,'94 723%
Fe.Gera.l As$st·ance: ~'.l:.t~l.l:71 11 4%
-Otne.'Fun11S: if ,1i:;i,::-04 25%
if:111 Ope~ting Fund, Expend•d $.l)'.,734,Gtt 100 f),t.
Sources ot Capital Funds Expended
Fare. Re.-@nue!S $0
!.OC'al Minds i :::,CtJ,t Iii
State FUl'tds $1 t ., u.~ 13
Feoeral A.s:SstallCe $1:: 7 ,1· .::.;~
Olk F\lll<ls 10
Total C;apl\al Funcb El:pencl,w .c,52,:,01 .sso
D ill<,
I -91< ,s 1%
484~
00¼
IO0 0J.
11 ,4¼ ;i,_lj._
•13.!Ji..
72.ft
Cnlt1t Funding ~).16('.it
Modal Ovetvlew _1,1-Maxl~ Setylce _ ~ ------___ u"!!'i ,r_C~I FJmd•,_ ____ ----SUmmaryofOper,.ting E,q,81'l$QS (OEf "·"~
, ...
Mod_,
c J iJ'ilOler &Js
'C:i1nru1e.rFi1nl
r. =! n 1nd Resporse
I irt-t RaA
□us
\,~;i nrool
Tot.I.I
OJ>eralton Ch111ct"'1otlcs
Mode
C J ·f ffiiUerBJ~
(':',"l"lTfUter fii:1
L'_•~1~nd ReSp.ot'IS!'
Lit;t"t Ra~
Rur.
\'An:-Ool
1 ... 1
Performance Me.asires
~dt
C..1·(1T111te:r8..l:i
CYnnurerRatl
r.=! n 1r,a Re$po~
LV t Ra!
Ru~.
\':J11!;J}(!I
lt,ta/
Dirtcdy Purchuld RtY•nu• S'yswrns and Fi.clllt)!-5 and
Operattd Tta nspcrtuton V•hlcltl Guld ■w:,1s $'1alians
43 i n ssa10 ~~ $~ 1 04
$13,278,3 (: $7R EJj 45
35
91
388
40,
1-m
Op·o!:rlting
Ex:-p ulsH
~· '.i49,445
C~ 4,<SS,729
~-1 i ,8t.i ).3l7
GE4,600,21/J
£1:--,:::_:11s,.;se-
~~.:=.--ria.3.se
1267.131~21
43
Fin Ra \l■nu ■s
S501,B!t!
$7'.li25!ii
S591 545
S 17 968 71C
si1 155 730
S 4 '28.933
"~-15t.202
$<:75)ljll
14,267.SSO
$1.158.2"1
Sll.~2.1?2
1-1.365-.433
~1"H-332
Utts of
Capita l Furtds
$2:35,7~6
S>S,181,56&
$6.917.3$7
s ~::ien ,en
-S:l4,780,l!.1
$1,55li.9'l
$14..3t6.419
$923.3.f,•l -$1 ,l fl ;'=f:~I ;;'
S6'.J8t ,l f-f-m 1,r~1:,
$1 740.9 71 $3,f:6 [!1)~
$f 61J,1.F f.f. ✓-1-1
:2 570~~ 16.216,.!lff9
Annu:111 Af'lnUAI
Pus11ng.,-&.1 es llnlll"lk" ~rlpt
12585,0lt f~•!..: t.Jb
121257.llff .Q}=Stir:l-=I
~ 2J0,64L :2.IH:!.:/t nsae.;,4 1 u.e2: :57 )
e6482,9d' 18 ;Htf ,'::='il
46"75ft,67F 1:~ti:1-r 1
Z&,,I ~crQ.2tS 44,,0,ei,11t
_S8f\'ice Efflclet1c_l(
Opera.ting ::a;·p•rtus P.•r
V4hlcl• R11wnut hllt
$/ ll2
$6.44
S M6 n ~,
$7 36
$0,54
16.8!1
Optn,t)11g E)(p•ns-, p e,-
Vehl~I• Revenue Ho ur
$185 f cl
$222 ,·,
$f!Q rr
$)SO.:,
$10ti ~P
$1!1 t~
•12:..10
Ol'ltr
:t 1~0 i65
tE:.2 1i73
$C,S,l68
t'rn lul
•t· .S~G $0.4
,~::ri m
l<!.1~~-
•■..""1..al Vl!h Clt
R.evienue M In ·
',L·1'1 ,84
s::i1 !'l ,'"2'"
'1,('.:: 1 t27
6,7 '.2-'68
·r.:·l::"':'.s9
n;-H~-l31, ,-,,1; ;ie·
Metde
::\n·1(11'.:· 3 p:
~Crr.-tUt9' ~~i
-JFl"\S nr. RF~r~n s-1:
_;;ihtRa
~IJO:
Y\n :i uul
TAUi
Total
·~23C ,<.E~
·flt:,61 ,:;;·i::;
t.r,fll7 }T 1
:"t1f:,Ri'l ,r-n
J::J--1 ,70(, I:;;:,.
$ l,:i1•,:::,r,1 ;
$],i,,321!1 ... 78
~".nu:.tl V~llii::I•
Rev enue Houn
41,t ':!:
. ~!I,' !I~
'::'.::,1!.:~ J,C,,4 ,
1.,?lf7'i
'7f,7'l1,
2 .110.~1 ,
'Sa1ary. Wig~s; Beoeli:tS
Matenais ~nd SUpphes
r urct"las:ed Transpart-ation
:-:ttier Opetab"'=I EJIPertses-
Tot.il o ,.nthg Er;an,~
Rtc:J'l:::-lir90E Ca.sh &:t1ei,d«uru .
.$l &l .~L~.t-88
$;l l ,[Ci,:::16
£4 .U:5.0 J
.~:=,:=v:i,r.94
i~7.7U.6:Z1
$U E,SS~.[9&
Pwchsed Transportation
("t{)Of!f!O Sepaf3t!ly) $0
Fh:.ed Guhleway
□1Nctl6 nal
R,ut• MIIH ·
n.o
174,5
0 .0
23,2
2.1
o.n
27f) &
Ve hltles Awa!l:a,ble
rar MulntiL1 n1 \il~l11el,u o~~~d.tlia
S ■rvl et In Mulm1.1n1 StrVlc•
::LI i,2,
R!'I 4,5.
142 1~
I I< ii
5 · . ,!!<
4 M
J.)87
-1[)5
1,0L-4:
i30l>
12.4¼
19%
i3 0l>
IO0 0'<
Pll'Urwt
Sp:a.r. Vthlcltt
31.8!f
3• ,e,;
1:?.9%
20,2%
22.9%
1 7 .0 %
21N
t,!l~,
A YE1'.31S i!,
Ftut:A.g~lt1
'r'u.n~
f '.,!_'
:=;.,.1
;:l.::l
0.4
" :i-1
Ope'ratin9 Ei,;penses p«
SelVI ce Jli;lfe<.tlveness
--U.nlink•dTrips~ Op■ra;ttn s Expi•nsll!I p er
Unlinked Puseng•r Tril#
$1! 00
$1-09
$.48 1~
$3.~c
Unllnhd Trip-s; per
P.nsenger Mile
$0.82
io-10
$/" ;"?
f..0 .. 70
$1 ,,o
$U.U'
$0.71
$6 ,,,
$1,/0
S5.1'!1:
V ehicle ReY'tnue l'AI•
0.5
0,9
o l
a
1.2
0.2
u
Vtlilcl• Rewnue Hour
. 3.J
J f .4
-:'-1
51.5
. :~ =:
i .1,.
:!1.4
-ooe.a~ng El r:,: e(lSe r:,:.ar w:i':fe
;;ieven...=l ',1.e:au~
c;,qt ta.!fi\£1 E,¢1!!ns! o_@r Pa~l!l'\9:!I'
Mue:eu~
Uni~ F ss~,n~i'" lriJJ J;·er•/ehlcle
R:.ver.;et,tltfr 8~ ~~-::~u~)t~1.~-~U:1~:~cle 0~!13111g"1:i:~~~FJ·;~~.1¥!f~• Ur\l!Ni:::=,s,;~:::~~t'. _.
,m -1 ,.~ .,,, I .... ,.A._ •"
~-J .~ ----11.,; -,-........... • ,.
~~ -::; 7 ►• 09 "" '-----------,.),2! ■JI ---• 0-QI It I~ II•, •a ~ •f f 119 ~ : 11 ·:2 t: • _, UC O »· :a •
....... -
, • ..., iU ,,
t1Mc:. UL» _,.,,,,,,,,.... ~-
•:: h-■ -.:,...,_~ ~=I" I I :··-·,:I' I....._ 0. I I •
,(1(111 I= --_.,,. ~-___________ ,_ .. ~. ---------
• -I( -11 ~:-'-. M ltl-•If 'f' CE !» 1D tj "' 11 "'-15" 8 ii Ni Cl!! ,:,
~
~:.=lmmt: Ql!'JIIJ,~S!-~:t,cl ([ffl "M.a 1'11").C=ldlczlBnll!et!l ~'r\OCffTK>!'l r-eeJ~!U8t3
Sources: Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost per Mile by Mode 2018 Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 2018 Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents 2018 NTD Operating Expenses by Mode Bus Service $ 140,001,661 Commuter Bus $ 8,635,671 Commuter Rail $ 43,421,951 Light Rail $ 71,414,293 Paratransit Service $ 18,695,571 Other Service NTD Totals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ 18,784,904 $ 300,954,051 Less Fuel Costs {Diesel, CNG and Gasoline} $ {10,183,098) $ $ {635,588) $ $ (7,002,733) $ $ $ (1,367,502) $ $ (963,770) $ $ {20,152,691) $ CAFR plus $38,654, (capital maintenance) Difference Add Capital Maintenance 5,973,050 382,833 1,287,135 $ 11,146,472 $ 672,761 180,162 19,642,413 $ 2018 COST PER MILE Debt Service Depreciation $ 17,144,993 45,500,194 $ 28,412,725 45,500,194 $ 28,412,725 $ 4,290,318 $ 2,304,317 91,000,388 $ 80,565,077 Total Costs $ 152,936,606 $ 8,382,916 $ 111,619,272 $ 156,473,684 $ 22,291,148 $ 20,305,613 $ 472,009,238 $ 20,152,691 $ 492,161,929 $ 492,161,929 $ Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Without Fuel Annual Vehicle excluding Vehicle Revenue Miles Depreciation 16,845,223 $ 8.06 Bus Service 1,066,181 $ 7.86 Commuter Bus 5,429,232 $ 15.33 Commuter Rail 6,655,535 $ 19.24 Light Rail 2,798,928 $ 6.43 Paratransit Service 6,354,828 $ 2.83 Other Service 39,149,927 $ 10.00
hito f~ '1dE'1. ~ co,,..
669 Y\1eil 200 S: .rth
Satla,lllc;r,, UI .'.'1101
llt~h Transit Authority
20111 Aril):Liat it:.g@llcy Prffia
Urtanlzed ArH stul&llcs -2010 CfrlU!I
:!~.llke.01',:\'v\:d.\h'f!,JOty UT
'..:: ,~1:1 Sq1.11r1 MIIM
l ,flJ l/:,1;1 Pop11ladon
4'..: Pop. Rllnk outof.488 lZAs
Otht rUZAs Sened
nc.Q'1eo-La:-t:in, ~T,82PrOV0-0::m. UT OUtah l\cWZ4
ser,lee Ar~n, St3tlsllcs
•Sf Squ1.r1Mil•
l al:l::.t_i.:. Pop1,1ladon
General tnronnatJon
s~nl cei Consumption
;3:1E t.i8.B81 Annual Pass.,,9w Mllu fPMTj
.:.4 116 331 Annual lx'ltlnhd Tripi tU>T)
15,\,S()l .-,.,,.,.1,g1WMkday Unllr!ktid Tri!)!;
15,207 AWl'.a.1111 Saturcl~ Unllnke,Trip!i
29'91 t Avier.a;1 SUndiy Unllnkff Trip!i,
service Supplll1d
;:I!.: t ,<9 ~2'l Annual V.t,lcl• RiWlf'IIH t.tt~tvRM)
'..:: l6!J,5in Arwl'al al-Vet,lcJ,e Rwe,1 L1 .. H:io1,m; (VRH}
' l 13 Vffllcle5 Operated il1 Mldn um Seli'ic,e ('f0MS)
l 386 Vehtcltt AvalllbleforMaxlmum Seivic,e,(VAMS)
Modal Characterlsttc~s~---
Database l'lfotma,tlan
NTDID: EJ:00.l
Rc,pcinE-r Type: ~ .JJ R~oro.•J
Financial lnfonnatlon
Sou,-.::11. of :rptntllnt F unds £)!pended Open.ting F~g-Sources
t.1esanc.Oir!i::Dij =~~n-r..tetl' ~.2ll8,427
LL-"<-11-.~ S-A3;41B,83J
'Stl'ltl" r·rnts. so
IGJI\I
66:D11
'0.0!1
F!!.de:ra1 4.•;.,fd,•ce S:&1,75_8,422 14.4',\
'tr_. Op•flllny Furrdt hl>CHi Id ~,30◄ 712 I00,011
Scurcu ofCapltaf Funds E>;pended
~ esaoc~:-~_-r._•1<.tea SO
l.J..:.<.11-.~ $'6,753,477
.SUtte FJ \IIS ST.<15,678
f edera ,:,.,~:.:,·•~L,«:t Sll ,Bfli)~6
Tot.I O•laJ (un d lll E~ 11, "'6,03>.JO,
Q.n!I
54 ,:r,.
B.711
.37 ,01,
IOOD\I
'M ,G
1-i'u .. .,..
Capital Funding soureots
Mocfat Overview
MoJa
Gcr-m,JterElu·~
Veh ~le,s Opo&r~
In Maxim um Service
Olncu., ------Pu-cii"iid
OplnWCI Tru,1i,or:atlon
•2
--Re\let!~
Vthlc-lfl
to
$0
$3;$34$40
Sf~m s i~!e:' 0~:di!~!n~"~~ Sumtliary tf Op&rating E x p1nsesc (OEJ ,, ...
Co . .-fTIJter"ail
{le,-a11tl'Re1,:µv11,:...:
Ugr1 R all
Eus
¥JrT.ioDI r .. ~
Op!ra,tlon Chzi~ct«fstic.s
Mo•
Corrruter Su~
·corm.aer F.:'3il
{)er 8P~ P.e•tµL 'f'J~'
U)ir1 Rail
~us
V.,-µool
To,!lt
Pedorman ce Measures
Mode
('o.r-m.,ler Elus
CGr·mJter h ~ilt
Oer-~rt!S Rl!r,pr ,r:=!
l.J91"1RSII
oUS
~.,--p~•J
Totlf
Gl.lld.v,ayt S2ilon1
t14 r•: i:f.l.~E.t
50 59 ~0:::J s=3 2aa,S73
67 45 t:.: .' §::. :::i ::'b"S,574
91 -~D
-519,615.9;1!
$1,149~9
12A.oi9.120
.$i2,0C21:i $C!6,6~9
417 6 -'1., IC; 043 lo,Qli3.81fl
$.>•>'L4 i,30.(lel
f,)60 o, $Z,,3Zo,:,:;2 '1,t811J.
Op.n.tltig Uses af Amn..r ~I i\nni,gl
EXFNISN FtnR.of'HnUN Cl.pltal Funds P1H11n11•r MIIN Unlnked Trips
$~.6,5,6)1 m 1,ern f41,S14 1_:r.3(S!Jt) ~S3.56~
$4:i,41'.95 ' f'a15.985 $9,2()7~5 129,6')6() 5,032,U:'J
$16,B95",57J 140D ,461i $8.6 SD)76 .:.,01:: ,' ti ~:::i ,34.816
i:1i,414.m $1Cl0&9,935-i 1;1,71/2,j7J 09,'1'125t) H ,0391,7)6,
Sl 40.001.61i1 -~,, ,71!8.256 128,22313.l 7A.J11I .-;:_:i 1S:.fl61.~J2
$iU!4.M4 $C ,§,S1% si.1'7 res -rn :op :•F=t 1.1 7➔,M~
53009~1 ~1>122.~ ~-"46 .j5e,1.tG.68 l ~lfi.'f'JIL Z3:
_ _ S~ry~e !_flf.!£l!f!t't _ _
Operating Etpi:!:uts-pw OpW11tlngExpmse1>per
V•hid• R...--,u• Mt• Vffllcl•Rtv.nu•Ho1.1r
-$8,10 i:::JLfi
$8.00 $:£«~,
$6 .. 6E Hlc r,
110 .. 11 $()(.\4
$8,at $1 ··:.r.d nee H·,.,4
$1~ $'1~.2!1:
Othtr
tumt:
f.£:J.251:
$4J :Ul::
11EJ.1J4
l3~J 38(.
f.1'1.::11'14
$112.~
Annt1.:,I Vetiicle
~\'tf"I.IIMl!H
·,o_U :-81
~ . ..:.::::)2:3:;;
1Jt:5 J:.C:I:
l.s=s-s::i=
11.R-1-)J':';:
:, ::l:'::·1 i::'F ,~:•!$.t:17
Modi
Comm..-:er[;s
Comm..J..1 H~I
Oumr n F.P.;.:-rn1·fr-
UQ/1':R,·.
6a.
Von~••I
TotaJ
TC:1Z.I '""' Matt,ialsar:1 ':'.rµr. ies.
°WchsiiedTratsJc•1~0f\'
);herCoe,a~ b:_:..ii..:r _;es-
~!016t7,7'7B
St8A15.:N6
$1,725,168
Sl>,13~.660
y0Jl',1
16.◄II
1,671
12.~
~(~1~
S-3;207 50~
S:3,1:lUU :3~~
$1'2 '92 5".I.) s:ra'.22.3 -33
S t ,:Ji' ,'th
$5§,3:-J!J,"4·~
rot1l Ops-,.tin!J e:-:,.11.-,
ftfOiOC rtJ Cf:° Dri\ B:1::-r:lit.(eS
P\!rt0aixdTra·1'.;"JL ·L,{or,
{RE,:;..orte-d ~;t:..i.:c· :::ib!fy}
PIO.S$1,Ql·1
S llB,430.711
$0
100JYh
flKN 'iitlld1Way V,e,hicles-.v.ailaQle
Annu:aJ Vehicle arection1.I rorMu imun ·Vehcln 0.:11rated iri
~ver,1.1tH0:ur, Rc1.1t•Mi lH -S.-vlr• hlaiclm 11r, SW¥1c•
<1 '21 0.0 ,1 OJ
1643JJ 174,5 ea 511.
18U~/.. Jn 1,2 112
362 2-51 6}9 1 ,. 112
I _'.:i;:;-111~l JD &al 418
TfoR-.ifil ')j) 4 Ff 398
t,160.5bl 2f;t!,,,~ 1.31:t< 11,>
Operatitlg°Expen1n p11t
Service Eff'ecti-.i,ness
6p.rat1ngExp..,Sff~.,,--~ UnilnktdTrlpspw
Unll,.ed Pan-,ger Tfl:11 \'thiclt R.IWM'IUt Milt PJ.Hlil'lSWMlfe
.$().70
$0.33
$4.09
$080
$176
l~"" ....
Sf 5.::2 0-=
$&.'4 0$
;,4755 0.1
$3.C9 2.1
$7 "' I.I i!o El 02
.u_t, 1~1
.,,.
~~
Perc•nt A vera9,e, fleoet
Sp,,.._ Vtfllcl•s Ag• 111 Years.•
8.514 '2.6
27.5% ·1:1:
21.1% .:..::i
ISS-79, "1.J
21.3% 7A
17.~!1, :~,.
ii.8'%
~llnk•d'Tri ps p _er·
V.tllcl• R.vtnU• H~ur
·::i.7
JU.I:!
4!J . .:.
'o.::I
7.0
2().4
~-,,~11~-?.~fi!rise·p,-VJ!ltf Re\E-~
,;-·~sm O~i~rat nJ =it~fl\se Oe' ~.a.ne!li~'M~fl ,.,, Jt1··11i~1'.· :i ,r;-_._, -~:-\Jlftu
').•Yt•·'1ul: \' H~ au~ l.1Hr 1bR]E,ul !l:'.:i :·V:111 Reveru, Q::ie:f~t_g =.)!OM5'e ffB"P3Stef1S~Mlle U,rrl!eGPassengerTnpperven.cle
'"" -""''JF~·· __ .,,,~ ui1:...i1 ""' Revowe Mlle:Ug'ltR> """ 'i~;.;i~;~;;~~~~ .. --..... cr .... -,,.___ ... ~ 1------------:~ • ~ b~LL•:::::::::::::::::::::~~ .........
'tl.!.;tl &'.lfL -----------~ * •t l , ~ t• ~ ~ -~ ~ C ~1 t ~ ~. ~ ~ -
e i11-J;!1rn:,Jr ;_•-1'.y :t)Tfa,i.~~feo:'ieel:s: -t. f.!Jl '-'µJ1lfl1.'it,:,agedati,
;~f I ►•
t a) Jo ~ 1--U
-'"'' ~= J --,......~:• "S.oe F 144
'"' ----~------tQ.40' -~a;>
60'.t( -----------= :::::::::::::::::::::::=: ===================--:ie. •'O ... ., 1Y ,i-te ir • 11 .> • 11 I-!iii 4-a It: S · ,r. Ill ~ '!: '"I'-J:I' n ,..,. • ~ •7 ts
Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost per Mile by Mode Sources: 2019 Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 2019 Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents 2019 NTD 012erating Ex12enses by Mode Bus Service $ 150,988,092 Commuter Bus $ 8,448,535 Commuter Rail $ 44,291,302 Light Rail $ 71,152,656 Paratransit Service $ 20,257,462 Other Service NTD Totals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ 15,911,105 $ 311,049,152 Less Fuel Costs {Diesel, CNG and Gasoline} $ (8,534,028) $ $ (507,673) $ (5,613,091) $ $ $ (961,710) $ $ (905,831) $ $ (16,522,333) $ CAFR less revenue amortization (Capital Maintenance) Difference 2018 COST PER MILE De12reciation 25,412,263 57,000,066 57,000,066 4,171,785 2,527,944 146,112,123 Total Costs $ 167,866,327 $ 7,940,862 $ 95,678,277 $ 128,152,722 $ 23,467,537 $ 17,533,218 $ 440,638,942 $ 16,522,333 $ 457,161,275 $ 457,161,275 $ Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Without Fuel Annual Vehicle excluding Vehicle Revenue Miles De12reciation 17,252,754 $ 8.26 <-plug into cost calculat1 --904,101 $ 8.78 5,401,987 $ 7.16 6,569,208 $ 10.83 2,881,355 $ 6.70 6,451,812 $ 2.33 39,461,217 $ 7.46
d.,1 "IINAV--ld~, _.:, o..-n'
f69 w,,110,J ScJt~
Sfl1u,~ Ct<, VT &11 0,
Utah Transit Authority
2019 AMual A go,i iv Prefilo Exect..d·~ :Wect:r IAs Cir¥ Gonot
($>• 262,56,6
Urbanized A,.., Statlst1c1 .2010 C~hsus
$W:_ake.Ctfy-Vlilell ½lfly 0-tv,lJT ,11 -~•-MIi ..
1 ,U21,243 P•plllltl•n
42 P•p. Rant c.tJtofM UZAs
OU,erUZAa Sernd
71 C \l-l=11-U.U,O, UT ~ PnYvo.0-ffl\ ~ J ULat1 ~!¥1-UV
Se rviceAr'9• Statfstlcs
?il ~41u.,.Miln
1,833,634 Fl'•pwlrt1•11
General lnfor111aaon
S el"f lf• CaMutnptlon
-355,2E] BQ i Annual Passenger frJI• (?MT}
44,S'la 161 Annual Unlinkid Tript (UPl)
1~2..9Cl Aflrts• Weekd2y Unlln\itel mp,
11 (64 Avtnge Ss.turclay U nlirlt:M T"p•
3t68 Avtrts• S:ul'lday Un htff Tri,,
Ser,loo SUpplled
.39 .tf;.717 Annual Vehic~ Re..,EIMltMil.u: (VRMJ
Z.T.la~&J Annual Vehicle R'=Vief!UI He.-. (\'RH)
1 141 VtNclec Op•ated ir, Mulnu,1111 SMVice (VtJMSl
t ,15 VtNc:les Avail.lble for Mol11u111 Strvice(VAMS)
Modal Characlerislt cs
Da.tabl!lse Information
NTDID: HL W ]
R4porterT1·po: Full Rerortw
Flnanclal Jn formlltion
Sources of Op1ra.tfno Funds Elll)M1cltd ---0-,1>.-,• flu,1111r,. Sourtes
q"IIWG Ui rectty Ge,e~!t $11]4-Ql t Jti 16 .1:l'fu -~
Loe~ Fune s $l.S 43E ),9 ffi.G%
St.:i:e t--u~
r ~der~I As:!:i:staoc:e
--... p,,.,.lltlR§I f\md."i e-<p, """
::;·u U.U%
s,H•e,2 i · 17.5%
NiJ'kn Ne 100.0%
Source, ol CoPi •I Funds E>cponded
=1 'H an£t Orectlv G,e.-ier:;ted tU U.U%
Lpcat Funes $311'SE l 58 58.8%
State Fu ~!K $1286.:1 2.9 12.1%
F:-d.cm!As:;i:ctonc:1. St !l 395030 28.5%
.... _. C ap'rtal Fund-. fcpanJ 11-s.166 100.0%
,,...,
IUII -
Ca'9:tnl ,u n4irlsi s,wc--Modal Ov tNhW
Vehicles Operated
'" Maximum service
Dl re"ctly P~~h•ecl
Us_g_plCoP1181 Funds Summery~ Op«ltlng Expan•H (OE)
Mede
Cc•rr m l~r R!JS
Ct"l'm.iter Ral
Oe-tanj r-esQC~
ugl• R :~i
8,s
Vilflpcbl
'oul
Oper2tion Charact•rt•tla
Mede
Cei-nu ter e us.
Cm--r miter R3III
Of"Tanj 1-.o;esoc,se
Ugtit R~i
8J>
Vanpcol
1"ot•I
P•rformance Mttsuns
Mede
Ccrrmuter ~JS-
Cc-tmuter llatl
Oet r ar d Fit"Spo,ise-
Uglll ~a/
BJ>
Vannrrt
T.:rt.ll
Rf!V.'1U@ s.i·"•n 2nd
OJiented Tr1Mp11rtdo,n Vehio:IH i.uldM2.ys
4 1 $n $n
50
&< •e $0 ff..6Ei .31::2
$142,7(2 S~.6EO ,, $0 Et&,'4c:6,Hi:4
4 '6 $11,4J4,0E3 tl!.7-ltl,0[1
430 $3,1 18,1[9 W ,7[3
1.090 !.1 $14.756.154 ~4 ..,,,.BS8
Operating \J$,es of Annu;il
Exp•nu,; F'1,.R~ C,.pit~ Funds Plntn1erMil es
$8,£48.c:JG $5,-).214 $0 l~.111!,0t3
$44;'91,301 U ,M.4819 $8,932,.::[6 l.33,E3f:,5 11
$20,:::b I /lb".J $:14300 ' $'.J::1:),J{O ilJ ,4 7J,HL-'1
$"1,152.6£6 $1 7 ,s:i(J.121 $19,6)0,9-'l 2 63.D.E ,5:□
lllll,s,J8,002 $18 ,111!3821 f25,424 ,8.j5 84,52t ,1E8
$'5 ,1111,105 $9,11'178£3 :~3,176/(7 3".fllil.m
av t0491G2 ..a,W.J,4J•;J $ST .114~~56 _ 6 20.(91
Service Efficiency
O,entlna&,..,.np., -Operatll'\1Et"1"1ttt Per
Vahle!■ R ..... m,e hlla VehlckR.,_,enu,e Hour
s; 34 s·uti.:.:::i
$!;IQ S:U.75
$7.03 .J• 11,46
I I DH 511!4.tU
$;JS s•h1.f3
'S2C7 161 i ?
f' Gi .__,9C8
F.c:Hlt)H.,11
StdOont
so
$2,231.Cl!I;
SS..wi'
SI ,071,77E
$5,138,77:l
I()
~ !Wt.lV"D
~ ..... ,
I.INlnk• Trip,
649,f!lt
5,I92,&l'A
38t,2o5
11,12uae
20.l<ltJ!iM
l ,W,:1114
&Ori, 1
Qher
$7
$26,913
$J
.SRR1Tl
$40,073
S'O.a4J
1,144.644
Amlual Vli'hitle
Rw•nu• r.'.ilM
91JL 101
5,401,987
-.:.,l:ll:l1 ,:3t-:>
B 569 20)
1,25:".754
6/151,812
39.451217
.....
CJmm.Jter ~
C~Jter !-ai
Cernarii..:Re::;µur1~
L.,.c!l~ail eu. v.,.,..1
f ord
'ToQ( L,;,,c;• $2149.6053 B0,1% t 2:r&
$0 h'at~'i:~l:-:;.rnf 311:t 11ies S571:!151' IA R%
$E.1il2.ol06 P\..'t.1lasej Trarq:iJrtakl'l $41181 3 33 1.5%
$,95,371 ~erCperetn ~ Cxp~ses Ul101 130 10,0% '\._ ... -$1~,610,9,:? Total Op11ratin11l::•lfl•~~ .. 11·,.oa 152 1m n%
$2E,424,92S =ieconc lrJ C€ :Dsh &:pcncij1 es Si1Sla554
$3,116,407 Pl.f'O"l3se::I Trai-:sp ::,1t~IICff"
$07'"9-(Rr;r-on?ct Separat,etyf so
FIKff 'iWcleway Vehicles -'01 111,lti
/lnnualV.,..~11 OiN'C'tlcmAI for lhKimi...n Vlhlcltt: Op~ i n Pen1r1t Awras• f l•
~11•nu•Htun RoU1e Mks s .... 1ot Mul111 UM Strvl ee Spa~Vtnlc-lH A.1elnV•rs•
35,;!16 0 .0 '6 4' 9911 l◄.4
11111.888 174.5 "' 50 ""' 17 5
181.7<9 u.u HIS , ,u 3UI, 4 .1
~.638 UJB 117 JO l l i'i 17!
l.291.21S 9 A 515 ., . ,,~ u
1115,895 ~D rn 4 30 "°" 6-8
,2)1 • "Ill ,,. 11.ti 22
--Open:ina El(p-,s• pit
Ser-vie:• Brectl\1-enus
~xp..,INS:.,-Undnkecl TriPs-pe-,---l.Wlnk.:, Tiipt pw
Pan.,...-Mire
!'l 70
-s,)33
iol!iB
1036
i t 78
IU3 .•.
Unli nked Pc.HtnlW Trip
$15'17
$3 53
$51 17
$4 ,~
S n! it•,.
'U(.
IJllhicle Revenue t.tfe Veh k leRewnn Hour-
U~ ~S
· .0 31 1
0.1 1 i
"2.1) 4&JI
'.2 ,~ 1
n? s s
~ 1 J S-
-Cpel1~0:,e,sap!rl.1!"t=ieRr.e.."W.le ~:Jllj ~!m!l)(f""PalsergerM~e: U'ttikt'1 Pa:s~e,·gu-·-n-.,?Ef ~t't • J:ierot:ingC~:r::trllper~,!~.J.t Cp~atin9.aq,e,,siei:er.:im~il"N ·!.. Jrirlcd 7 :oxri:p-,ipw,VcNclr
Mle:&ta ':IH ~eve,ue Jllile'~ r-v .e·tJgT.RI ---l51R:a Re--'011..C Mie:l,V'tG• .. ,., ~~~~ .. ,.. ... .T.., •n I -~ I . ----'-----g 1-4
• •.,.. ~~1 ~ ...... ::I'" 4 0
2 •::I ---=-• a -;~ 4--4 t ~ :~ -::-s__ a
1 11
-
... L. -----------ro:u, L. -----------'yt $CW L. ___________ ,, L. ----,------,----"
--·• --0, 'I Q a ,-. fl' 10, ·1$ • f1 Oil:' l:l ~., •-"J,. .C --• lU 1'1 I.I I !~ • "' ,. It • ... ~ 11 1% d .M, 1!!11 '\'T .. iO t1 12 H ll ... 1f -'Oe.i1.::·rt.1 ~~F-01"'9!!-1.J>d(Of:lf1l rvtMJ!dr:a.u fl cl:±)IJJnJl"!fC'll(e-t!l.• cm..
APPROVEDJune2019 Addendum 2: Paratransit Costs 2019-2020 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South 41,678 Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2017 NTD) 358,645 Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (2017 NTD) 1,216,779 Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2017 NTD) ---------1,617,102 Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT 162,198 Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (2017 NTD) 10% Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and Light Rail
Approved September 2020 Addendum 3: Paratransit Costs 2020-2021 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South 41,128 Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2018 NTD) 362,257 Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (2018 NTD) 1,243,058 Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2018 NTD) ---------1,646,443 Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT 180,342 Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (2018 NTD) 11% Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and Light Rail
DRAFT for Spring 2020 Approval Addendum 4: Paratransit Costs 2020-2021 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South 35,315 Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 365,639 Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 1,291,215 Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) ---------1,692,169 Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT 181,749 Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 11% <-plug into cost calculator, cell B16 Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and Light Rail
DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ILA ADMINISTRATION PROCESS
For
ANNUAL BASELINE SERVICE REVIEW
1. As part of regular administration of this lnterlocal Cooperation Agreement, UTA and SLC will
annually review UTA's baseline service network:
a. After sponsored service has been operational for at least two full years, and
subsequently yearly thereafter, which is the average time for a new bus route to mature
and travel patterns to establish, and
b. Following a regularly scheduled update to the
on a two-year cycle.
2. Sponsored service will be considered to be fu e services if all the following
3.
arefouild:
a. The service meets UTA's current
i. if both the
ns1 (TPI) metrics
average weekday,
ende for weekdays, Saturdays and
ays of the week to be absorbed
rvice Plan, developed with a budget
ake City, includes the currently sponsored
agency's network.
ces necessary to absorb the cost of the sponsored service,
et resource capacity.
·u be made at the end of each sponsored service term and in
mileage, and leasing cost reconc iliations.
4. While sponsored y be absorbed into UTA's baseline service network, the cost of
vehicle lease payments associated with any sponsored service will remain the responsibility of
Salt Lake City until such time that:
a. UTA and SLC have jointly agreed that at least a portion of the SLC-sponsored service will
be absorbed into UTA's baseline service, and
b. UTA has identified an operational need for the additional vehicles to deliver the
agency's baseline service, or
c. UTA has determined that assuming full responsibility for the lease payments for
sponsored vehicles will offset the need to procure additional vehicles as part of the
agency's fleet replacement program.
Approved June 2019
Addendum 2: 2019 Baseline Service
Please refer to UTA’s August 2018 published schedules for Routes 2, 9 and 21
Route 2
SEE SOMETHING?
SAY SOMETll lNGI
b Q;tnbd UTA poll.it.
CaN: &01·281-DU (80l•2S7-l9'37}
Or fl:t½UtATtP'a nd yma-r .. tG '21463:7
INTERPRETER
K01 ·Rl 0HJTA
cal (801"7"4:3~3882)
Toll-r .. •(88&-,CJ-3882 ) _CIIS_..,..., ,, ~~
""''" OOlm&tlctWlt ....
HOW 10 USUM!l SOUi!Wll
b.1lffl'IM..,_\l~bDldanwiWll~WJ1111 t•
......... ',li,ll'l'linll 1'91"1--.1l•li ■P"lll•illfJaMI'
....... ~iD!l-i ...... 11t,,.,.,._wwil@.e!l ... -1 1,...i,
A Hlil h ,_p 11 l""!'Wilild I m ilt,.,I~ --,ll■t• 11 IM
!I~•~ ~1'1~Wi~~~
4 · .... r~N~Mr.
UT.-.:Mh'ICIDIUC'IOn
.._Gl-allril-11:ii\~ l,_"1.~■nd
~,_...~,,,,,IIIOl'.•Ul'/ttl011itl.JIU)
•Dlihi4"Sl'l !■i..c;-.ni,-•UfllltJJii\(9LVlo-,.~ .....
•fo:arl,1 .................. -.t.-'"iet-b,_.~ ~
~tQpllM1,HNiiMoplNll'llllfrMdl~~fl
~~Clorl)(lll.....r.t.,\WJ,.&Jlll,
•·~llyl;llll~1hlf-pi..~~
-•f a,~l')'rllef!IIIWOffl'llli~al-'4!11
l\!llfl.ffe'n/10.,,f'J~t/
••T"'1tllirllllllr,eSUl ·ltN2'5
WSTMOF°""°
w.bw/Soullt~I a::Jt-67t,,VO)llflll111t:J
ut,'li c-.r,i Mni1n-~n
Wt1Jlllll~y"3f.)JN.,_.
t,.-.JlltPflJ5»5
, ....
f.lbci l11r1i.~r-.. ~i.m.,p.
ACCH$1M.IJIJIVta WIM-l.~~'-""-....aitil••" .......
N1.-iw;11:I~~'"-~-,..,._
,:.-~~11111 r•GN(ihN1111L""",.i
... ll:'9h flt~ 111
tltAM'llltS ~P'J'l"ll!:l'll.,,11,...,""'"'-1.t•~rn
.....,lllndlM..'llllklllnt:,allftl l,i,,.,e1 r.a(l) JIii/nii
..... ,.,..~ lti.~il~l ....... 4Vf"llinb •lttt II"!• ,.,... N"""' W"f• • Int-,..Jl/ik altfl f.,.._
11tlr.10NIVS:ll
,~111:n-.. ._....,i~i..,ni..~ ,._., -....11.n,,.~ ........
fW•dlliO.,lda.,u,-CQm fWW.,l~ll!faronll_,.
,oo .....
Sa fi Ll lce CfnV'.111 St11kln
DoNnt.owns.tub
\lo!UC.,,,,,U,
Uol'IJNll!ldlal CMl llll'
UTAl(II
111!'11'?1
'/.I.I
BUS
WEEKOAYS
To Ce nt ral Point
S t a tio n
i ~ .i
~
2
1 I 1 -= I "' 12. ,~ ~8 ~~ ~1 s~ ll !l ~~ ~~ ~~ Qa u~
---···------
539a
609
639
709
743
813
843
913
940
1010
1040
mo
1140
121cii,
1240
110
140
210
242
:m
342
◄12
444
514
544
614
~40_
S53a
623
6S3
n4
758
828
8511
928
9!i5
1025
1055
1125
TI55
ITT5r
12S5.
125
155
226
2S8
328
358
428 soo
530
600
629
~
559•
1529
659
729
803
833
903
933
1000
1030
1100
Jl30n
1200jl
1230
100
130
200
232
304
334
404
434
506
536
606
63-1
;l,09.
604• 61l7a 614•
~ 637 64~
704 1Cfl 714
733 739 i46
1109 813 820
1139 843 850
909 913 920
939 943 950
ll)(Mj 1010 1017
1036 1040 104?
n0o 1110 1111
1)36 1145) 1147
1206f: 1710p 1217p
1236 1240 1247
106 110 TI7
136 1'10 147
206 210 217
m 2•2 249
309 314 321
339 3'14 351
.-09 414 421
439 444 451
511 516 -523
S41 546 553
611 616 623
6J<J 642 649
10 5 zoa ,1 1
To U o f U
t .,: J
.. I "' I -= 1 · I"' 1 .. -~j g~ lj ~~ •i tf !~ Q~ ~~ §~ §~ 3~
-----------
"621•
061
721
751
821
851
921
951
1021
1051
1121
1151
1221p
1251
121
151
221
251
321
351
421
451
521
ss:i
621
627•
657
m
757
827
857
927
957
1027
1057
1127
l15L
1227J,
1257
127
1?]
227
258
327
357
427
457
si,
557
617_
630• 636,
700 7<Mi
730 736
800 806
H30 836
900 -930 936
1000 1006
1030 1036
noo 1\06
mo 1136
1200i, 1206p
1230 12:Wi
100 106
130 136
200 "206
230 236
301 3 08
331 337
401 407
437 437
501 507
531 537
601 6/J1
631 fJ7
6431
713
70
813
643
913
943
1013
IOC
1113
1143
1213~
1243
113
143
213
243
313
3~2
412
442
512
S4'2
612
6~2
6;93 n,
759
829
659
929
959
1029
1059
1129
11S9
1229p
1259
1:19
1!59
229
2S9
!31
358
4Z8
08
528
5!8
lull
658
Fe, .....,...ttan C•UOl-Rlllf.\J IA (801-l'O· 311112)
..,--,lde S.h Lob ~""'I' 888•R 01:.\J l ._ (81!8·1"!-1882)
w..w.rtdeuta.com
H OWTO USETMISSOIEDULE
Da:t.nrlrte )'Ollr ·drropo6nt hued on, wti-eri Y°" w.-nt to
feaw Of whet1 •f0U wan1 toilf1N'r..R•ad •·cross Nlr yout
du"t1t1~1o n iiWlO ckMn fur-~ttrrr. and dfr11ctlon tf'tfiln~
.\ roui•f'l•P 11 prcw&deo to N!lp you ttla,e to tht-
1ft11e~:i ,t()Wf\, W IN!l-d.ay. 5"-'\UP'd.'?j & 51,mday t.thedules
dfffier lrol"'I one flnOther.
UTA S[IIVICE D IAECTIIRV
• Gmcnl lnto~~!lon, Sdle::Mn., Trfp pt-,,n1n,: and
CvstOfT'lff F•K1bacta B01•RIOC·UTA (.80'M~3·38Bl)
• Ou!slte S1H Lau Cou"'l'c,tl 886-~IDMJ1A (881-743 -
)88~
• for24 hout automat@d-sM--riat iot'rtllt bus available;
use optio,, L H.wt stop rti"'be, ilnd l df11t rot.rte
ne.mbto, (1,,u Oor-00 tf "-Mhr Is r,1)1 3 dltits.J
• P.;ss BY MaO fnfOf'r".UOO 8<Jl•262•.s626
• t-w Employmfflt Informa tion pl•n• 'f'lstt
ht'co://WWW.tlc:tu.~lc,r11e,t,/
• , .... , ........ 801-287-22)5
LOST A~D FO ~D
W.bovSouth a'"'" 801-626-1201 <>p11011 l
Utah C....myt 801-22)4923
sa1r1 .. o .. eo.....,,eo1-21!7-'IE~
F·"""1e: 801-281-5355
FARES
[>ea« Fare Is rtc~r•d, Farws iH 1,1,1e:.,c: lo ch.vi re, ..
ACCUSil~( SERVICI
W~eeldl.llt accesslble buses are tlVlllll*e. a,1 all route,
~'1ffl\ate-'ormilt sdlttc'ules a1e available upoo request
Telephar!e: corrm11nlcotfon foe deat/tin"'11 lmpeii'ec
..,....., lo .. .iloblo by dlaHn~ 711
111ANSF£11S
Upan paymertt~ 11 fM"O. au1n1•tt ls,ood fot u·wtt ll'l.,V
dlten1ort1 li'ldtldln& ,m.rn trlp1 for 1wo (2)fiours.vntfl ttte
ilmt «.L 1hit 11alue of a transfM 1o--afds • t~ or a "-Pf*
~xp tnslve: u rvlc.e Is UM re&Ut.-cash fare.
IIKES ON ausu
The Bliin on &LIH:I qr\'ice ls..avall.bt1 an Al bU$eS.
e-xcept P••m1nstt
H DLIDAfl
Plt6M (tied( t1debt.l.eot"' ~ ~~ldty .HnitC. l!'ffON1'3tlt'ir
9
'/.I.II
900 SoutlT
University Medical Center Station
University of Utah
East High School
Liberty Park
900SStatlon
Central Pointe Station
UTA @ BUS
lmt'll ........
D•U!-IN201'
Route21 2100 South/2 100 East
SUNDAY
Ta Crnt r•I Poin leSta1ion To Unl ••nity of Uhh
~11-1~ 1~ 1 ◄ 11 i ;!;1 .. .. 11 -ii-i~ i~ Jj H !i --~ALN~~ .. ~!.,, ii !!
w. .. ,. .... -.... -.... .... .., .., -"" .,, .,. ...
"'" ~ ""' .,,. ,.,. l0C
"" 11"' n .... ..MJ ,, ... ~.,. ..... Q35o u~ •1oi1p
OIi ..... ,.. ,., tll D5 UI ,., , .. ,,. lOt ~-"' rn .,. ,., ..,. "' ,Gt ... ·~ ... ,,. )'14 ,,. .., 500 ,.,. ,.. ... ·~ .,, 43!1 ... .,. "' 000 ... .... .,, .,. ffl .,. ,..
i:l: ii ,.. ... "" ~ 'ii' ii .,. ...
.. ~I
!i H .... 901, ... l-00/ .,.. "'I'
JtlS ,,.,,.
"""' IOI ,.. ,., , .. .. , ... ..,. ... '°" ,.. -m ...
II
~-c-u~~l C:.-Str.ion
111,9,P,lll
471 9111.
Roatla
SEE SOMETHING?
sAYSOMETHING!
1l> OOll!><t VTA polot:
C>it 80~l8MYES(601,281-39'37)
0, Tot UTAT\P a,nd ,OU,bp la lJ4fJ1
M°"'""'5
"' g
!
Rl2l8 Aid ___ ......,,
QOOS
17001
KOW''JOUH lMIIIOtlDUll
D.-...... ,..,.,,.,.,..._.,,.._,.."'_..,,_,~,•
t.w ...... .,.. ...... ,.w'1.wt,..,c,9q .......
c1a•1uu,.1,-,~bfrci--....,..••~QI.,.,.,.. ,,....,._,1.a,.,.,,.. .... ,. ;.i,,,..,""" ... t. .... ., ..... fll.li.._... ~S.IWW¥&~ ....... -dl...,..,_ __ ,__
UTA MIMU OUIICTOn . ,__. .... ......r""~ .. 'Mc,~ ......
o..-..,....*•u:icutA.(tOl'4lltt2'
• ll.Jl'16t'lil la.C.....ydllM9tlOfUTAffl8&,.JO' ...,,
• ....,t,.......,•WIOl'Nl'tfs~Wwt iut-,d11ll• _.,.,._., 11,-.t,lW..,-M3*"..._,
IHIJCIW t...O IWOO ,, Nl'OW It, ... I dlJ!lO,
• ,_ Ir ~1111 ~• &m-2'-I-SQt.
... ,~ ...................... 11
•u-wrfdMt~
•f...t~&cn-111»))1
LOn ANDfDWID
~ p,. J ... (ol111JU7 .,..--; '---" c.., so, 11.) ,,z,
aJ1 • .i,c,,,,,,,y,so,.;tt,. ....
,...,,.._lm-'lC7-SEi
rAMs
t.cl,_eb.ff'IUM,.._,,_ua,e11rv--.
ll~CZ.M~RVIU
~· ___,. .. ~ ....... ltMI-.... ~.
,..~.,.,.. ...... MW,i1 .. .,...,...a114illllll",..._
l....,.. ........... ,., .. v,i.,,.,1111111 ... _,.. ,..._i. .......... ..,, ...... rit
..,..., ...
~ .. ~ .......... ,..,.,. .. •&fl0'1l4o.,...,.,, ..
ntd""ttt-M. 'll'!Jd"\lf'et;fl"llt'";,,b-""9M1'ort"•r
tlwL-call U111._.-.. ,tni'lllilw1-191Mra.,_,
~ ~,.,.. ~• ;, 1\,"'1:,J1, c,lh •"'
■IC.SOHIUKJ ?\o.U.._.,...._~• ...... .Jflf•e'l °:..I~
-..,pt'-tr9~)
MOUDA'ts
,. .. »CMcM~CIMlorMlill'fwwl'dJMotwf-M
INTERPRETER
SOH!IDHJTA
c,j1 (80H43• l882)
11>11 f1M<U8'4.l J882l
-CII Nnodich'""' ... ,~ .. --,(;,'l tV VOolmelschlf" .. ,-
"l100 S..-111/2100 lllt
Centnl,alnraStaum 5-..,....,~
urww111:y or uUlh
'/Ill
U T A~ BU S ---
Route2
WEEKDAYS SATURDAYS
T0S1lt l.llkt To University To Salt Lake
Ce ntral Station Medical Center Central Station
'II/I
~ '5 s l ~ C e ~ 1 I ; f
V a ] V <
1 I 'I· 1·~1J ~!1:~1~~12U'j ,-1~1 1~~1~~1t .f ':I.,, -... ... • l I s.,;lUUU ):I ~di u ; ! .u ~ .. u u .a .. ,. .... -· ""' --.,.. "" -.... -.... .... .... ..,, . ., .. , ... ... lOO 610 "' .. .., 625 611 .,. .. , ,oo /0, ,,. ... .., .... .... '" m no '" 9N .. ,
n, ,., ru ns ,.. ... ... ... 1Q] nJ '°'' 10,C ,.,. ,.,. ,..,
111 Ml ,., '" ... ... !<RS Ill m m J\16 IJlG "l' 113' .. ,
7$1 ID m I07 "° 115 72, ,,, 7.17 ,., ,,,., WOp ~ 1ll'1p ,mp
I07 .,, ... 1%) 1)6 m ,,. , .. rn IOI 12" DO ... 13' ..,
l?1 12i .,. .,, ... ... 156 Oil! .. , .,, ll• llO ll4 2l9 "' .., .. , "" ISJ -,.. .,, "' 121 111 J26 ])O "' ... .. , .., ... ... "1Q ... .,. ... .., ... , .,. '30 ... ... •<7
!OIi .,, 916 tll 9>6 829 ffl .. , .,, t/11 .,. <JC ... 5l9 567
911 .,. 9JO ... ♦.lO .., .,. .., 101 .,, .,. 630 .,. 6)9 6'7 .,. .., ... ... -... ... .,,. ..,, '" 7l6 1lO ,.. ,,. 747 .., ... IOOO 100I .,,. .,. .,. ,,. . .. ...
11101 IOU I016 -IOl+ 929 931 •.i ••• .....
1022 '°'' .... 1CBI .... ... ... ... -,.,.
101II ,.., .... '""' -... -'"" ,.,. -To Unlvcr.s.ity --1IOO TIOI 1120 ,.,. .... 1029 1034 -Medical Center , ... 1111 ,,,. 112' !06 mt -,.., .... -'JI// 1122 TT26 11lO 11ll •;g_ 104i -.... 1104 m•
""' nu n .. -,, ... 10,i 11llll m, ml 112'
l!SJ-1!?• I uoo,. ,,.,.,. '"" '"' .,.. -""' "" J j I llOJo ,101r "" '"" "'' 1119 '"' ""' ,,.. ,, ... ,,,, "" m, UD ,,.. lW ~ 12CMO mC-
17.U 12'1 ,,., ,,.. "" .... _,,.,.,.,,., ,,,. 1221 ~j .. ~ .. !l jg 1m 12'1 ""' ,., ,,. '1210p 1719 1U4 mt ,,,. ii ii 102 107 m 119 01 122A 033 12.18 11,1 12SJ u
'" "' ,,,. '" Ma l)«J .... .... ~ .. ""' "" 111 '" "' ,., -,., ... nJ 1ZI 757• 80•• 8011 81•• 1:n, , .. "' ~ >OJ "' 110 "' ,,. "' ,,. 1>7 ... 101 ... ,m
,112 101 m ,,, "' '1lA U'.J UI .., ... 9S1 1006 I00II ,.,,. IO:!I
:nt DI ru m ... , .. ,., ,s; ,,. "" 1051 1,0, ~1• 12J..
a, n, iM1 ... ... 1,, ,.. ""' ,,. :DJ 115? 1204, U08o 111 .. Wlo ,.. ,., 15& JO] !1~ 110 ,,. lli m %19 1l51p ... IOI ,,. "' JOO ,.,, 310 "' "' m m "2311 , .. 1'3 "'' -'208 a,. z:n ... Jlt ... :m ... 240 "' ... 159 -lS1 30; :IOI ,,, 121
DO ... "° ,.. ... ,.. .., lol m m ]57 .... .... ... '71 -... ... .... .,. l10 11' 12• n, -. ., '°" IOI .,, "" 400 ,.,. ... ... ... 1" m 3111 Kl ... .., .... .... ... .,, ... .... .,, .., ... ,.,, ,.. .,. -l,E;1 -,.,. .,, . 721
4lO . ,., ... ... ,., b4 403 401 <ti 4ll ... ... ... 50.l ... ... ... .,. . .. ...
MIO so, ~· "' .., .,. ,(J3 .,. .... All
'" '" ,.. SD '" .... ... ... . .. -""' >1' ..., ... .., ... SW -;u SU ... ... ... .., ... 5111 .,. ,,. 5lU .. .,
""' ..,. ... .. . .., ., . ... ... ... ...
614 619 .,. 6D 145 540 .... ~ ;61 60II
t,,o 6"' ... ... IOI 0)4 "" o,n .,, ~ ... ... 164 103 ,,, '10 ... "' ., . ...
1W ,.. ,u r,u ,,, 6,6 ... ... .., ...
m 722 m ,,., , .. .... ... ... ... ,..
"' "' l<ll f>O .., to, 104 IOI nl m
"" ,., ,., .... ... 710 711 m m ...
1115 "" m .,. Ill ,,. 7l3 1l1 142 ,.,
................... ., ........ ...
Route 9 900 South
Medical Center
1 ' 1
1 \ ,-~
+ I ~ ,--L~~_,_ . . ~~ ·~1-~
j :~T
1
. 223. 228.313. _· 2~.3;-2
...W.--'-..da-a:J"~ ,-. -;--,-..,.1---. 455 , 473 L c -rter r-cb ~-~~--~=::i;::::=:::J::::::C=:';::;r:~1b, ·_...,A__;,~~ Station
1--r-r-,....--t-r ;1 tid/ '1s1:ar ,....... ...... _ , , Rts. 17. 21. 213
. _ ~J ,nsfeqioioL rum, ion 473,902 0 South Station I I -. .I =>--"" .g Red Line
~ Red, Green lines ,--+ A'~ . + -~ i%" -!ii g>
+ ,.,__: ~'2. i:!s~ ""! fo7 -~µ !i a. _.I "Z ;L :.r.--'.""', ~ ;:; fl 9 > ~ ~ I o --t ~_., "-' ~o O--!:,l· r-'::-11:l ;§ o =>
0 900 s V, I O s w 1 II w -----.=-·-~----'
Station ~-~ -g) -LL == -~ ~.,;~---1'i:n e-
~ ~ TT1 r c...::r---"'~~a=f=r ~ .rl ,-., JL "' --1J!i1:_
---l-s:J
T f'~
I
Central Poilte Station , ,-,-,--, ]I'
uto Rts.1 7. 21 . / -1
~r-=~-an~d~S lines ,,J:::::;:;;;~:;b.c pZ]>-~~ . --~ 1-,,__
liNpOfflUJO•--ond ..., .. ,y .. loroodondtraflkcoowltioo,s
~,,, SEE SOMETHING?
SAY SOMETHING!
To contact UTA police:
Call: 801-287-EYES (801-287-3937)
Or Text UTATIP and your tip t o 274637
,unsiwAr(\\
INTERPRETER
801-RIDE-UTA
call (801-743-3882)
Toll-Free (888-743-3882)
~
lnlerprele □!.t lhoog dich Vien
$fl ~1 ;(l tumal! nepeBOll'-tlllK
,(:, I/ -,r I) 11 Oolmetscher .,..>a
WEEKDAYS
To Cl!fltr a l Poi nt• Station
.... .,,
i
H -711 ...
""
1Dl7l17f177071J
mn:Rl1'~KI
UJ ~ "Ml 1~ "l30 756
'117\1l'MM)~ttt
N1JOl!ll'U•tft20D
1!01!1 BD Q ffl ffl Ml .., "" "' JU l 't ♦,U
91' HJ '5f. w ,. ,u
,.,
"' .,, -,,, "" ...
,oe '" m ... ... ♦U t)8 ~ ..,
w,
$1
tJ8 ,..,, 958 ""' ..,. b! ()Of' IQ!)
,aoe W2J r.1Z1 IDJ2 JDJ5. lCMII
a,10..~'°'"''°'11(),0~
ID!! 'ml KM nm t1D5 nu
a.J noa mo m.
11mffl.lmlfll2.M5'1,ilt
ru.,-~ 1,,1.1 lHO mtt
16! roll Jl"'-,JIQlo_>t..,
':h':J?w :.,~ = '::.
12J-1: 12,t! Qill t»o \h ..
1U.t 124, lZ5" ns, IOI 107
u., ~ 1oit tn e» m , .. .. ,,. ... ....
2M
,Ult)'IH.1b1"1
l77k:M7'5015'
e,l'S7Xb10S~
~ 2U: 10 2Z> 22,
222127..il:UJ;lq
?J71'1201SOZW.
~Z,JIOOJOJlptl
~'i,llnW,t,~~
Joi m :s11 m !Jj "' ... )U ~)I, U) 141 ~ 1.11-., .... .aoi~-411
Ml £0' "" "" .UO ,111 -,n, .tu 4JO ~1 o,
.tl.~-$..WOM!t .... ~
u,, •• 4M'!,Q1IQl~t
MS',O,LS•SD S)OPI
fflSlll'-'2~~
»4 .S.I SG' 510 5'JI
t.JO~ ~M),1~ •n
Ht'7&201ll
""' 6.~ ,~ ,..,
~16'1td0b6
HA~1M1M
...... ""' , .. "' .,. l,.H ,..,
703 ,., ™ ,.,, m
,., ... 14'
anqsum "' ... .... ... .. ,
ll!l!&1ts!!~,«.ffl
kllt22t2tffltllMI
To Un1vtrslly of Utah
'Ol.,~S.'tl~!if'II\.U.
.st'~UJ'17H>._.,@
,,..VtO\.SJ~IOCt•1•
&0t O MIi "1 ,~ Ul
1116 120
"' ... ...... 6D ...
"''
611 610 M! ..., ... .,,.
'" IIIO "' JfflJD510971'ffl!J•
'""Q7~nt7Ul'!\.
m "' m "° m 1AJ • '" 1SJ JSI IOJ lll-
m .a t:os $1, ?t$ t,af
$'1♦t20WU1:t.Htit
IJI BliiDC.IJilft,18911
!A• ~ ,w Ui 1(1.! ~-
IOI '°' -9' .. W11 t,,,I
ll1 9l!i "Jl9 ......... -.... ""' ..,. mo ""
'iQ:11 10? ~ --..,.. "" nm noa
"'' nzCI ra.t 11'1 Mli nJI
llid mo 1"1
,io. '10,P 110IJ
u" U20 WJ
in, 11~ 1»1'1
~, mo taJ , ..... .. .,. ...
12] "' ,,, ...
!,U; l'..(I I~
,;g• KIOJ ~
IOU _,,. IMl
1023 ,an l>5f.
'9<' 1048 nn
,~ 1W).! m.,
ffll me ,,..,
n,z,. nu 11M
nu JW fl11p
Hit I~ WIii
nu, un 124,
ua WJ uw
""-' 12,&& lll
WA IOJ Ill
tGt 205 1os m ne '1'1
)1•»on1ntmM
l:1'Z112ltW)lt~
7i&' 1!'!0 ,._, 1" 1.CH u,
10IIO\.IOtt1(J1tW :n, 32'0 )2J )2t P4 1',1 u, 111 ........ lJt ¥4 )4' 41J
,~, .u, "°" ''"
iMn 4CII 401
•• 420 .. u
Cl1 Gl4"oMt~2
<Ml 450 <t6l
... \(IS ..,. * :.l.O !t2J
<i,)1 ~Ir; W'J:
... l&O ~
'" ~o ,11
M6 fM> 61
459 5,04 5l1
..... \19 W1
~, !t.S.& ~'
~ ~ ,.,
1,4, '°" 611
Ut f.-\4. 6'7
tM m. m
ffl735738J43'N6!G,1,
IG1tolQIU:Not.M
lllfRfflfflM6?2'
-.. -.. .., ......... --
SAnlRDAY
To Con tr.ii Po inte St a Uo n
.... ,,,
"' .,, . .,
"' .. ,
6':J/1 ,,, ,., .. ,,
.,,. ,., ,., .. ,
""' '"' '" m '"' ..,, 1011 "(127 lQJJ
10-ll Vbf llOJ
m, ,m nl]
-~t1SJ-1101p
1lTIJI: lUl,:i ll.lZ
., ..
136 I'll
lll'l,,.,.
1'5
m .... ...
IMS
-... ... -ffi --.... -"" ,... ""
ltt)(« 110h ,, .. -"'" .... ,.. ,, ..
'""' ,,.,
lN7 1;157 101 10,. lOf ...
kS
l1S , .. ,Ot ti. 111 1U tit
t)I 151, 2D'\ ~ 209
l!Ol:a.wn.m
J15 m 156 »'I ln6 :ii!
JMDS\J1l»lltUS
"" ...
<)I .,.
$34 ..,.
,,. .. ,
ifb 4J1i ... ...,
SD <>O
S!il "'°
.;, ""'
Q 1 09 f1i
... 4)f 4-'6 ....... ...... ...... ,,. ...
615 ... ..,
tY, Ill. /13 ffi (.16 ,~
To Uolvcn lty ofUt;ih
'/Ill
'Ill
,...
""' ,., -... . .. IJIS" 14.h ... .,, ..... ,
,... '"'
n "" ... .,,
"" .,, "" '" ,oos
•OIi ,,. .,, .... .., ... ...
,nn
1091 ...,
""' _,,,, ·~ .. 1ffl
""
!Oli
nos
~
"°"' ,, .. ,,,.
"' u,
-,m
noa
108
'""" ,,. ...
ll8
,., 105 ""
11' 1JS JJIJ
10U
'°" "" N.l
vu, ,,.,
tu
)43
m ,.,
301 m J OI J14
.I.A .U> :Ui 3,44
"'" -m•
"'" '""" ,,., ,., ,., ,,. , .. .,, ...,
,.,, .,,.
.JliL
~ ,,., ,,,
;,n
"' ••• ,m . ..,
•O'I .tOS •Ot .. ,. lt,lQ "' .. ,
'" -~ """ '" ·~ "' .., ~ ~ SOI 51 4
53'1 ~ ~ Su
eO, 605 6¢1 .-14
~6JS6.Jli-44
n1
ffl
... ... ... ... '" ,-u
1ll ... "' ... '13'
Approved September 2019
Addendum 3: 2020 Baseline Service
2020 Assessment of Sponsored Routes
Meets Meets Meets
Population Weekday Saturday Meets
Route BasedTPI PPH PPH Sunday PPH Baseline Service Adjustment
2
9
21
Weekday Miles
Route
2
yes yes
yes no
yes no
April 2019 August 2019
525 .23 603.81
Baseline Service Cost Adjustment
no
no
no
Delta
78.58
$ 4,446,268 original costs of sponsored service
no
no
no
*252 WKD
19,802.16
$ 4,290,092 new cost after baseline adjustment (-19,802 .1 miles)
$ 156,175 value of service being added to UTA baseline
UTA to absorb weekday route 2 miles into baseline service
Full city sponsorship still required
Full city sponsorship still required
August 2019 to August 2020 Comprehensive System Analysis
LEGEND
exceeds standards (under served)
meets standards
partially meets standards
does not meet standards (over served)
All-Day Service -Routes Serving Salt Lake City
Route Current Tier
2
9
21
33
1
3
1
1
People-WKD
Based TPI Pass/Hr
SAT
Pass/Hr
SUN
Pass/Hr
Draft for Spring 2021 Approval Addendum 4: 2021 Baseline Service Please refer to the UTA 2021-2025 Service Plan adopted on 2/24/2021 for UTA's baseline service. www.rideuta.com/serviceplan Summary: • The Five-Year Service Plan includes FTN level service on Route 2 on weekdays as part of UTA's baseline service level. • UTA made improvements to the span of service on Routes 2, 9, and 21 in August 2020, which are now included in the baseline at no additional cost to SLC. • Please visit this link to access route performance data on UT A's Open Data Portal. Annual August 2020 2021 2021 Baseline Sponsored Miles Total Miles Miles Miles 2 213,344 173,704 39,641 9 476,251 120,704 355,547 21 374,658 278,290 96,369 Total 1,064,254 572,697 491,557 <-plug into cost calculator, cell B13 Annual 2021 August 2020 2021 Sponsored Hours Total Hours Baseline Hours Hours 2 24,712.33 18,271.60 6,440.73 9 45,458.27 2,042.00 43,416.27 21 34,891.40 25,192.87 9,698.53 Total 105,062.00 45,506.47 59,555.53
APPROVED March 2019 Addendum 1: Mobilization 2019-2020 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South Feb Mar Apr May 4Mechanics $ 24,584 $ 24,584 $ 24,584 $ 24,584 2 Fixed Supervisors $ 13,832 $ 13,832 $ 13,832 $ 13,832 Operator Recruitment $ 30,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 TCC Dispatch 2 FTE $ 10,468 $ 10,468 $ 10,468 Operator Training $ 83,333 $ 83,333 $ 83,333 Operator Service $ 252,720 2 Para Supervisors Fuel/Parts/Ma int Vehicle Procurement Administration $ 17,104 $ 40,554 $ 33,304 $ 96,484 Total2019 $ 68,416 $ 133,217 $133,217 $ 385,937 Start-Up Start-Up Start-Up June Jul Sub-Total Admin TOTAL $ 24,584 $ 24,584 $ 147,504 $ $ 147,504.00 $ 13,832 $ 13,832 $ 82,992 $ $ 82,992.00 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 35,000 $ $ 35,000.00 $ 10,468 $ 10,468 $ 52,340 $ $ 52,340.00 $ 83,333 $ 83,333 $ 416,665 $ $ 416,665.00 $ 252,720 $ 252,720 $ 758,160 $ $ 758,160.00 $ 13,832 $ 13,832 $ 27,664 $ $ 27,664.00 $ $ 44,167 $ 44,167 $ 88,334 $ $ 88,334.00 $ 110,984 $ 110,984 $ 409,414 $ 409,414.00 $ 554,920 $ 443,936 $ 1,608,659 $ 409,414 $ 2,018,073.00 Operational Start-up-Expenses (Jan 2019 -Aug 2019) $ SLC Budget FYlS-19 $ Difference $ 2,018,073 2,863,000 844,927
VARIABLE VALUES $ 7.62 2.2% 2 Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue Mile, Bus Service (1) Annual escalator rate (2) Number of Years since NTD report I 20%1Administrative Discount (3) 503,359 Sponsored Revenue Miles: 200 South, 900 South and 2100 South ----------I 10%ISponsored Paratransit Service rate (4) I $ 2.50 I Fuel Cost per Gallon {Service Year Budgeted Cost) 5 Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon {adjust per vehicle type) I $ 53,000 !Sponsored Vehicle Lease Costs 10 Sponsored Vehicles ...._ ______ .... (1) NTD Cost per Revenue Mile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approximately 2% for capital maintenance {e.g. engine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the PCE CPI over a twenty year period. (3) UTA will discount the administrative charges in proportion to the scale of the service increase in revenue miles. (4) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ 7.62 Most recent NTD Cost Per Mile -Bus Service 7.96 NDT rate Adjusted to Service Year Costs 6.37 Discounted NTD Adjusted to Service Year Costs 503,359 Sponsored Revenue Miles $ 3,204,886.18 Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 321,455.37 Add Paratransit Service 3,526,341.55 Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel 2.50 Fuel Cost per Gallon 5.0 Bus Miles per Gallon 503,359 Sponsored Revenue Miles 251,679.50 Total Fuel Cost 53,000.00 Per Vehicle Principal+ 4% Interest Rate, Annual 10 Vehicles needed for sponsored service 530,000.00 Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service 4,308,021 TOTAL
Approved September 2020 -COVID true-up Addendum 2, Amendment 1 Attachment B 2019-2020 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South Fuel True-Up Addendum Annual Fuel COVID-19 Addendum 2, Amendment 2 true-up Reduction 1 Cost per gallon $2.50 $1.59 $1.59 Fuel efficiency (mpg) s 4.82 4.82 Miles 503,359 511,664 288,760 Total Annual Cost $251,679.50 $168,785.43 $95,254.85 Total Monthly Cost $20,973.29 $14,065.45 $7,937.90 8 months (August-March) $167,786.33 $112,523.62 $112,523.62 4 months (April-July) $31,751.62 $31,751.62 Total Cost to City $144,275.24 Original Annual Cost $ 251,680 Reduced Annual Cost $ 144,275 Discount Amount $ 107,404 Fuel True-Up Detail Cost Per Gallon Vehicle Efficiency Diesel CNG Diesel 19-Jun 1.86 0.93 19-Jun 4.79 19-Jul 2.02 0.91 19-Jul 4.53 19-Aug 2.04 0.9 19-Aug 4.58 19-5ep 2.12 0.91 19-Sep 4.8 19-0ct 2.24 0.91 19-0ct 5.01 19-Nov 2.63 0.91 19-Nov 4.98 19-Dec 1.91 1.14 19-Dec 4.92 20-Jan 1.87 1.12 20-Jan 4.92 20-Feb 1.85 0.95 20-Feb 4.79 20-Mar 1.59 0.9 20-Mar 5.18 20-Apr 1.11 0.9 20-Apr 5.49 20-May 1.11 0.9 20-May 5.32 Avg Cost Gal $ 1.86 $ 0.95 Avg MPG 4.94 Weighted Cost per Gallon $ 1.59 Weighted Fuel Efficiency Diesel 70% CNG 30% TOTAL DISCOUNT $ 4,308,021.05 Original Addendum2 $ 569,637.63 Fuel+ mileage True-up $ 3,738,383.42 Adjusted Addendum 2 CNG Addendum 2, Amendment 1 Attachment A 2019-2020 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South Service True-Up Addendum Annual mileage COVID-19 Addendum 2, Amendment 2 true-up Reduction 1 Cost per mile $ 7.62 $ 7.62 $ 7.62 Annual escalator 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% number years since NDT 2 2 2 Administrative Discount 20% 20% 20% Miles 503,359 511,664 288,760 Total mileage cost $ 3,204,975 $ 3,257,852 $ 1,838,584 Paratransit rate 10% 10% 10% Total Paratransit Cost $ 320,497 $ 325,785 $ 183,858 Number Vehicles 10 10 10 Lease Cost $ 41,088 $ 41,088 $ 41,088 Total Vehicle cost $ 410,885 410,885 410,885 Total annual cost w/o fuel $ 3,936,357 $ 3,994,521 $ 2,433,327 Total monthly cost w/o fuel $ 328,030 $ 332,877 $ 202,777 8 months (August -March $ 2,663,014.22 $ 2,663,014 4 months (April -July) $ 811,109 $ 811,109 4.55 Total Cost to City without Fuel $ 3,474,123 4.12 5.18 4.2 Original Annual Cost $ 3,936,357 4.45 Reduced Annual Cost $ 3,474,123 4.33 Discount Amount $ 462,233 4.5 4.29 4.17 4.46 4.9 Service True-Up Detail (in miles) March 2020 Reduced Miles Miles 5.08 WKD 2 627.13 333.29 4.52 21 1123.52 593.59 9 1396.21 734.67 4.82 Weekday Daily Total 3146.86 1661.55 Annualized 793,008.72 418,710.60 SAT 2 658.53 388.97 21 1120.19 606.59 9 1414.01 762.67 Saturday Daily Total 3192.73 1758.23 Annualized 166,021.96 91,427.96 SUN 2 289.08 312.48 21 450.69 450.69 9 592.00 586.40 Sunday Daily Total 1331.77 1349.57 Annualized 69,252.04 70,177.64 Annualized Total 1,028,283 580,316 56.44% Sponsored miles 503,359 284,073 56.44%
Addendum 3 2020-2021 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South VARIABLE VALUES $ 8.06 2.2% 2 Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue Mile, Bus Service (1) Annual escalator rate (2) Number of Years since NTD report I 20%1Administrative Discount (3) 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles: 200 S weekends, 900 Sand 2100 S I 11%1Sponsored Paratransit Service rate (4) I $ 2.00 I Fuel Cost per Gallon {Service Year Budgeted Cost) 4.8 Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon (adjust per vehicle type) I $ 41,088 ISponsored Vehicle Lease Costs 10 Sponsored Vehicles .__ ______ .... (1) NTD Cost per Revenue Mile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approximately 2% for capital maintenance (e.g. engine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the CPI-U over a twenty year period. (3) UTA will discount the administrative charges in proportion to the scale of the service increase in revenue miles. (4) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ 8.06 Most recent NTD Cost Per Mile -Bus Service 8.42 NDT rate Adjusted to Service Year Costs 6.73 Discounted NTD Adjusted to Service Year Costs 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles $ 3,309,486.04 Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 362,502.27 Add Paratransit Service 3,671,988.31 Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel 2.00 Fuel Cost per Gallon 4.8 Bus Miles per Gallon 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 204,815.42 Total Fuel Cost 41,088.45 Per Vehicle Principal+ 4% Interest Rate, Annual 10 Vehicles needed for sponsored service 410,884.50 Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service 4,287,688.23 TOTAL
Draft for Spring 2021 Approval Addendum 4 2021-2022 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South VARIABLE VALUES $ 8.26 2.2% 2 Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue Mile, Bus Service (1) Annual escalator rate (2) Number of Years since NTD report I 20%1Administrative Discount off the 35% built into NTD (3) 491,557Sponsored Revenue Miles: 200 S weekends, 900 S, and 2100 S I 11%1Sponsored Paratransit Service rate (4) I $ 2.25 IFuel Cost per Gallon (Service Year Budgeted Cost) 5 Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon (adjust per vehicle type) I $ 493,061 !Annual Sponsored Vehicle Lease Costs 10 Sponsored Vehicles ..._ ______ _, (1) NTD Cost per Revenue Mile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approximately 2% for capital maintenance (e.g. engine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the PCE CPI over a twenty year nprinrl (3) UTA will discount the administrative charges in proportion to the scale of the service increase in revenue miles. (4) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8.26 Most recent NTD Cost Per Mile -Bus Service 8.62 NDT rate Adjusted to Service Year Costs 6.90 Discounted NTD Adjusted to Service Year Costs 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 3,389,849.87 Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual 371,304.87 Add Paratransit Service 3,761,154.74 Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel 2.25 Fuel Cost per Gallon 5.0 Bus Miles per Gallon 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 221,200.49 Total Fuel Cost 49,306.14 Per Vehicle Principal + Interest Rate 10 Vehicles needed for sponsored service 493,061.40 Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service 4,475,416.63 TOTAL
Addendum 5 1000 North Mobilization (122,274 miles, 22,918 hours) Monthly Cost Mobilization FTE/Unit Position/Item per FTE/unit January February March April May June July Total 2 Mechanics $ 7,192 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 100,688 1 Fixed Supervisors $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 52,500 1 TCC Dispatch $ 5,234 $ -$ -$ -$ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 20,936 0 Para Supervisors $ 7,200 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -15 Operator Recruitment one time $ 3,000 $ 2,400 $ 1,800 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ -$ 9,000 15 Operator Training one time $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 275,500 15 Operator Service $ 5,964 $ 14,910 $ 47,712 $ 59,640 $ 89,460 $ 89,460 $ 301,182 4 Vehicle Procurement $ 3,912 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,648 $ 15,648 $ 31,296 Sub Total $ 24,884 $ 70,201 $ 84,511 $ 121,347 $133,275 $178,743 $178,143 $ 791,102 20% Administration $ 4,977 $ 14,040 $ 16,902 $ 24,269 $ 26,655 $ 35,749 $ 35,629 $ 158,220 TOTAL $ 29,861 $ 84,241 $101,413 $ 145,616 $159,930 $214,491 $213,771 $ 949,322 Mobilization Milestone Invoices Month Expense* Admin Total 1/1/2022 $ 24,884 $ 4,977 $ 29,861 2/1/2022 $ 70,201 $ 14,040 $ 84,241 3/1/2022 $ 84,511 $ 16,902 $ 101,413 4/1/2022 $ 121,347 $ 24,269 $ 145,616 5/1/2022 $ 133,275 $ 26,655 $ 159,930 6/1/2022 $ 178,743 $ 35,749 $ 214,491 7/1/2022 $ 178,143 $ 35,629 $ 213,771 Subtotal $ 791,102 $158,220 $ 949,322 * Expense costs represent a not-to-exceed amount, invoices will be based on actual FTE hires.
EXHIBIT6
Timeline of Transit Programs
2017-2022
Why a Transit
Master Plan
::-::=.~::....:.:..-:-... .... ~-----'"" ho---------··--.. ---,.,___...,..__.,. .......... __ E:.::=::-..::..-=: -~ __, ________ _ ·--· -~----1-·-------~·· ~-
approves
Funding Our
Future sales tax
Top 4 Priorities of 2017 Transit Master Plan
1) Implement a Frequent Transit Network (FTNJ: Council's direction at the time was
phase 1 priority (Bus routes 2, 9, 21) & new routes on 600 North, 1000 North, and
400 South
2) Develop pilot programs for employer shuttles & on-demand ride services
3) Implement capital investments along FTN corridors
4) Implement a variety of transit-supportive programs and transit access
improvements that overcome barriers to using transit
FUNDING
OUR FUTURE @
UTA
Ongoing Implementation of 2017 Transit Master Plan
-FTN Routes & Marketing/Branding: Bus routes 2, 9, 21 plus additional routes
-Transit Improvements: Signal upgrades, ADA. bus stop improvements,
first/last mile enhancements, etc
-Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) & Trips to Transit (T2T):
Managing transportation to major employment centers & on-demand
microtransit pilot in Westside SLC neighborhood(s)
-Transit Staff: Positions supporting transit programs & public outreach
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:July 20, 2021
RE: FY22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: D-1 to D-6
CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Section B, General Fund Projects Sections C & D
NEW INFORMATION
At the July 13 briefing, the Council reviewed the full Funding Log (Attachment 2) and identified several follow
up questions. Those questions were sent to the Administration and are copied below for reference. Responses
are expected to be available for the August 17 briefing. Some Council Members also identified projects without a
funding recommendation from the advisory board and the Mayor which they are interested in funding. Below
are updates on changes to recapture funding amounts, the Administration’s responses to policy questions from
June and project #75 the 600 North Corridor Transformation. Staff is working with the Administration to
determine how much of project #3 Odyssey House Annex Building Renovations is eligible for American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) funding and under new guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department if additional CIP projects
may qualify.
$150,753 Decrease in Class C (gas tax) Funds Recapture
The Administration reports $150,753 is still needed of the $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funds from completed
projects that the Council recaptured as part of the annual budget. This means the new recaptured balance is
$58,228, and that a correction will need to be made in a budget amendment to move the $150,753 back to the
original projects so pending invoices can be paid. The situation could be an example of a system improvement
opportunity for communication between departments and divisions. The projects in question were completed
from a construction and engineering perspective but some post-construction invoices have not been paid. The
new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system might help in similar situations in the future by improving the
City’s ability to track and coordinate on finances and assets.
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021
1st Briefing: June 1, 2021
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
3rd Briefing: July 20, 2021
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
5th Briefing & Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project
specific funding is approved by September 1.
Page | 2
$38,334 Increase in General Fund Recapture
The Administration reports $38,334 in additional General Fund dollars can be recaptured for use in FY22 CIP.
Three projects were completed and had remaining funds encumbered but are no longer needed. This funding
will need to be part of a budget amendment to formally be added into FY22 CIP since they were not part of the
annual budget. General Fund dollars are the most flexible CIP funding source and can go to any project.
Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions (Attachment 12)
The Administration’s responses to the Council’s policy questions are available in Attachment 12. The
Administration will be available to discuss with the Council the responses and potential next steps at the July 20
meeting. The Council may wish to identify policy interests for follow up after adoption of the FY22 CIP project
specific funding (September 1 deadline). Some of the issues could benefit from additional time and discussion to
improve existing processes and policies.
Project #75 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams, Preferred Concept and Goals
See Attachments 10 and 11
The Transportation Division provided Attachment 10 which has diagrams of six segments along the corridor
showing potential changes to the public right of way based on public engagement to-date. Public engagement
included pop-up events, several meetings, community events before the pandemic, an online survey in the
spring this year and presented to community councils. Attachment 11 is a longer document summarizing the
narrative and goals for the current preferred concept. A final preferred concept is expected to be available later
this summer or fall.
Several funding sources (Federal, State, UTA and City) have been identified but the project is not yet fully
funded. Note that the $58 million bond proposal includes $4 million for this project. The description states the
total project cost is $8.7 million but that may not be enough to fully fund the project given construction inflation
the City experienced in other recent projects. Fully funding the street reconstruction would mean less disruption
to the neighborhood (one construction period instead of two) and some modest mobilization cost savings and
efficiencies from a consolidated design. Also, a final preferred concept based on more public engagement and
updated engineering designs will inform the project’s total estimated cost later this year. Construction is
expected to be done in phases.
In recent years, the Council funded safety improvements to the 600 North and 800 West intersection and a
study of the 600 North Corridor. The total corridor is from 2200 West to Wall Street with three primary
segments within: 2200 West to Redwood Road, Redwood Road to I-15, and then several blocks from I-15 to Wall
Street. The project builds upon the upcoming Frequent Transit bus route on 600 North which is part of
implementing the City’s Transit Master Plan with UTA. For example, the partnership with UTA includes new bus
stops and improvements to existing bus stops along the corridor. UTA is paying for those new and improved bus
stops and long-term maintenance. The City is paying for the concrete pads.
Council Follow Up Questions to Administration
The below questions were sent to the Administration following the July 13 briefing. Responses are expected to be
available for the Council’s August 17 CIP briefing.
What is the available to spend balance of:
o The Art Maintenance Fund?
o The New Art Fund?
o The CIP Cost Overrun Account?
o The Surplus Land Fund?
Could you please help update the attached spreadsheet listing general cost estimates for regular CIP
projects? This was last updated in July 2019 and we know costs for some construction materials have
experienced significant inflation during the pandemic. And feel free to add rows for new projects if
departments think those additions would be helpful.
Is the FY22 list of projects for the Facilities capital asset replacement need to be updated given that the
FY21 funding was recaptured for the emergency Central Plant boiler replacements?
Page | 3
Could you please provide a written description of the $3.4 million for westside parks that’s listed as part
of the $58 million bond proposal? The bond is separate from but related to CIP and this information
would help the Council evaluate the City’s overall investments in parks and public lands and individual
project proposals.
#10 Training Tower, #11 Single Family Prop, #51 Mixed-use Prop and #52 Fire Training Ground
Improvements – Is there a comparison available between these four fire applications to help the Council
understand the similarities, differences, benefits, locations, etc? My recollection from the advisory board
presentation is that:
o The order on the funding log is the Fire Department’s order of priority between the four projects
o #10 would significantly upgrade the nine story main fire training facility
It’s been in use since the 1970s and the tower is almost obsolete
The company is pulling working parts from old facilities around the country and
installing here in SLC to keep it operating
There are four areas for fire simulation and all are nearing end of life
This is a primary training facility and without these upgrades fire fighters would need to
travel elsewhere to conduct some trainings
o #11 is located next to the tower in #10
The facility provides advanced training specific to this type of building structure
There are five different training areas
The facility is important to provide single-family home trainings given the many
neighborhoods in the City with that type of building
o #51 is three stories tall plus a roof deck
It was not fully built out and there are concerns about the structure not meeting current
engineering standards
There are eight training areas
o #52 is several upgrades to the overall training grounds and former fire station and logistics
facility
Approximately 45,000 square feet of unused space
The project would build a mini city for multiple kinds of training
Add significant areas of pavement so training can include vehicles
A security fence would also be added to the property
All of the facilities are used by other fire departments in the area
Only a nominal fee is charged for this longstanding practice
#22 Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt – Could you please provide a general timeline for
this project?
#33 Corridor Transformations, #36 Neighborhood Byways and #42 Kensington Byway – To what extent
do these three funding requests overlap in allowable uses? Are there elements of #42 that could be
funded by #33 and/or #36?
#32 Local Link Construction – Could you please provide some details from the draft study about how
this funding would be used? For example, is there an implementation and projects section that could be
shared with the Council? We understand this funding request is intended to provide general flexibility
for complete street enhancements to planned reconstructions but additional examples at specific
locations would be helpful context.
#54 Wasatch Tennis Court Reconstruction – What percentage of this project is parks impact fees
eligible?
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
Council-added Funding to CIP
As part of the FY22 annual budget adoption, the Council added $3,245,759 to the CIP budget. This additional
funding brought CIP from 6.1% in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget up to 7.2% of ongoing General Fund
revenues. The added funding includes three components:
Page | 4
- $1,879,654 or the upcoming 600 North Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in
a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the
excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding account. The full amount from the holding
account was appropriated for this project.
- $1,157,124 in General Fund dollars available for any project and these do not have funding
recommendations from the CDCIP Board or the Mayor. The CDCIP Board did recommend the Council
consider the Board’s combined project scoring as a guide for any additional funding. The scoring is
available in Attachment 5. Of this additional funding, $155,709 was recaptured from previously
completed projects.
- $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funding which was recaptured from previously completed projects. See
Additional Info section for allowable uses of Class C funds are determined by state law.
Updated Funding Log
Attachment 2 has been updated since the June briefing to reflect Council-added funding, the 600 North corridor
transformation project, reformatting the spreadsheet to include the Council’s funding decisions and several
other improvements.
The following might be helpful in navigating the Funding Log:
- The first column on the far left identifies the ID# for every project to allow easier reference.
- The second column has the short-title for each application. Council staff added a note where an
application overlaps with a project proposed in the Mayor’s $58 million bond proposal
- The third column “Scope of Work” provides a project description and often a cost breakdown with
further details.
- The blue heading columns are the CDCIP and Mayor funding recommendations. This year, the two sets
of funding recommendations are identical exception for application #42 on Page 13 which the CDCIP
Board did not recommend funding but the Mayor recommends full funding.
- The green heading columns furthest to the right are the Council’s funding decisions. Staff copied the
Mayor’s funding recommendations into these columns as a starting place for the Council’s deliberations.
- The top right corner shows the “Available Funding” for each funding source. These amounts reflect
funds that have not been appropriated to an application.
- Note that all text in blue on the Funding Log was added by Council staff.
Policy Questions Update
Per Council Members request at the June briefing, staff sent all the policy questions to the Administration.
Responses were forthcoming at the time of publishing this staff report. The Council also identified an additional
policy question during unresolved issues briefings which has been sent to the Administration and is copied
below:
- To what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of-way projects including
funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding construction mitigation
as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects similar to the built in contingency percentage. The
Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000
construction mitigation funding.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates the overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
and approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews
individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and
competitive process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit project applications. The
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the
applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor
provides a second set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific
funding. Note that for FY 21 the Administration conducted an abbreviated CIP process which did not include
outside applications.
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies (Attachment 1), a CIP
project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical
structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
Page | 5
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Overview of the FY22 CIP Budget
The total FY22 CIP budget is $34.7 million which is $5.5 million (19%) more than last year. Only looking at the
ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP excluding Funding Our Future shows a decrease of $456,798 (3%) less
than last year.
$5.5 Million Overall Increase – This is largely due to a $4.9 million increase from the new funding source
County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and a $3.2 million increase in impact fees.
$456,798 Decrease in General Fund Transfer – The proposed ongoing General Fund (excluding Funding
Our Future dollars) transfer is $14.1 million to CIP which is 6.1% of the ongoing FY22 General Fund
budget. If the Council wishes to increase the CIP funding level to 7% an additional $2,775,049 is needed.
The Council would need to identify corresponding cuts in other General Fund expenses or revenue
increases.
$5.7 Million Unrestricted Funds – The sources of CIP funds are detailed further in the chart below.
$5,705,720 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new
projects (the most flexible funding available).
$10.7 Million Debt Payments and Ongoing Commitments – $10.7 million (58%) of the General Fund
transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments. However, it
should be noted that $3,657,667 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed bond that the
Council has not discussed in detail or approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY22
project applications if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Overall,
debt service is 30% of ongoing CIP funding which is a significant improvement over FY21 when the debt
load was 46%. The drop is because a sales tax revenue bond was paid off in FY21.
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
C I P Fu n di n g So u rc es A do p t ed
2 0 19 -2 0
A do p t ed
2 0 2 0 -2 1
Pro p o sed
2 0 2 1-2 2
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
$ C h an ge
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
% C h an ge
Ge ne r a l Fund 1 5 ,2 3 9,4 7 9$ 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 6 7$ 1 4 ,1 2 5 ,4 6 9$ (4 5 6 ,7 9 8)$ -3 %
Fund ing Ou r Fu tur e *6 ,1 6 9,3 6 7$ 4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ (1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -2 7 %
Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 1 %
I m p a c t Fe e **4 ,5 6 7 ,9 1 3$ 5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 3 ,2 1 8,0 9 2$ 6 4 %
CDBG -$ -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME
Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o unts 3 ,5 7 2 ,9 6 8$ 1 ,1 4 9,6 1 6$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME
Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax ***N/A N/A 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ NEW NEW
Sur p lu s Land Fu nd 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 %
Sm it h 's Nam ing Right s
Re v e nu e 1 5 9,5 85$ 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ (2 ,0 0 0 )$ -1 %
SLC Sp o r ts Co m ple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ (6 ,2 0 1 )$ -4 %
Me m o r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nu e 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 %
TOTA L 3 3 ,1 2 6,3 7 1$ 2 9 ,2 2 6,2 6 2$ 3 4 ,7 7 3 ,4 4 5$ 5 ,5 4 7 ,1 83$ 1 9 %
TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 9 ,5 3 0 ,5 1 1$ 2 8,0 7 6,6 4 6$ 3 4 ,4 5 1 ,4 4 5$ 6 ,3 7 4 ,7 9 9$ 2 3 %
*I nc lu d e s % t o CI P "o ff t h e to p ," transit a nd pu b lic rig h t o f w a y infrastru c t ure . A ls o , fund ing so u rc e is o ng o ing
b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h a ng e th e u s e c ate g o rie s in t h e futu re
**Th e re are fo u r im p a c t fe e ty p e s: fire , p arks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s
No te : FY 2 1 & FY 2 2 inc lude s a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re d u c tio n w h ic h is no t se pa ra t e d o u t in th e t a b le
ab o v e
***Ne w re v e nu e so u rc e in FY 2 1 w h ic h t h e Co u nc il dire c t e d b e inc lude d in CI P fo r FY 2 2 a nd th e re a fte r, lim it e d to
tra nsp o rta tio ni and st re e t infra s truc tu re use s
Page | 6
Significant changes to CIP in FY22 and in upcoming years include:
FY22 is the third year with a CIP Budget Book detailing individual projects and debts.
Administration is continuing work on creating a Capital Facilities Plan (10-year comprehensive CIP plan).
Updates to all four sections (fire, parks, police, and streets/transportation) of the Impact Fees Facilities
Plan that was funded by the Council in Budget Amendment #6 of FY19 of which three are pending.
An approximately $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 which removes $5.3 million of annual debt
payments. The Mayor is recommending a new, smaller bond for several capital improvement projects. See
Additional Info section for debt load projections chart and Attachment 4 for a spreadsheet summarizing
the proposed $58 million bond-funded projects.
No constituent applications were considered for funding in FY21 as part of an abbreviated CIP process,
rather they were carried over into FY22 CIP resulting in a higher number competing for limited funds
Three Differences in Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
(See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book)
Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget
Book and on the CIP Funding Log. The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is
recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. This year the funding
recommendations from the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident
advisory board and the mayor are nearly identical with three differences listed below.
- The Board did not recommend funding for the Kensington Byway on Andrew Ave. from West Temple to
Main Street and Kensington Ave. from Main Street to 800 East (note that the street has different names
on either side of Main Street). The Mayor recommends fully funding the project using $500,000 from
Funding Our Future Streets. Note that several projects scored higher by the Board but are not
recommended for funding or less than full funding.
- Fully funding the 900 South Signal Improvements project (from 900 West to Lincoln Street) with
slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $100,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for
transportation and streets and $233,500 from Funding Our Future Streets while the Board proposes to
use $333,500 from Funding Our Future Streets.
- Mostly funding Transportation Safety Improvements project with slightly different sources. The Mayor
proposes to use $400,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets while the Board
proposes to use $400,000 from Funding Our Future Streets.
Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available
(See Attachment 5 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores)
The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application. The Board recommends that their combined
scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY22 projects. The
combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column. Note that board
members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time (technical difficulties or not
at the public meeting) or they couldn’t decide.
Over $300 Million Unfunded Capital Needs and the Mayor’s New $58 Million Bond Proposal
(See Attachment 4 pages three and four for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed bond-funded projects)
Last year, the Council discussed the upcoming opportunity of an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue
bond being paid off in 2021. This removed a $5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid
using General Fund dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to
prioritize use of this funding opportunity (assuming available revenues) given that the City’s unfunded capital
needs significantly exceed $5.3 million. The Mayor is proposing a new $58 million bond with an estimated $3.6
million annual debt payment. Note that some of the projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while
others would need to be a separate taxable (more expensive) bond. Also, the total cost of the bond is greater than
the sum of the individual projects because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the $58
million maximum proposed. The proposed capital improvement projects include:
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
- $2.5 Million for Central Plan electrical transformer upgrade
- $3 Million for Warm Springs historic structure stabilization
- $1.7 Million for an urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions
- $1.5 Million for Fisher Mansion improvements
Page | 7
- $7.5 Million for Fisher Mansion restoration
- $3 million for improvements to the Ballpark
Note that the City has $47.7 million in total deferred facilities needs
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
- $4 Million for 600 North complete street transformation
- $1 Million for cemetery road repairs
- $6.1 Million for railroad quiet zones on the West Side (trains would stop blowing horns at crossings)
Note that the City is about halfway through the 2018 voter-approved $87 Million Streets Reconstruction Bond.
More ongoing funding for street reconstructions and overlays will be needed after the bond funds are gone.
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
- $1.2 Million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage
- $440,000 for Jordan River Paddle Share Program at Exchange Club Marina 1700 South
- $1.3 Million for Allen Park activation of historic structures
- $3.4 Million for West Side neighborhood parks
- $5 Million for Foothills trail system phases 2 and 3 trailheads and signage
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $1.7 million in FY22 CIP for this project
- $5.2 Million for improvements to Pioneer Park
- $10 Million for redevelopment of the Glendale Water Park
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $3.2 million in FY22 CIP for this project
Over $300 Million in Unfunded Capital Needs over the Next Decade
Below is a short list of the City’s unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best
management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs
may be higher since originally estimated. The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and
may be closer to $500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point.
Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs. If the City had a Capital Facilities
Plan, then it would be a mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a
long-term horizon.
$TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, Eastside Police Precinct, multiple aging
fire stations, The Leonardo (old library), expansion of the S-Line Streetcar, downtown TRAX loop, quiet
zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east sides, implementing rest of the
9-Line and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, etc.
$133 million over ten years (in addition to existing funding level) to increase the overall condition index
of the City's street network from poor to fair
$50.9 million above the FY22 recommended funding level over next 10 years to fully fund the City’s
Fleet needs
$47.7 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance
$25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs
$20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South
$6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex
$3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement
$1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349
Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
(Attachment 9)
The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) requests that remaining funds from completed
projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be
recaptured. The table in Attachment 9 is staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP
projects. 53 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several
projects also received Class C funds, CDBG funds or are old donations. The total funding is just over $4.2
million. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses,
however, the Class C, CDBG and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to
identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential
funding to recapture by project will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings.
Page | 8
Council Member Rogers’ Proposal
During the Non-Departmental budget briefing on May 25, Council Member Rogers expressed interest in using
some or all the $1,879,654 in the Funding Our Future transit holding account for the 600 North complete street
transformation project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted
and the Council placed the excess funds into the holding account. Council staff is meeting with Transportation
Division staff to better understand the project scope, phases, cost estimates and existing funding.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with
recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent
years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a
safety study of the 600 North corridor.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may
wish to discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy
priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded
capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new
assets. The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also
reviewing individual CIP projects.
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
2.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for
ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor
provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be
completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations.
3.Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an
application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy
document, if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow
constituent street reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the
worst first based on a data-driven process, etc.
4.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest
in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some
projects get more support from departments than others.
5.Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council
may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant
building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more
efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of
FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent:
The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public
Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than
continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the
Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget
for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related
FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget.
Page | 9
6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety
of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly
reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
7.Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The
State Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans
regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement
the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide
the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23.
8.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing
in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals,
metrics, and requests.
9.Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C
funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes
to transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are
only going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the
voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Surplus Land Fund (See Policy Question #7)
The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City
policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the
Housing Trust Fund. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. The FY22 budget
proposes to continue a $200,000 appropriation to the CAN Department for property maintenance expenses
such as utilities, security, and minor repairs. This is using one-time funding for an ongoing expense.
Cost Overrun Account
The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula
determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total
Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration
to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to
the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying
projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which typically takes a few months.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (See Attachment 7)
The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. Attachment ??? is the
most recent impact fee tracking report from the Administration. The table below is current as of April 20, 2021.
Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds.
The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $6,800,450 of parks impact fees and $491,520 of streets
/ transportation impact fees.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,002,114 More than a year away -
Parks $8,435,142 More than a year away -
Police $421,062 June 2021 $30,017
Transportation $5,125,188 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Impact Fee Eligibility
Page | 10
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of
providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth
should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service
provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city. As a result, it’s
common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other
funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six
years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if
those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26
(Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $58 million bond)
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding for projects over the next six fiscal years. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing
bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for
parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget
Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer
into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21.
The projected debt load significantly decreases in FY22 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds
matures (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding).
This reduces the debt load from 79% to 45% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. The Mayor is
recommending a new sales tax revenue bond totaling $58 million with an estimated annual debt payment of
almost $3.7 million. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded
through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase.
0%
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
100%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021 -22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-2 4 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Allocation of C IP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year
Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and
continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Se r vice On Bonds Othe r Debt Servic e Other Commitments Pay a s You G o Pro jec ts
Page | 11
1.5% for Art Fund (for new art and maintenance of existing artworks)
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art minimum. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%.
The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the 1.5% is allocated to maintenance annually. This
section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance
fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require
maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and
maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces. The collection is expected to
continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of
$200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Of that amount, up to $40,000 was authorized for a study to
determine the annual funding need for art maintenance and identify specific repairs for artworks.
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 6)
The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and
guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the
Council expressed interest in identifying a couple measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide
prioritization of project planning.
Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 8)
Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years. The
document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The figures may not be up to
date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs. The three categories of project
cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost
estimates will be provided for the Council’s budget deliberations in July and August.
County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to
transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused
perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and
ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for
this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g. widening) existing roads; funding active
transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for
maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax
Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for UTA, 0.10% for cities and
0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between
this funding source and Class C funds (next section).
Class C Funds (gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C
funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee
selects specific street segment locations (See next section below). Note that there is overlap in eligible uses
between this funding source and the County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding (previous
section). Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter,
safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the
highway right-of-way
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
Page | 12
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be
constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible)
Roadway Selection Committee
The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose
appropriations, e.g., reconstruction or overlay. In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and
revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G. O. Bond. The Committee is led by
Engineering and includes representatives of Streets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Public Services, HAND,
Finance, the RDA and Council Staff. Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection
process includes:
Public requests for individual road repair
On-going costs to keep a road safely passable
Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood
or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the 900 South corridor
Safety improvement goals and crash data
Public Utilities’ planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities
replacements, repairs, or upgrades
Private utilities’ existing infrastructure, planned installations or repairs, e.g., fiber, natural gas, power
Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations
Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street
In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria, open deliberations are held between committee members, and roads
are selected for repair by consensus. The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding. Other
City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources.
CIP Planning Technology Improvements
The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. The City
currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here:
http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY 22 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. FY22 CIP Budget Book – Note an electronic version was pending at the time of publishing this staff
report for the June 1 Council meeting
4. Summary Project Spreadsheet for Proposed Sales Tax Bonds Series 2021A and 2021B
5. FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes
6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
7. Impact Fee “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (April 20, 2021)
8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 3, 2019)
9. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years for Potential Funding Recapture
10. 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams Draft
11. 600 North Corridor Transformation Preferred Concept, Narrative and Goals Draft
12. Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
ACRONYMS
CAN – Community and Neighborhood Development Department
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
CFP – Capital Facilities Plan
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Company
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
Page | 13
G.O. Bond – General Obligation bond
HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration :
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one-
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies ,
establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding .
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor ,
and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $100,001 and $250,000;
iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations .
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating
implications).
6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry .
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options .
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
1 1.5% for Art
Required by City ordinance and calculated as 1.5% of the General Fund available to spend revenues in the Mayor's
Recommended Budget. Overseen by the Arts Council. Ordinance allows the Administration to use some of the
funding for maintenance of existing artworks and the rest goes to new artworks.$85,586 $34,500 $85,586 $34,500
2 Cost Overrun
Account
Required and governed by the CIP Resolution 29 of 2017. Provides additional funding for projects with expenses
that come in slightly higher than estimated. $114,114 $46,000 $114,114 $46,000
3
Odyssey House
Annex Facility
Renovation
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
Odyssey House is seeking funding from Salt Lake City to complete a significant renovation of the Annex building
rented by the agency located at 623 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Currently, the Annex has a
multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety risks for the residential clients who inhabit the facility at
this time.
The roof is deteriorating, and the gutters are becoming unstable. This damage is causing a multitude of different
leaks within the building, harming interior and exterior walls. To fully replace the roof and gutters, it will cost
about $28,000. The building's foundation, primarily in the rear, is beginning to crumble and needs to be repaired,
treated, and braced, which will ultimately cost about $250,000. The roof and foundation must be restored to
complete all other necessary renovations before other workers can be deployed inside the building. Following the
roof and foundation's replacement and repairs, the interior beams, walls, and overall structural skeleton need to
be reinforced and stabilized due to extensive water damage, costing about $33,000. All exterior walls need to be
cleaned, repaired, and repainted, costing about $41,500. Windows and doors within the facility have to be wholly
replaced. Due to structural and foundational problems, all interior doors and windows cannot shut or lock because
their frames are warped and/rotting. To complete an overhaul of the windows and doors, it will cost about
$19,500. Additionally, the electrical and mechanical systems in the building, such as wiring, hardware, plumbing,
etc., will need to be evaluated and repaired or replaced, which will cost about $35,500. Lastly, exterior site work,
such as sidewalk repairs, drainage slope, ADA access, and miscellaneous fees, such as permits, additional
insurance, and project management, will add $42,500 to the total project cost. In total, the renovation of the
Annex will cost about $450,000. However, Odyssey House is looking to build in a contingency of $50,000 to
prepare for any additional work that may appear after beginning construction resulting in an overall cost of
$500,000.
$300,000 $300,000
4
Street
Improvements
2021/2022
Requested $3.5 million from Class C; Engineering Project
Deteriorated city streets will be reconstructed or rehabilitated using funding from this program. This will provide
replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary. Where
appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as
determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance.
$2,046,329 $2,046,329
5 Pavement
Conditions Survey
Requested $175,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
Approximately every five years the entire pavement network is surveyed. This condition survey is accomplished by
a third party with state of the art equipment and results in a report summarizing possible options and costs. The
data collected is used by Engineering’s Pavement Management Team to determine the overall street network
condition, provide street rehabilitation and reconstruction recommendations, and prioritize proposed
maintenance activities.
$3,571 $171,429 $3,571 $171,429
6
Public Way
Concrete
2021/2022
Requested $750,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-cutting, slab jacking, and removal and
replacement of deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls,
etc.
$75,000 $675,000 $75,000 $675,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 1
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
7
Bridge
Preservation
2021/2022
Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects
these bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for
performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. City Engineering has
prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these
structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed
repairs and routine maintenance.
$21,429 $278,571 $21,429 $278,571
8
Rail Adjacent
Pavement
Improvements
2021/2022
Requested $70,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This program addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs pavement
improvements and contracts the construction.$70,000 $70,000
9
Capital Asset
Replacement
Program
$19.2 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR SIX FACILITIES
PROJECTS
Requested $5,860,449 from General Fund; Facilities Project
The Facilities Division’s Facility Condition Index database categorizes asset renewal projects based on the criticality
of projects starting with Priority 1, Life Safety. Projects in Priority 2 address Structural Integrity, Property Loss, and
Contractual Obligations. To eliminate the $47,733,403 in total deferred capital renewal, Facilities proposes an
annual investment through CIP of $7,000,000. For FY22 CIP funding, Facilities is requesting funding for Projects of
Priority1 and 2 for $5,860,449. (The amount requested is derived from an initial 2017 facility assessment to which
a 3% annual inflationary rate has been applied. It should be noted that the current construction environment is
very heated; with the 10% contingency and 21% Design/Engineering costs Facilities request is $5,860,449.)
$1,252,230 $1,252,230
10 Training Tower
Fire Prop Upgrade
Requested $318,279 from General Fund; Fire Project
The Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade consist of modernizing the existing natural gas fire props within the
Tower. The scope includes upgrading the fuel control station, PLC5 to the new ControlLogix PLC operating system,
and the bedroom, storage, desk, and car fire props.
Fuel control station: Replace existing assembly whose components are currently obsolete. The upgrade will
replace the existing FCS (fuel control station) to “auto” open style FCS which will have the automatically controlled
main gas safety shut off valve and the latest version of the low- and high-pressure switches.
PLC Upgrade – PLC5 to Logix includes upgrade the existing PLC 5 to new ControlLogix PLC:
*New Allen Bradley PLC ControlLogix, input modules, output modules, analog modules, and Ethernet adapter
modules
* Replacement of control room PC’s with the latest PC hardware available at time of delivery
* Microsoft operating system (currently Windows 10)
* KFT Fire Trainer software
* Ethernet to Data Highway Interface for both systems
* Upgrade Outdoor PLC to New Logics PLC.
Fire prop upgrade: KFT's advanced burner design, AquaMesh, produces increased levels of radiant heat, a more
realistic flame signature, lower levels of unburned gases during fire suppression, and more challenging flames that
cannot be swept off the fire mock-up with hose stream application. Water, used to disperse the propane or
natural gas, is not visible through the fireplace mock-up. AquaMesh fires are capable of withstanding repeated
direct hose line stream attacks, without having any significant amount of water dispelled from the burner
assembly within the fire mock-up.
$318,279 $318,279
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 2
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
11 Single Family/Fire
Behavior Prop
Requested $374,864 from General Fund; Fire Project
Drager Phase V Rambler/Fire-Behavior Prop to include:
One (1) story unit comprised of Five (5) 40’ fire training modules
NFPA 1402 $ OSHA-compliant system
Two (2) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chamber with emergency exits as required
Burn baffles
High-heat thermal-insulated wall with door(s)
Standard windows
Standard doors
One (1) sliding door
Hallway
Vents with pull cable
Cleanout cargo doors
Freight to customer site
On-site installation & set up to include:
Full Project management support from Drager staff
Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site
Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensure that the fire prop system is installed properly,
safely, and with minimal disruption
Insured and bonded installation and crane service
Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors
Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance
$374,864 $374,864
12
Tracy Aviary
Historic Structure
Renovations
Requested $156,078 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Two historical elements at Tracy Aviary in Liberty Park are in need of repair and are the subject of this CIP request.
The Bath House (a.k.a.Custodial Storage Building (CSB)) and the East Gate. The CSB needs a new roof. This will
require removing the solar panels, replacing asphalt shingles and re-installing the solar panels. The East Gate was
identified during our 2019 AZA accreditation inspection as an area of concern due to being an insufficient
perimeter barrier. The solution is to re-align the existing fence and add additional fencing to block a gap. Brick
work to repair damaged areas, signage, and landscaping surrounding the space is also included.
$156,078 $156,078
13
Three Creeks West
Bank Trailway
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $490,074 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Reconstruct a half-block of the Jordan River Parkway Trail where it’s eroding into the river at 1300 South and 1000
West.
$484,146 $484,146
14
Three Creeks West
Bank New Park
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $150,736 from parks impact fees; Constituent Public Lands Project
This project will create a new multiuse park on 1.4 acres owned by the city at 1050 W 1300 South, along the
Jordan River. Grading and landscaping would need to take place. Park amenities can be determined as the project
moves forward. Pickleball courts have been suggested by the Glendale Community Council.
Note that the Three Creeks Confluence Park on the east side of the Jordan River completed construction and
opened to the public in July 2021.
$150,736 $150,736
15
Sugar House Park
Fabian Lake
Pavilion Remove
and Replace
Requested $183,834 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Scope of work is to remove and replace existing Fabian Lakeside Pavilion. SHPA hired Arch Nexus to review,
analyze and recommend solutions for the deteriorating pavilions, and completed the attached report in December
of 2015. Arch Nexus factored in escalation costs through 2020.
$183,834 $183,834
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 3
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
16 Liberty Park
Basketball Court
Requested $99,680 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
This project is for resurfacing the existing basketball court in the center of the park and the replacement of two
new basketball hoops.
$99,680 $99,680
17
Glendale
Waterpark Master
Plan & Landscape
Rehabilitation &
Active Recreation
Component
$10 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR THIS PROJECT
AND
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $3.2 million from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project is Public Lands' highest priority impact fee request. The goal of this project is to provide a new active
recreation amenity at the former Glendale Water Park. This project will build on the results of a City sponsored
community visioning process, planned for 2021, that will determine the program and character for development.
Funds from this request will be allocated for technical drawings and site improvements. Forty years ago, the
Glendale water park was built using Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). LWCF protects funded
sites in perpetuity, to remain active recreation facilities open to the public. Removal of the obsolete water slides
and pools has triggered a three-year clock in which SLC must replace the amenity with another public outdoor,
active recreation facility. It does not have to be water based, but it cannot solely be open fields of grass or natural
area. In the first phase, $3,200,000 will construct a community directed, active recreation amenity on site within
the three-year time limit. The scope of this project will reflect the communities’ priorities and character, resources
allocated and alignment with LWCF requirements. SLC Council and/or designees will be briefed on phase one
project selection prior to design and construction. Full development of the 17-acre site will likely require several
phases and funding cycles.
$3,200,000 $3,200,000
18
A Place for
Everyone: Emerald
Ribbon Master
Plan
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
AND
$440,000 FOR
JORDAN RIVER
PADDLE SHARE
Requested $420,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The Jordan River Emerald Ribbon Master Plan is, fundamentally, a placemaking initiative for the Jordan River
corridor, built on creative, diverse and deep community engagement through four Salt Lake City neighborhoods.
Engagement will seek to identify features, improvements, stories, artwork and institutional connections that are
important to individual neighborhoods and communities along the river.
The planning effort will be led by the SLC Public Lands Division with support from an experienced consulting firm,
and extensive involvement of community partner organizations imbedded in the neighborhoods. This approach
will build on the connections made with University Neighborhood Partners to further this collaborative
relationship in the west side communities, and will ensure that creative and diverse engagement tactics produce
public feedback that captures the voices and opinions of groups and community members that have been
traditionally underrepresented.
Placemaking engagement activities will be broken into four distinct but complimentary neighborhood efforts:
Glendale (Hwy 201 to 900 South), Poplar Grove (900 South to North Temple), Fairpark/Jordan Meadows (North
Temple to 700 North), and Rose Park/Westpointe (700 North to I-215). Each engagement effort will draw on
existing Public Land assets along and nearby the river corridor, as well as the direction established by the Blueprint
Jordan River 2.0, the Westside Master Plan, 9Line Master Plan, Northwest Master Plan, North Temple Boulevard
Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Northpointe Small Area Plan, Jordan River Flood Control, Habitat and Green
Infrastructure Plan, the Reimagine Nature SLC Public Lands Master Plan, and other relevant documents. The final
Master Plan will include block-by-block improvement components along with recommended phasing and high-
level cost estimates for implementation that will guide subsequent allocation of CIP and Impact Fee resources,
investments in programming, and strategic partnerships.
$416,667 $416,667
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 4
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
19
Downtown Green
Loop
Implementation:
Design for 200 East
linear Park
Requested $610,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
Several streets along the Downtown Plan's visionary Green Loop Regional Park project are already under
consideration by the Transportation Division for corridor-wide changes, including improvements for active
transportation. This request from the Public Lands Division would fund the collaborative visioning, public
engagement, and conceptual design of the nontransportation elements of the Green Loop. The design of public
green space, park elements, and stormwater rain gardens / bio-swales will be proposed within the 132' public
way, facilitated by a significant reallocation of space from pavement to park.
Based on the Transportation Division's current and pending work on 200 East, it is anticipated that this funding will
go primarily to 200 East, with some lesser attention to other corridors along the loop. The result of this phase of
the project will be public awareness, interest and excitement about this regionally-significant project; a conceptual
and preliminary design; a construction cost estimate suitable for seeking construction funds; and strategies for
short and long term maintenance approaches and costs. Specific tasks associated with this scope of work include:
• Public engagement for conceptual design and design development of the 200 East leg Green Loop corridor
• Conceptual design for the green space component of the 200 East Corridor/ Segment of the Green Loop.
• Analysis of site opportunities and constraints with special attention to underground utilities and infrastructure
that may impact above ground improvements.
• Design development of the 200 East green space development and amenities. To include full construction cost
estimates with short and long term maintenance cost estimates.
$610,000 $610,000
20
Liberty Park
Cultural Landscape
Report and Master
Plan
Requested $475,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Liberty Park is Salt Lake City’s most iconic – and most popular – park space, with well over one million visitors each
year. The features that draw visitors to Liberty Park – this historic features and mature trees that give Liberty Park
its unique atmosphere – are in a state of accelerating deterioration. The formal tree plantings framing the central
walkway and perimeter of the park are suffering tree loss due to old age and a planting plan to maintain historic
character is desperately needed. The project has three integral components:
1. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is the principal document based on standards established by the National
Park Services. The report documents the history and physical changes of the site, determines periods of historic
significance and develops treatment recommendations for historic features and plantings. The report will build on
previous studies such as the 19XX Historic American Landscape Survey and look to including information on
underrepresented communities for this site. A CLR will include guidance for capital improvements, deferred
maintence projects and maintence.
2. The Liberty Park Master Plan will establish a vision and actionable plan that builds on the CLR recommendations
and provide an orderly framework for consistent planning, development and administration of the park for the
next twenty years. The plan deliverable will include concept level designs and renderings; a prioritized list of
capital improvements with high-level cost estimates; and policy direction for decision makers. The plan will go
though a formal adoption process.
3. This project will also include a study of the Liberty Park Greenhouse adaptive reuse for plant production, visitor
access, sustainability and potential revenue generation. The study will look at significantly expanding capacity for
growth of the City’s rare and native plant propagation program, allowing biodiversity enhancements at more parks
and natural areas citywide.
$354,167 $354,167
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 5
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
21
Historic Structure
Renovation &
Activation at Allen
Park
$1.3 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR THIS PROJECT
Requested $420,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
• Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures
• Development of architectural drawings and bid-ready cost estimates for baseline structural, safety and
functional improvements for eleven (11) structures, sufficient to utilize them as twenty-three (23) separate art
studio spaces without plumbing, and the historically-sensitive adaptation of one (1) structure to serve as a
restroom/supplies washroom.
• Development of preliminary architectural plans, renderings and high-level cost analysis for the historic
reconstruction of the George Allen Home to serve as a community education space for art classes and workshops,
and historic reconstruction of the adjoining “Rooster House” duplex to serve as a small café space with outdoor
dining.
• Development of construction documents and cost estimates for demolition of all aging/leaking septic systems
buried on property, and construction of a sewer connection from the adapted restroom structure to the sewer
connection on 1300 East.
• Development of construction documents and cost estimates for replacement of the two broken water meters
that serve the property, water connections to service the adapted restroom structure, fire suppression systems in
the art studios, a fire hydrant on the east side of the property, underground drip irrigation to support trees
throughout the property, and spray irrigation to support select flowerbeds and turf areas, and a replumbed
connection to the decorative fountains.
• Construction documents and cost estimates for repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen
Property at risk of collapse or severe deterioration, reconstruction of the lighting along Allen Park Drive,
adaptation of the north and south driveways to include public and ADA accessible parking for Allen Park, resurface
the degraded Allen Park Drive into an ADA-accessible, permeable surface pathway.
• High-level plan drawings and preliminary cost estimates for pedestrian stairway connections to 1400 East and
1500 East.
$420,000 $420,000
22
Replace Poplar
Grove Tennis with
new Sportcourt
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $440,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Poplar Grove Park is currently underutilized and does not have recreation amenities in demand by the community.
This project will remove two failing tennis courts, constructed over forty years ago, and construct either two new
tennis courts or six new pickleball courts in the existing footprint. A brief community survey will be conducted to
determine neighborhood priority. Should pickleball courts be selected, six courts would make the site ideal for
tournament play. There is an existing restroom that was recently updated, and a recently constructed concessions
stand, currently underutilized, that would provide desired support amenities for tournaments. The project
includes:
• Engagement with the community on project preference
• Full demolition of the existing tennis courts and associated pavement
• Development of site design and technical drawings for bidding and construction
• Construction of post-tension court facility
• Installation of associated perimeter fences, gates, nets, and benches
• Replacement of related perimeter sidewalks
• Installation of waterwise use plantings and irrigation in associated landscape areas
$433,333 $433,333
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 6
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
23
SLC Foothills
Trailhead
Development
$5 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $1,304,682 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project is part of a phased development of trailheads within Salt Lake City Foothills. The Foothill Trails Master
Plan adopted by Council in early 2020 identified key trailhead locations and recommended improvements to
better accommodate the growing trail network.
Phase 1, Conceptual Design: This phase was funded during FY19 and is currently underway. The SLC Public Lands
team has been working with Alta Planning Consulting to develop concept designs for five key trailhead locations
including: Emigration Canyon, Popperton Park, Bonneville Boulevard, Morris Mountain (I-Street) and Victory Road.
Concepts are attached.
Following completion of the conceptual design process and cost estimates, SLC Public Lands is now requesting
funding to implement two of the five trailhead improvement projects. Due to substantial costs associated with all
five locations the remaining locations will be included in FY23
Phase II, construction will implement trailhead improvements at both Bonneville Boulevard and Emigration
Canyon.
Implementation of key trailhead improvements is a fundamental component for sustainability, accessibility, and
functionality of the 100+ mile recreational trail system recommended by the SLC Foothills Trail System Plan and
these two locations will provide a good start to implementation of the master plan recommendations.
If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance
contingency on all foothill trails funding.
$1,304,682 $1,304,682
24
SLC Foothills Land
Acquisitions
$5 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $425,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
The project scope is limited to the acquisition of property rights for six parcels of undeveloped natural open space
in the north and central Foothills Natural Area, totaling approximately 275 acres, which will allow SLC to
consolidate ownership interest in the subject parcels, putting the City in a position to protect the parcels from
future development, and to guide property management for habitat protection, restoration, and recreational
access.
For three parcels, the proposed acquisitions would give SLC 100% property ownership; for two parcels, the
proposed acquisitions would move SLC from a minority ownership interest to a majority property ownership
interest; an in one case, would move SLC from a slight majority interest to a 90% interest. Increasing the fractional
ownership interest in these parcels substantially improves the City's ability to protect and manage them for
foothill protection, habitat restoration and nonmotorized recreational use.
If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance
contingency on all foothill trails funding. The Council could request a closed session briefing from the
Administration about the proposed property purchases.
$425,000 $425,000
25
Jordan Park
Pedestrian
Pathways
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
AND
$1.2 MILLION FOR
PUBLIC LANDS
SIGNAGE
Requested $510,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project will design and construct more than 3000 linear feet of new looped pathways in Jordan Park. New trail
segments will connect to existing sidewalks in order to create new desired pedestrian connections and a looped
network around the multi-use fields. This project builds on a previous request, approved in 2019 for new multi-
use trails in Jordan Park. This funding will be used to develop construction drawings for the pathways and
construction of the new pathways. Site furnishings, wayfinding and orientation signage will also be installed.
$510,000 $510,000
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 7
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
26
RAC Playground
with Shade Sails
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $450,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
Cost Estimates
$300,000- Playground materials and construction
$150,000- Design, engineering and contingency
This project will add a new playground at the Regional Athletic Complex. The RAC has been open for 5 years and
currently doesn’t have any amenities for children to use while visiting the complex.
The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground for ages 5-12
• Development of technical drawings
• Grading and surfacing preparations
• Playground Construction
• Walkway and fencing
Note that since FY17, the Council approved $2,421,518 for six RAC capital improvement projects
$180,032 $180,032
27
700 South
Westside Road
Configuration
Requested $514,450 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
A particular area of concern is the intersection of 700 S and 1000 W. 10th west (a massively wide road) intersects
with 700 S (another, even more massively wide road). I propose that 700 S be reconfigured to include a traffic
circle with a pocket park in the center, and include at least two, perhaps 3 medians along 700 South. I picture
these medians planted with large, native trees and plants. I picture clearly defined traffic lanes for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and cars, including clearly marked, perhaps even raised cross walks. I picture a quality, speed controlling
traffic circle with some low maintenance vegetation, benches, maybe even a simple playground. This vision
benefits the community in more ways than we could count. Improving roads, reducing the heat island effect by
the massive asphalt slabs, beautifying our surroundings, creating community gathering places, mitigating crime,
reducing vehicle speeds, and so much more. I have discussed this concern with neighbors, the poplar grove
community council, and had a brief conversation with Councilman Andrew Johnston about my concerns and our
ideas for reconfiguration, and he suggested I submit a CIP grant, which brings me here today. I hope the city will
consider the benefit that this kind of project will offer to our community.
Cost – provided by SLC Engineering
Traffic Circle Construction
Crosswalk Construction
2-3 Planted Medians
Clearly defined traffic lines.
Useful Life – >10 years
Salt Lake City Owned Asset – Roads and sidewalks are all public Salt Lake City Owned Assets
$223,450 $291,000 $223,450 $291,000
28
Highland High
Crosswalk
Enhancements
Requested $85,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The scope of work will include upgrading the crossing to include Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as well
as enhancements to shorten the crosswalk and make it safer (bulbouts on the east and west side of the
intersection and a raised median)
$85,000 $85,000
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 8
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
29
200 South Transit
Complete Street
Supplement
Requested $284,691 from transportation impact fees, $415,800 from Quartercent for transportation and
$2,561,409 from Funding Our Future; Transportation Project
As part of the Funding Our Future program, Salt Lake City will reconstruct 200 South from 400 West to 900 East
beginning in 2022. The current budget allocated to this project is $12,000,000 inclusive of construction and
professional design fees. The Transportation Division is requesting $3,261,900 to supplement the reconstruction
funds that reflects the recommendations from the 200 South Transit Corridor, Complete Street, and Downtown
Transit Hub Study. The preliminary design includes:
• Side-running Business Access and Transit (BAT) priority lanes, which operate as dedicated bus lanes but still
provide access to curbside uses and can be used in mixed traffic conditions.
• In-street bus stop islands will allow buses to stay in the driving lane, which reduces bus travel time and
minimizes conflicts that occur when weaving to curbside bus stops.
• Additional transit access and walkability elements, including mid-block crosswalk upgrades, landscaping,
sidewalk repair, human-scale lighting, traffic signal replacements (3), and bicycle lanes.
The low-end cost estimate for the preliminary design is approximately $15,500,000; the majority of the expense is
going to pavement robust enough handle the amount of bus activity expected on the corridor. Without
supplementary funds the budget shortfall will require removing many of the elements that make this a
transformative multi-modal project. It is expected that the project will need to be implemented in phases,
specifically the East Downtown Transit Hub envisioned in the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan and WFRC Regional
Transportation Plan. However, there are many elements that are important to build in the initial construction
phase that are structural to the road reconstruction project (e.g. curb extensions that affect flow lines and
drainage inlets); these are the priority elements the supplemental funds will be directed towards.
$37,422 $415,800 $37,422 $415,800
30 900 South 9Line RR
Crossing
Requested $28,000 from transportation impact fees and $172,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
The 2018 9-Line Trail Extension Study is the basis for recent 9-Line Trail projects’ design and budgeting
approaches. It recommends two very different design options near Interstate 15 and Union Pacific’s (UPRR) and
the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) rails. The more expensive, longer-term option is to grade-separate either just
the trail or both the trail and the roadway. The easier, less expensive, and shorter-term option is an improved at-
grade (or ground-level) crossing of the rails and routing the trail under the interstate. The latter is the focus of this
application. More information about the overall project’s timeline (2021-2023), approach, benefits, and robust
past engagement can be found at www.900SouthSLC.com. This funding request seeks additional monies that
would be used to:
• Fund an increase in the coordination and design budgets for the City’s contracted design and engineering
consultants (including multiple field and coordination meetings with UPRR, UTA, and the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT); research; and, more in-depth design), around $10,000
• Fund the UPRR consultant’s (RailPros) design review fees, typically up to $20,000.
• Construct three new railroad panels south of the existing panels, which are necessary to accommodate a 9-Line
Trail crossing capable of serving people walking and bicycling perpendicular to the rail corridor, typically around
$30,000 for all three.
• Construct additional improvements and/or new support infrastructure at the at-grade crossing per recent
experience with standard UPRR and UDOT guidance (e.g., back flashers, blankout signs, signage, pavement
markings, detectable warning surfaces and trail delineation, audible devices, fencing, swing arms, gates), typically
around $120,000.
• Fund UPRR and UTA-required training, traffic control, permitting, and miscellaneous other costs related to
construction, typically around $10,000.
• Engineering Division fees, typically about 10% (estimated at $10,000)
$28,000 $172,000 $28,000 $172,000
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 9
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
31 Trails Maintenance
Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for Transportation; Transportation Project
This funding request from 4th Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax for Transportation is requested to be moved from the
capital list into the annual operating budget for the Public Lands Division. Maintenance is an eligible expense of
the state-authorizing legislation for this fund. These funds will be used to fund city staff, equipment and material
to maintain new and recently constructed trails including portions of the 9-Line, McClelland Trail, and the Jordan
River Trail, and other urban trail segments that potentially come online during the course of the fiscal year. The
maintenance of these trails are necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and also so they can be used
year round.
$200,000 $200,000
32 Local Link
Construction
Requested $50,000 from transportation impact fees and $450,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
The Local Link Circulation Study (adoption pending, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar
House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit
in Sugar House.
This funding request is supplemental construction dollars to implement some of the recommendations of the
Local Link circulation study in the Sugar House area. Many Sugar House streets are planned to be reconstructed as
part of the Funding our Future Streets Bond, which included some Complete Streets funding. However, these
budgets had only limited funding for more extensive Complete Streets elements such as would reconfigure curbs
or intersections. This funding will allow the City to build higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and
biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These
roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant
allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking connections between
Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar House
Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening
crossing distances).
$50,000 $450,000 $50,000 $450,000
33 Corridor
Transformations
Requested $75,604 from transportation impact fees and $780,438 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
This programmatic request will fund the design and construction of significant infrastructure additions to corridors
NOT currently planned for reconstruction -- to include corridor-based complete streets changes to signing, striping
and wayfinding. corridor-long consideration and placement of bus stops with shelters, benches, trash cans, and
other amenities; improved bikeways; reconfigured intersections for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety in the
context of a corridor study; and consideration of business access / on-street parking. Possible corridors include
600/700 North, 2100 South, and corridors on the Downtown Green Loop.
$25,398 $282,200 $25,398 $282,200
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 10
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
34 Area Studies
Requested $14,000 from transportation impact fees and $201,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
These funds will be used to study and provide recommendations for streets and circulation in the rapidly-
developing Granary area, including the incorporation of bike, pedestrian and rail transit in the area, as well as an
understanding of how the existing streets should be improved. The cost of this study is estimated at $120,000, and
the City has applied for $111,000 in Transportation and Land Use Connection funding. The study will be
complemented by a study work being conducted by UTA in the area.
These funds will also be used to develop design recommendations for selected streets in the Sugar House area,
following on the more general guidance provided by the Local Link Circulation Study. This study (adoption process
anticipated, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the
2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. The purpose of this
funding would be to allow us to design higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key
area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include
Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through
the Wasatch Front Regional Council. These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better
walking and biking connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction
of bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House
(modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances).
$14,000 $201,000 $0 $201,000
35 400 South Viaduct
Trail
Requested $310,000 from General Fund, $90,000 from transportation impact fees and $500,000 from Quartercent
for transportation; Transportation Project
This project will add a low-profile, concrete barricade along with striping changes to create a multi-use trail on the
south side of the 400 South Viaduct, connecting the Poplar Grove Neighborhood with Downtown Salt Lake City for
those walking or bicycling. Construction includes changes to sidewalks and bike / pedestrian ramps, striping
removal and replacement, and minor construction to relocate medians. The multi-use trail will tie into existing
sidewalks on the east and west, and connect to existing and planned bike lanes.
$310,000 $90,000 $500,000 $310,000 $90,000 $500,000
36 Neighborhood
Byways
Requested $104,500 from transportation impact fees and $940,500 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
These funds will be used for design and construction of four neighborhood byways, as well as to create a
neighborhood byway conceptual design and guidance document to be used as reference material in the
development of future neighborhood byways. This will make future neighborhood byway development more
streamlined and efficient, and is anticipated to cost $100,000.
Two neighborhood byways -- 800 East Phase 1 ($275,000) and Poplar Grove Phase 2 ($600,000) -- will receive
construction dollars, while the additional two byways -- Sugar House to the U and Rose Park West -- will enter
community collaboration leading to conceptual designs ($35,000 per byway).
$104,500 $940,500 $104,500 $940,500
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 11
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
37 900 South Signal
Improvements
Requested $430,000 from General Fund and $70,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
The 2021-2023 900 South Reconstruction project runs from 900 West to Lincoln Street (945 East). From 700 East
to 200 West, the proposed design includes reducing the roadway width and cross section from four lanes to three,
improving safety and reducing speeds. The reduction in width also provides space for a separated path (the 9-Line
Trail), from 700 West to Lincoln Street (945 East) on the south side of 900 South. The narrowing and other project
elements will largely be achieved by moving the southern curb line to the north. These improvements are fully
funded and are currently in design, and construction will begin in 2021. For more about timeline, benefits, and the
robust past engagement for this project, visit www.900SouthSLC.com.
The new street design requires updated signal design and some additional infrastructure at most intersections
along the corridor. The layout of the proposed improvements has been designed to reduce the number of signal
poles required to be moved to keep project costs as low as possible.
1. West-facing signal mast arms on the south side of the corridor would generally be lengthened, or the entire
pole and mast arm would be relocated farther north.
2. East-facing signal mast arms on the north side may be shortened.
3. All signal heads would be adjusted to line up with the new lane configuration.
4. The new street design and the introduction of the trail on the south side require relocating or adding new or
relocated pedestrian push buttons to coincide with the new curb ramp locations.
5. The existing signal detection on cross streets (for northbound and southbound traffic) would also be upgraded
with radar or camera sensors at the 200 East, 300 East, 400 East, and 500 East intersections, the only four
intersections where such state-of-the-practice detection technology does not currently exist.
$96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500 $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500
38 Urban Trails
Requested $6,500 from transportation impact fees and $1,038,500 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
This programmatic funding application is for a suite of projects that represent collaborations between
Transportation Division and the Trails & Natural Lands Division of Public Lands. These funds will enable conceptual
development, design, and construction of selected urban trails, including:
• design of the Folsom Trail west of 1000 West
• design of the Grit & Gravel Trail (Beck St.) providing a key connection to Davis County
• design of the Parley's Trail in Sugar House following on the Local Link Circulation Plan
• design and initial quick-build implementation of portions of 200 East and/or other streets
included in the Green Loop linear park recommended in the Downtown Master Plan. Quick-build designs will be
linked to the project’s public engagement process and may be temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent.
• initial conceptual design of potential west side trails such as Stegner Trail along CWA drain
• neighborhood connections to the Jordan River Trail
• rehabilitation of badly deteriorated sections of the Jordan River Trail
$6,500 $1,038,500 $6,500 $1,038,500
39 Multimodal Street
Maintenance
Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project
This project provides funding to hire contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which current in-
house staff doesn’t have the equipment or staff to accomplish. Examples include enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes,
bike racks, colored pavement including downtown green bike lanes, bus shelters, enhanced medians: Snow
plowing, striping, signals, signage, delineators, etc.
$200,000 $200,000
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 12
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
40
Transportation
Safety
Improvements
Requested $450,000 from General Fund and $50,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
Traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control
devices and minor reconfiguration of an intersection or roadway to address safety issues. Salt Lake City's program
places a strong emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, particularly in support of access to and from transit.
This funding will further the City’s on-going effort to reduce injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists citywide and to
improve community health and livability by promoting walking and bicycling. This funding will be used for the
installation of safety improvements throughout the city as described in the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, and
also to address ongoing needs as safety studies are completed.
Crossing improvements such as HAWKs or TOUCANs, flashing warning lights at crosswalks or intersections, refuge
islands, bulb-outs, improved signalized crossings and new or improved pavement markings are examples of the
safety devices that are installed with this funding. Projects are identified by using data to analyze crash history,
roadway configuration and characteristics, and with citizen input. Identified projects to improve traffic safety
involve conditions that pose a higher relative risk of injury to those traveling within SLC and are therefore deemed
a high priority for implementation.
$44,400 $400,000 $44,400 $400,000
41
1700 South
Corridor
Transformation
Requested $326,835 from General Fund and $36,315 transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
Transformation of 1700 South to provide improved neighborhood connections to Glendale Park, 1700 River Park,
support a possible new regional park replacing the defunct water park, and to create an improved east-west
walking and bicycling corridor at the approximate north-south midpoint between the 9-Line Trail and the Parley’s
Trail. Improvements will also include street crossings to connect the parks on the north (1700 South River Park)
and south (Glendale Water Park and Glendale Park) sides of the street. Funds to be used for design, public
engagement, and construction of curb changes to improve ped/bike safety and street tree planting sites, semi-
permanent quick build linear elements, striping changes, and signage.
$317,792 $35,300 $317,792 $35,300
42 Kensington Byway
Ballpark
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The CDCIP Advisory Board did not recommend funding this project.
The Ballpark Community Council and Liberty Wells Community Council are requesting CIP funds for development
of a neighborhood byway on Kensington Avenue as suggested in the Utah Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
(December 2015).
“Improvements that make a street a neighborhood byway include bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements
(for example, signals, crosswalks, curb extensions (aka bulb-outs), curb ramps, signage, street markings, and other
traffic calming techniques), wayfinding signage, and connectivity enhancements to existing bicycle and pedestrian
routes.” (source: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/neighborhood-byways/ )
Note the CDCIP Board did not recommend funding this project.
$500,000 $500,000
43 3000 South
Sidewalk and Curb
Requested $449,315 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
Install curb and gutter and adjacent sidewalk and asphalt tie in on the north side of 3000 South
from Highland Drive to 1500 East and an asphalt overlay over the entire street. Installation will
require the removal of trees and landscaping and adjustment of drive approaches and retaining walls.
44 Logan Ave
Reconstruction
Requested $1,405,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will reconstruct the deteriorated streets affected following the Public Utilities storm drain project. This
will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary.
Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as
determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 13
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
45
Bridge
Replacement (200
South over Jordan
River)
Requested $3.5 million from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will include the complete removal and replacement of the existing vehicle bridge for 200 South over
the Jordan River. Design will consider complete streets features, accommodations for the adjacent Jordan River
Trail, and the historic nature of the adjacent Fisher Mansion, and potential art components incorporated into or
around the new bridge.
46
Bridge
Rehabilitation (400
South and 650
North over Jordan
River)
Requested $3 million from General Fund; Engineering Project
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the 400 South and 650 North vehicle bridges over the Jordan River. A
bridge inspection performed by UDOT gave these bridges a Health Index score of 48.55 and 46.58, respectively,
out of 100.
Combining the two bridges into one project will result in economies of scale since the rehabilitation work for both
bridges will be similar. The existing asphalt surface will be removed and the underlying deck will be treated for
cracking and delaminated concrete. The deck will receive a waterproofing membrane, a new asphalt overlay, and
deck drains to remove storm water from the deck. The under surface of the bridge will be treated for cracking and
delaminated concrete on the deck, girders, pier caps, and abutments. The steel piles supporting the piers exhibit
heavier than typical corrosion. The piles will be dewatered and treated for corrosion. The existing damaged
parapet wall will be removed and rebuilt which will widen the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian access route.
Additionally, aesthetic enhancements will be incorporated including replacing the chain link fence and railings
mounted on the outside of the sidewalk with decorative railings. A consulting firm with specialized experience will
be used for this project.
47 Wingpointe Levee
Design
Requested $800,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
The cost estimate includes conceptual design, final design, and geotechnical investigations performed by
Engineering consultants. Current levee conditions will be evaluated, required improvements identified, and
modifications recommended. Typical sections of levee reconstruction determined in order to develop
construction cost estimates and required plans and documents for permitting, then construction. This design
effort will inform future funding construction requests to bring the levee into compliance.
48 Three Creeks West
Bank Roadways
Requested $1,158,422 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
This project calls for reconstructing a little over a block of 1300 South and 1/3 of a block of 1000 West and
installing storm sewers.
49 Delong Salt
Storage
Requested $1,504,427 from General Fund; Facilities Project
This salt storage building would cover 4000 tons of salt during winter months and seasonal remnants of salt the
rest of the year. The salt will be protected from the elements which reduces waste and allows for an overall, more
efficient snow removal process. See attached estimate.
50 Steam Bay
Requested $363,495 from General Fund; Facilities Project
When the new Streets and Fleet facility was built in 2010, one equipment steam bay was installed to clean asphalt
and other heavy equipment. The bay is designed to remove asphalt products, separate oil from water runoff, and
capture the runoff to meet storm water pollution prevention requirements. A single Streets crew could alternate
equipment cleaning and repair, but with the addition of the second crew, all equipment is running simultaneously,
and the steam bay’s capacity has been exceeded to that point of jeopardizing equipment cleaning and the creating
a storm water pollution risk. Additionally, the current pump system is at the end of its expected lifespan. Funds
will go toward a larger, more robust, and better designed system. This additional steam bay will be 22X45 with 4
foot pony walls and tie in to the upgraded pumping system.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 14
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
51 Mixed-Use Three
Story Prop
Requested $815,895 from General Fund; Fire Project
Drager Phase V Training Gallery (Mixed-use fire prop) to include:
Three (3) story unit with roof top deck/fourth floor comprised of seven (7) 40’ and one (1) 20’ training modules
Three (3) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chambers with emergency exits (as required)
Two (2) clean out decks for burn chambers
Burn room baffles
Exterior scissor staircase from the ground level to the fourth story/roof with interior access on each floor
Exterior stairs to single container roof
Interior stairs connecting first to second and second to third stories
Fall protection railings around all roofs of containers
Rappelling anchor on top of fourth story/roof
Two bailout windows
Vent/enter/search windows
Eleven (11) exterior doors
Two (2) interior doors
Emergency fire escape stairs
Four (4) training deck containers
On-site installation & set up to include: Full project management support from Drager staff, Pre-installation site
surveys and in-process review of the build site, Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensures
that the fire prop system is installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption, Insured and bonded installation
and crane service, Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors Complete documentation package on
operation and maintenance
52 Training Ground
Site Improvements
Requested $694,785 from General Fund; Fire Project
The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved areas surrounding
fire training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they train. Ideally this training ground would
simulate a small cross section of the structures that are in Salt Lake City and the site improvement would resemble
streets and access points like what is in the city. Currently there is approximately 45,000 square feet of
underutilized training ground.
Key components of this project include:
Training ground site design
Site excavation
Drainage and retention system
Site back fill and compaction
Various paved access roads
Reinforced concrete pads for vehicle extrication training
Technical and confined rescue training props
Curb and gutter along Wallace St.
Perimeter landscaping and fencing
53 Sunnyside Park
Sidewalk
Requested $72,740 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Construct sidewalk on south side of Valdez Dr. from east gate of Dept. of Veterans Affairs to intersecting sidewalk
inside Sunnyside Park. See map. Sidewalk is approximately 365-ft long by 4-ft wide. Federal funding was explored
but we are prohibited from applying those funds to non-federal property. Costs could include wider surface or
other improvements to meet the minimum spending requirement.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 15
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
54
Winner on
Wasatch Dee Glan
Tennis Court
Construction
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
A critically important construction project replacing four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen (Wasatch Hills
Tennis Center/formerly Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current bubble. These new courts would be post-
tension concrete courts (long-lasting compared to asphalt) would be preparatory to a new privately funded year-
round tennis air dome by the Coach Mike's Friends of Public Tennis Foundation (a 501 c3 non-profit whose
mission is to assist the main funding source, Salt Lake City, in supporting Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis
Centers).
55
Lighting Upgrade
at Liberty Park
Tennis Center
Requested $202,100 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
LED Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrade of 120 outdated metal halide light fixtures at Liberty Park Tennis Center.
56
Liberty Park &
Wasatch Hills
Tennis Court
Resurfacing
Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
26 Tennis Courts resurfacing at Liberty park tennis center and wasatch hills tennis center
57
Harrison Ave and
700 E Community
Garden
Requested $103,500 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
This community garden would be developed through the Green City Growers Program, a partnership between
Wasatch Community Gardens (WCG) and Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Division to establish community
gardens on Cityowned and managed land with the primary goals to increase access to fresh, local produce and
reduce barriers to urban food production.
The scope of work to develop a new community garden includes working with community members for 12 to 18
months to develop the interest, support, and design of the project. WCG will work to build the community
support. Our organization will work with stakeholders to create a coalition of gardeners, garden leaders,
volunteers and donors to raise any remaining funds to complete the garden design process, provide the materials
for planting boxes (including ADA accessible raised beds), soil, amendments, and irrigation. WCG will enlist and
provide oversight of volunteer in-kind labor, and oversee services that are contracted out.
The cost estimate of $103,500 is based upon three recent community garden starts in this program; the 9-Line
Community Garden, the Gateway Community Garden, and the Richmond Park Community Garden. The scope of
work includes; soil testing for contaminants to help guide the bed design, landscape design, site demolition and
preparation, water main hook up, fencing, ADA beds and pathways, garden beds, a drip irrigation system, soil,
amendments, and mulch for pathways, tools and supplies, a shade and gathering structure, and signage, benches,
and common area plantings.
58
1300 South
Camping Reisitant
Landscaping
Requested $100,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
The Ballpark Community Council is requesting CIP funds for landscaping improvements for the park strips on 1300
South and the areas immediately surrounding Horizonte. Rather than the lawns and grass that currently exist on
these park strips, we’re asking the City to invest in re-planting these areas with new low- to no-water options such
as combinations of trees with xeriscaping and/or rockscapes. These new park strip designs would have the dual
effect of assisting the City with its goal of reducing nonagricultural use of water and would also serve as a loiter
and camping-resistant landscapes.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 16
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
59 Wingate Walkway
Requested $286,750 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
• This budget includes removal and transplanting of trees as requested by constituents. This is quite expensive at
estimated $5000 per tree, and would include using a crane, as well as contracted extra care for 2 years by a
landscaping company to get the trees reestablished. This is not something that can be done in-house. Tree
removal is much less expensive, at $500 per tree. This would mean the removal of 15 mature trees for this project,
but at a construction cost savings of $67,500.
• This budget assumes that the power pole at the eastern end of the corridor, and the power drop to the traffic
signal, will not be relocated. If those do need to be relocated, an additional approximate $30,000 would be added
to the project construction costs, along with associated design and engineering fees. There may also be ROW
acquisition costs to site the pole and its guy-wires.
• This budget does not include 36 parking headers that would need to be purchased by Wingate Condo
Association and placed on Wingate property at an estimated cost of $2,500-3,000 (for all 36). The parking headers
would be needed to protect the fence from regularly being hit and damaged by Wingate residents parking. It is
suggested that this be placed into legal agreement as part of the easement, and that the Condo Association be
responsible for any damage to the fence caused by not having the parking headers in place.
• A less expensive fence could be installed to save costs. This budget is for wrought iron fencing at $48 per linear
foot. Chain link would be half or less of that cost.
• This project has been budgeted as a 10' multi-use path, similar to the photos the constituents included. This also
recongizes the recommended use as both bicycle and pedestrian facility, as referenced in the City's Pedestrian &
Bicycle Master Plan. To save costs, the path could be constructed as a sidewalk, at 6' wide instead of 10'. The
thickness may be able to be reduced to sidewalk standard at 4" thick. However, further discussion should be had
with SLC Police Department about their preferred approach to emergency access.
60 1200 East Median
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
The curbing and irrigation systems for these medians has fallen into serious disrepair. This project seeks to install
new curbing around each island to prevent cars from driving across the turf and will allow the soil to be raised to
match the grade of the top of the root ball of the existing trees, replace the irrigations system and a significant
amount of trees supplementing the urban forest that remains. The tree planting portion of the project is in
support of the “Trillion Tree Campaign” in an effort to aid in enhancing Salt Lake City’s air quality. The cost
estimate is $500,000 to include design, engineering fees, contingency and construction.
61
Parleys Historic
Nature Park
Structure
Preservation
Requested $765,325 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The proposed CIP project will fund the following work in Parleys Historic Nature Park (PHNP):
1. identify key historic structures and artifacts, assess preservation needs, and create detailed
rehabilitation/protection recommendations for each;
2. develop fully-engineered designs and construction cost estimates for historic structural rehabilitation;
3. if feasible, develop and secure a conservation easement to protect irreplaceable historic and natural features,
per the recommendations of the 2011 PHNP Management Plan.
4. if feasible within project budget, develop a detailed signage & interpretive materials plan to improve public
awareness/appreciation of historic features & structures, and construct/install the recommended interpretive
signage.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 17
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
62
Enhancement of
the Cemetery for
Visitor Research
and Knowledge
$1.2 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR PUBLIC LANDS
SIGNAGE
Requested $790,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Cemetery listed on National Register of Historic Places- $30,000
Website Enhancement, Cemetery GIS data and input- $250,000
Arboretum Accreditation and new planted tree protection- $65,000
Plat Markers- $100,000
Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage Design and 10 Sign placements-$75,000
Two years inflation adjustment - $52,000
Engineering Consultant fees - $208,000
Contingency - $10,000
63
Cemetery
Roadway
Improvements,
Phase 1
$1 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $3,838,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Phase 1a of a 6 phase road repair project identified in the Cemetery Master Plan. With 7.9 miles of roads and an
estimated $12.5 million dollars in repairs. Roadway Repair Priority Cemetery roadways were prioritized for repair
based on the following characteristics: Roads more frequently used for public and maintenance vehicular
circulation. Roads that also serve as main routes as outlined on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan.
Roads in poor condition were prioritized over those in fair or average condition (See Appendix E for detailed
Roadway Condition Analysis). Road width was given some consideration. Total roadway length within a priority
category was considered in an effort to separate roadways into projects that would be of a more manageable size.
-Costs include: full replacement including demo, reconstruction with asphalt, concrete edge/curb and gutter and
storm drainage improvements, 15% estimate contingency and 40% design/engineering fees. Other soft costs such
as project and construction contingencies, City project management, and permits and fees are not included and
should be added to budget requests as appropriate.
Cost Breakout - Full Repair of All Roads (Priority Street Name Length Width Total SF Repair Cost)
1a Main (N) 1,188 22 26,136 Full $701276
1a Main (N) 167 21 3,507 Full $94,099
1a Main (middle) 1,242 19 23,598 Full $ 633,176
1a Main (sexton) 367 17 6,239 Full $ 167,403
1a 240 N 1,090 16 17,440 Full $ 467,947
1a 330 N(Lindsey) 36 27 972 Full $ 26,080
1a 330 N 1,433 25 35,825 Full $ 961,250
1a Hillside 998 25 24,950 Full $ 669,453
Priority 1a Total 1.3 miles 139,000 sf $ 3,838,000
64
9Line and Rose
Park Asphalt Pump
Tracks
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $1,393,600 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The proposed project incorporates the design and construction of two asphalt bike pump tracks, one at the
existing 9Line Bike Park located at 700 West 900 South and the second near the Day Riverside Library at 871 North
Cornell Avenue.
The proposed pump track at the 9Line Bike Park will reconstruct the small existing pump track at the 9Line Bike
Park. While the 9Line Bike Park will still retain its large signature dirt jumps under the freeway this amenity will
improve the pump track and provide a more accessible riding amenity for users of the bike park. Since the
construction of the 9Line Bike Park in 2016 it has become increasingly popular for families of all ages. This
improvement will provide a safe more durable riding surface for park users. The proposed pump track adjacent to
the Day Riverside Library will construct a new asphalt pump track adjacent to the Rosepark Community Garden. In
2020 SLC Public Utilities began a large storm water improvement project at this location. This project required the
removal of a small dirt pump track that was constructed by local users groups. Construction of the asphalt pump
track will replace this asset with a new community amenity for the Rosepark neighborhood.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 18
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
65
Richmond Park
Playground and
Park
improvements
Requested $690,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
This project will replace the existing playground and pavilion at Richmond Park. Both assets are more than twenty
years old. Redevelopment of these features is an opportunity to build on the recent success of the new
community garden. The project will evaluate the location of the new playground and pavilion so that it can
respond to the community garden to create synergies between the three uses and increase visibility into and out
of the site. The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground and pavilion
• Engagement with the community on project character and site development
• Development of technical drawings for bidding and negotiation
• Demolition of existing playground and pavilion
• Construction of a playground and pavilion
• Construction of new sidewalk connections
• Planting of new trees and waterwise plantings
• Installation of new site furnishings and park signage
66
Library Square
Feasibility, Civic
Engagement and
Design
Development
Requested $225,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The 2002 Council adopted plan for block 37, Library Square, is to create an asset to the community, that is safe,
well used and attracts new development to the area. Library Square is an underutilized public space with wall and
paving system (uneven surfaces, paver movement and concrete settling), failures that are posing a safety hazard.
This project will fund a feasibility study to identify solutions for the failing paving and wall systems; facilitate
outreach to identify new amenities for positive activation; and develop comprehensive design solutions with
phasing strategies for implementation.
Summary of work:
1. Feasibility study: Library Square has multiple paving and wall system failures due to settling of the parking
structure. A compressive study is needed to determine appropriate solutions to ameliorate safety hazards. Existing
conditions analysis and feasibility studies will determine a critical path to correct site failures and propose
appropriate solutions.
2. Civic engagement: The Public spaces at Library Square are underutilized outside of the four major events that
occur during the summer. Salt Lake City’s rapidly growing and densifying population needs places to be outside. A
civic engagement study would identify desired community elements to be incorporated on the Square that would
increase positive activity throughout the day and week.
3. Design development and implementation strategy: The feasibility study will inform design solutions for the wall
and paving failures on the site. Civic engagement will inform new everyday uses to implement as well as design
moves to incorporate to make the site more functional and desirable for large events, this would include shade,
access and circulation improvements. The design will identify a phasing strategy with estimates of probable costs
and implementation strategies for a multi-year improvement plan.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 19
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
67
Donner & Rotary
Glen Park
Community Park
Irrigation &
Landscape Design
and Construction
Requested $650,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
2018 was the driest year on record for the state of Utah. Public Lands experienced budgetary restrictions on water
use, resulting in significant impacts to our properties. Protecting the trees and living landscape requires carefully
designed and managed landscapes and irrigation systems. Decreasing our water needs is a critical element of
climate adaption and a top priority for Public Lands. Significant water use reduction can be achieved by installing a
water efficient irrigation system and reducing passive use areas of manicured turf by installing regionally
appropriate water wise plant material. Areas of high use such as sport-fields can be isolated on an irrigation zone
while trees, shrubs and low water grasses can be on separate zones. Designed appropriately, these landscapes
require less than half the water to maintain conventional landscapes. In addition to creating a more climate
resilient landscape, Public Lands will work with the community to identify desired new amenities such as fitness
equipment, benches and interpretive signage. Planning and design will also focus on improving the parks
circulation network in order to offer a diversity of loops and difficulty ratings for park users. This project includes:
1) Community engagement to create a vision for Donner and Rotary Park;
2) Design development, best practices, and construction documents for Phase I of site implementation; and
3) Construction of new improvements for a portion of the site (approximately 25% or 3 acres) Two future funding
requests will ask for funding for the rest of the site. Design standards and best practices developed in this project
will be used as a tool for future site redevelopment.
68 Capitol Hill Traffic
Calming
Requested $595,194 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
Mitigate commuter cut-through traffic, chronic speeding and industrial traffic: a) the installation of vertical speed-
reduction elements, (b) striping crosswalks, stop lines and bike lanes, (c) curb extensions, pedestrian refuge
islands, partial barriers and 'road diet' measures
69
Harvard Heights
Residential
Concrete Street
Reconstruction
Requested $1,311,920 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This project will rehabilitate the existing severely deteriorating street, including concrete pavement replacement,
drive approaches, curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs along Harvard Avenue. This street was initially constructed
in the mid-1920's and has not been replaced in the 90+ years since. Rather, temporary fixes have been employed
continuously by paving over the deteriorating concrete using asphalt. The key flaw with this approach--and the
main issue at play here--is that the asphalt doesn't adhere to the concrete surface below, resulting in severe, year-
round potholing. This is both a serious eye-sore and a real safety concern to residents.
Concurrent with the reconstruction of the street, this project will also install several speed humps, speed tables,
and/or any other traffic measures deemed appropriate by the Transportation Division to reduce traffic speed.
There is an understanding of the need to work with city on a final approved design
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 20
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
70 Liberty Wells
Traffic Calming
Requested $400,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The “Liberty Wells Traffic Calming” project seeks to slow motor vehicles, improve safety near the school and near
homes, encourage more transportation choices, and implement recommendations from several Salt Lake City
master plans. These goals are based on feedback from residents of the sections of 600 East, and Kensington,
Bryan, and Milton Avenues, surrounding Hawthorne Elementary School. The project area was determined by the
project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road” and to
benefit students, parents, and teachers at Hawthorne as much as the neighbors on adjacent streets.
The project will also enhance the existing 600 East Neighborhood Byway and extend the partially funded,
proposed Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway east of 600 East. The intersection of the two neighborhood
byways is a unique and cost-effective opportunity. (Neighborhood byways are traffic-calmed, bicycling and
walking-oriented streets with low traffic volumes and speeds.) To date, neighbors have offered their support for
physical street design elements that would accomplish these goals, including traffic circles, median islands,
signage, improved lighting, bulb-outs, and speed cushions. The exact elements to be constructed, however, will
depend on further community engagement, including discussions with neighbors, Hawthorne Elementary School
administrators and school community council, as well as the Salt Lake City School District.
The project scope will include the following elements:
1. Community engagement of neighbors that live and/or own property on and near the project’s streets
(Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues, and 600 East) in order to determine the most popular, feasible, and
effective traffic calming interventions.
2. Design and construction of the recommended interventions.
71 Stratford Bike
Crossing
Requested $200,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This proposal has not gone through a public process or a formal review and approval process by the city. There is
an understanding of the need to work with the city on an approved final design. I'm requesting a modification to
the current 4 way stop at the intersection of 1700 E. and Stratford Ave. This would include removing the current
stop signs on both the east and west sections of road coming from Stratford Ave., and putting in place some form
of traffic reduction system that only allows bikes to go straight through east/west on Stratford. Then placing
something like what's on the crossing at 1300 E and Stratford, where bikers can press a button and the straight
through N/S traffic on 1700 E would yield to bikers as they cross.
72 Sugar House Safe
Side Streets
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This project is intended to improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar House. It is
made up of two basic parts:
1. A study of (1) existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities; (2) the effectiveness of existing traffic calming
measures on Hollywood Avenue (1990s) and McClelland Street (2010s); and, (3) infrastructure and programmatic
recommendations, including the most effective, cost-efficient, and community-supported methods of improving
neighborhood street livability. This study may also include a series of tests of the recommendations.
2. Design and construction, or implementation, of the above recommendations on the project area’s six local
streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street.
Initial ideas from the community include curb modifications, striping, stop signs, street narrowing, raised
crosswalks, increased and enforced truck restrictions, and gateway monuments. The project area was determined
by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road”, so to
speak.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 21
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
73 Sunnyside 9Line
Trail Missing Piece
Requested $350,000 from General Fund; Transportation Project
Just before the construction of the Sunnyside Trail between approximately 1400 East and Foothill Drive in 2016-
2017 (part of the soon-to-be-completed 9-Line Trail), the City determined that it was unable to acquire the
property necessary to complete the trail in front of the 1805-1851 East Sunnyside Avenue property owned by the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There is now a roughly 600’ (or one-block) long missing piece of the trail where only a narrow, four-foot wide
sidewalk exists. CIP funding would construct a new section of the 10-12' concrete trail and fill this gap, connecting
to and replicating the look, feel, and impact of the existing segments of the trail to the east (University of Utah
property) and the west (City property).
The City estimates that $350,000 (in 2022 dollars) will be needed to reassess site conditions and constraints,
complete the design (currently at 40%), fund Engineering Division oversight, partially fund property acquisition or
easement, and construct this critical, missing piece of a citywide asset.
Included in the trail construction costs are additional adjustments to slopes, irrigation, fencing, trees and
landscaping, driveways, wet utility inlets and cleanouts, the central walkway leading to the front door of the
chapel, power pole guy wires, and signs that are necessary to ensure appropriate drainage, ADA compliance, and
trail user comfort.
74
Multimodal
Intersections &
Signals
Requested $945,000 from General Fund and $105,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
• Upgrade five aging traffic signals
• Combine with safety and operational improvements for all modes
• Possible transit-focused signal improvements on key Frequent Transit Network corridors
This project will remove the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including
steel poles, span wire, signal heads, and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections with mast arm poles,
new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved detection, and left turn phasing, as
needed.
Fluctuations in construction pricing are particularly relevant to this project, with steel tariffs, labor costs, and
overall construction costs all affecting price.
75
600 North Corridor
Transformation
$4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
During the FY22 annual budget, the Council approved adding $1,879,654 into CIP for the upcoming 600 North
Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA
was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding
account. The full amount from the holding account was appropriated for this project.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with recent
construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent years the
Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a safety study of
the 600 North corridor.
$1,879,654
$5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,305,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $0 $5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,291,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $1,879,654
Note: text in blue is information added by Council staff
Totals by Funding Source:
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 22
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
TEL 801-535-6403
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_________________________ Date Received: __________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ______________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 20, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer
801-535-6565
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion on June 15, 2021 in anticipation of
adopting a Bond Resolution for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City Council consider
adopting a Bond Resolution on July 13, 2021 approving the issuance and sale of up to $58,000,000
principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B (the “Bonds”), and
give authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of and confirm the sale of
the Bonds within certain parameters set forth in the attached Bond Resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Tax- Exempt Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021A – $22,490,000:
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the cost of the various capital improvement
projects. The list of the capital improvement projects to be financed by this bond issue is attached.
The City’s Bond Counsel has reviewed the attached list of projects and provided their
recommendations to the tax status of the bonds. The list is color-coded to reflect their responses.
Responses highlighted in green are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Responses highlighted in yellow are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing but have
potential private business use.
rachel otto (May 21, 2021 13:58 MDT)
05/21/2021
05/21/2021
Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
Transmittal to City Council
May 11, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Responses highlighted in red are projects that either have or are likely to have private business use.
The Administration proposes to issue tax-exempt bonds for the projects highlighted in green for the
total of $22,490,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $1,307,595 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
Taxable Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021B - $34,600,000:
The Administration proposes to issue taxable bonds for the projects highlighted in yellow and red for
the total of $34,600,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $2,111,765 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The table below summarizes the proposed bond issue:
NEW MONEY
New Money Project List $57,090,000
Tax-Exempt (green highlight) $22,490,000
Taxable (red & yellow
highlights) $34,600,000
The current plan calls for the Bonds to be sold on August 25, 2021.
An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the authorizing resolution of the City are included for your
review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to change.
The Certificate of Determination will need to be signed by the Mayor and Council Chair or their
respective designees on the afternoon of the date of pricing and sale of the bonds, which is currently
scheduled for August 25, 2021.
Attachments
cc: Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Steven Bagley, Lisa Shaffer, Mathew Cassel, Lorna Vogt,
Cory Rushton, Blake Thomas.
Department Project Dollar Amount Description
Facilities CCB Transformer 2,500,000$ CCB Transformer Need square footage of all buildings served by the transformer. May have
private business use of the portion serving the Leonardo. Depending on private
payments and other private business use, consider financing portion relating to
Leonardo on a taxable basis.
CAN Warm Springs historic
structure stabilization
3,000,000$ Full roof, flashing, drain replacement. Chimney stabilization. Lateral force tier 3 seismic
upgrade. Stucco and window treatment.
Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a
capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Urban Wood Reutilization
Equipment and Storage
Additions
1,700,000$ Storage Building, Equipment Awning, Fencing, Lighting, Utilities to develop a fully
functional Urban Wood Reutilization facility $1,700,000. Horizontal Grinder: Primary
piece of equipment, will produce landscape mulch and EWF playground surface
$1,100,000. Wood Mill: Mill will produce lumber products from urban trees $200,000.
Base on project as described, including usage of wood, entire project is eligible
for tax-exempt financing. Wood sales, if any, should be to general public.
PL Public Lands Multilingual
Wayfinding Signage
1,200,000$ This proposal is for Wayfinding signage throughout the City for the Parks, trails and
natural lands system.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Jordan River Paddle Share
improvements at Exchange
Club Marina 1700 S 7 JR
440,000$
Bond-funded infrastructure includes paddle share lockers (2 locations) with functional life
of 20+ years, reconstruction of Paddle Share/River Access parking with improved
entryway, signage & crosswalk/RRFB pedestrian crossing to existing restroom at 17th
South River Park. Funding for additional paddle-share stations that would compliment
this project is currently being requested from other sources (grants).
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
CAN Fisher Mansion
improvements and
1,500,000$
Concrete, masonry and seismic, thermal and moisture protection.
Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a
capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Allen Park Activation Historic
Structures
1,300,000$ Adaptive re-use/restoration of historic residences in Allen Park to allow them to serve as
artist studio spaces similar to Balboa Park Spanish Village model, with more frequent
rotation of artists & art residencies. Improvements to Allen Park site to accommodate
frequent gallery strolls, art & music festivals, etc. Will it include power source to allow
food trucks, events, etc.? Will full utility upgrades be needed as the structures are now on
septic systems.
Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct
and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is
eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use
and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with
short term exceptions and potentially management contracts (see prior email
and memo).
Trans 600 North Complete Street
Transformation
4,000,000$ A low-cost phase 1 is already funded. Our latest cost estimate shows that we only need
$8.7M, but construction prices keep going up, so that doesn't give much wiggle room. Any
construction that impacts PU? Yes. We have been and will continue to coordinate with
them.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL West Side Neighborhood
Parks
3,400,000$ Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing;
however, repairs could count against 5% working capital limit and there could be
private business use. The City will likely need to actively monitor to ensure
compliance with short term exceptions.
CAN Fisher Mansion restoration 7,500,000$
The full restoration would allow for end uses including community gathering space, venue
for music/art & special events, and potentially a commercial kitchen for food & beverage
service and/or leasable office space.
Leasable office space would create private business use and private payments.
Consider financing office space portion with taxable financing. Other portions of
the project could be financed on a tax-exempt basis since the City will treat the
direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures. The City
would need to monitored to ensure compliance with short term exceptions.
PL Cemetery Road Repairs 1,000,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Foothills Trails System, Phase
II, III, Trailheads & Signage
5,250,000$ See Foothills Trails System Plan for Trails Plan Phase II Scope. Major trailhead project
locations = Victory Road: 670 North Victory Road, Popperton Park: 1375 East Popperton
Park Way, Bonneville Blvd: 675 North Bonneville Boulevard, I Street: 925 Hilltop Road
Emigration: 2755 East Sunnyside. Bathrooms included at Bonneville Blvd, Popperton Park
and Victory Road. No Bathrooms included at Emigration or I Street. Phase III Trails
probably not feasible for construction within 3-year window so are excluded from this
budget and planned for future phase, and very possibly funded through external sources
including grants and private donations.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Ballpark 3,000,000$ 1M-Security & Fencing 1M-Stadium Seating/Stairs Railings 1M Interiors Restrooms &
Elevator Still under evaluation and need additional information, but private business use
is probable as are private payments. Depending on determinations made with
other projects may want to consider taxable financing to provide flexibility.
Quiet Zones 6,100,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Pioneer Park 5,200,000$ Pioneer Park has impact fee funding to develop new components in the park. This funding
would be utilized to rebuild comfort stations (restrooms), take out existing and build new
playground, tennis/pickleball reconstruction and to rebuild the event power for farmers
market and larger scale events. PL has a consultant preparing to start public engagement
in summer of 2021. This project can easily fit in the 3 year time line.
Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct
and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is
eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use
and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with
short term exceptions and any management contract for the concession stand
would need to be reviewed for compliance. May want to consider taxable
financing for the concession stand portion to provide flexibility.
PL Glendale Water Park 10,000,000$ The community's initial requests include a water feature (splash pad, indoor/outdoor pool
etc.) as well as options for open space use including increasing tree canopy, create natural
buffer zones for the river, community open spaces using the site's hills for viewing sheds
and outdoor classrooms. nostalgia-related public art installations to reflect the site’s
original water park use, a food truck court with eating areas, water sports rentals (in
coordination with the Jordan River), and a variety of meeting and seating areas around
the park. The community also has suggested nostalgia-related public art installations to
reflect the sites original water park use, foot truck court, water sports rentals and meeting
/ seating areas around the park, sports courts, recreation fields, perimeter
walking/running trails and an ADA-accessible playground. Lastly the community sees a
connected regional park, similar in scope to Liberty Park or Sugarhouse, connecting the
existing Glendale Park, 1700 South Park, Glendale Golf Course and the former Raging
waters site.
Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing;
however, there could be private business use. The City needs to actively monitor
to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and management contract
guidelines, if applicable.
Total 57,090,000$
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B
(September 16, 2021 )
($57.09M Projects)
Total Issue Sources And Uses
Dated 09/16/2021 | Delivered 09/16/2021
2021A TAX-
EXEMPT
2021B
TAXABLE
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $18,840,000.00 $34,800,000.00 $53,640,000.00
Reoffering Premium 3,759,835.65 -3,759,835.65
Total Sources $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.275%)51,810.00 95,700.00 147,510.00
Costs of Issuance 56,520.00 104,400.00 160,920.00
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 22,490,000.00 34,600,000.00 57,090,000.00
Rounding Amount 1,505.65 (100.00)1,405.65
Total Uses $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65
2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 1
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B
(September 16, 2021 )
($57.09M Projects)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --803,666.50 803,666.50 -
06/30/2022 ----803,666.50
10/01/2022 2,080,000.00 1.593%741,846.00 2,821,846.00 -
04/01/2023 --725,277.50 725,277.50 -
06/30/2023 ----3,547,123.50
10/01/2023 2,115,000.00 1.674%725,277.50 2,840,277.50 -
04/01/2024 --707,577.50 707,577.50 -
06/30/2024 ----3,547,855.00
10/01/2024 2,155,000.00 1.899%707,577.50 2,862,577.50 -
04/01/2025 --687,113.50 687,113.50 -
06/30/2025 ----3,549,691.00
10/01/2025 2,200,000.00 2.202%687,113.50 2,887,113.50 -
04/01/2026 --662,893.50 662,893.50 -
06/30/2026 ----3,550,007.00
10/01/2026 2,250,000.00 2.408%662,893.50 2,912,893.50 -
04/01/2027 --635,808.50 635,808.50 -
06/30/2027 ----3,548,702.00
10/01/2027 2,310,000.00 2.644%635,808.50 2,945,808.50 -
04/01/2028 --605,271.00 605,271.00 -
06/30/2028 ----3,551,079.50
10/01/2028 2,370,000.00 2.800%605,271.00 2,975,271.00 -
04/01/2029 --572,091.00 572,091.00 -
06/30/2029 ----3,547,362.00
10/01/2029 2,445,000.00 2.939%572,091.00 3,017,091.00 -
04/01/2030 --536,162.50 536,162.50 -
06/30/2030 ----3,553,253.50
10/01/2030 2,515,000.00 3.024%536,162.50 3,051,162.50 -
04/01/2031 --498,133.50 498,133.50 -
06/30/2031 ----3,549,296.00
10/01/2031 2,590,000.00 2.752%498,133.50 3,088,133.50 -
04/01/2032 --462,497.25 462,497.25 -
06/30/2032 ----3,550,630.75
10/01/2032 2,665,000.00 2.826%462,497.25 3,127,497.25 -
04/01/2033 --424,843.75 424,843.75 -
06/30/2033 ----3,552,341.00
10/01/2033 2,740,000.00 2.895%424,843.75 3,164,843.75 -
04/01/2034 --385,181.25 385,181.25 -
06/30/2034 ----3,550,025.00
10/01/2034 2,820,000.00 2.965%385,181.25 3,205,181.25 -
04/01/2035 --343,369.75 343,369.75 -
06/30/2035 ----3,548,551.00
10/01/2035 2,910,000.00 3.035%343,369.75 3,253,369.75 -
04/01/2036 --299,207.50 299,207.50 -
06/30/2036 ----3,552,577.25
10/01/2036 3,000,000.00 3.104%299,207.50 3,299,207.50 -
04/01/2037 --252,649.50 252,649.50 -
06/30/2037 ----3,551,857.00
10/01/2037 3,095,000.00 3.171%252,649.50 3,347,649.50 -
04/01/2038 --203,584.00 203,584.00 -
06/30/2038 ----3,551,233.50
10/01/2038 3,195,000.00 3.236%203,584.00 3,398,584.00 -
04/01/2039 --151,891.75 151,891.75 -
06/30/2039 ----3,550,475.75
10/01/2039 3,295,000.00 2.920%151,891.75 3,446,891.75 -
04/01/2040 --103,792.75 103,792.75 -
06/30/2040 ----3,550,684.50
10/01/2040 3,395,000.00 2.981%103,792.75 3,498,792.75 -
04/01/2041 --53,182.75 53,182.75 -
06/30/2041 ----3,551,975.50
10/01/2041 3,495,000.00 3.043%53,182.75 3,548,182.75 -
06/30/2042 ----3,548,182.75
Total $53,640,000.00 -$18,166,570.00 $71,806,570.00 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $615,750.00
Average Life 11.479 Years
Average Coupon 2.9503159%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.3636613%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.2524970%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.1028374%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.2817455%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.1873941%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.474 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 2
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$18,840,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SERIES 2021A (September 16, 2021 )
($22.49M New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --422,391.67 422,391.67 -
06/30/2022 ----422,391.67
10/01/2022 585,000.00 5.000%389,900.00 974,900.00 -
04/01/2023 --375,275.00 375,275.00 -
06/30/2023 ----1,350,175.00
10/01/2023 615,000.00 5.000%375,275.00 990,275.00 -
04/01/2024 --359,900.00 359,900.00 -
06/30/2024 ----1,350,175.00
10/01/2024 650,000.00 5.000%359,900.00 1,009,900.00 -
04/01/2025 --343,650.00 343,650.00 -
06/30/2025 ----1,353,550.00
10/01/2025 680,000.00 5.000%343,650.00 1,023,650.00 -
04/01/2026 --326,650.00 326,650.00 -
06/30/2026 ----1,350,300.00
10/01/2026 715,000.00 5.000%326,650.00 1,041,650.00 -
04/01/2027 --308,775.00 308,775.00 -
06/30/2027 ----1,350,425.00
10/01/2027 755,000.00 5.000%308,775.00 1,063,775.00 -
04/01/2028 --289,900.00 289,900.00 -
06/30/2028 ----1,353,675.00
10/01/2028 790,000.00 5.000%289,900.00 1,079,900.00 -
04/01/2029 --270,150.00 270,150.00 -
06/30/2029 ----1,350,050.00
10/01/2029 835,000.00 5.000%270,150.00 1,105,150.00 -
04/01/2030 --249,275.00 249,275.00 -
06/30/2030 ----1,354,425.00
10/01/2030 875,000.00 5.000%249,275.00 1,124,275.00 -
04/01/2031 --227,400.00 227,400.00 -
06/30/2031 ----1,351,675.00
10/01/2031 915,000.00 4.000%227,400.00 1,142,400.00 -
04/01/2032 --209,100.00 209,100.00 -
06/30/2032 ----1,351,500.00
10/01/2032 955,000.00 4.000%209,100.00 1,164,100.00 -
04/01/2033 --190,000.00 190,000.00 -
06/30/2033 ----1,354,100.00
10/01/2033 990,000.00 4.000%190,000.00 1,180,000.00 -
04/01/2034 --170,200.00 170,200.00 -
06/30/2034 ----1,350,200.00
10/01/2034 1,030,000.00 4.000%170,200.00 1,200,200.00 -
04/01/2035 --149,600.00 149,600.00 -
06/30/2035 ----1,349,800.00
10/01/2035 1,075,000.00 4.000%149,600.00 1,224,600.00 -
04/01/2036 --128,100.00 128,100.00 -
06/30/2036 ----1,352,700.00
10/01/2036 1,120,000.00 4.000%128,100.00 1,248,100.00 -
04/01/2037 --105,700.00 105,700.00 -
06/30/2037 ----1,353,800.00
10/01/2037 1,165,000.00 4.000%105,700.00 1,270,700.00 -
04/01/2038 --82,400.00 82,400.00 -
06/30/2038 ----1,353,100.00
10/01/2038 1,210,000.00 4.000%82,400.00 1,292,400.00 -
04/01/2039 --58,200.00 58,200.00 -
06/30/2039 ----1,350,600.00
10/01/2039 1,255,000.00 3.000%58,200.00 1,313,200.00 -
04/01/2040 --39,375.00 39,375.00 -
06/30/2040 ----1,352,575.00
10/01/2040 1,295,000.00 3.000%39,375.00 1,334,375.00 -
04/01/2041 --19,950.00 19,950.00 -
06/30/2041 ----1,354,325.00
10/01/2041 1,330,000.00 3.000%19,950.00 1,349,950.00 -
06/30/2042 ----1,349,950.00
Total $18,840,000.00 -$8,619,491.67 $27,459,491.67 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $225,240.00
Average Life 11.955 Years
Average Coupon 3.8268033%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.1805479%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.9544659%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4430546%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.9803279%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 1.8125237%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.864 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | 2021A TAX-EXEMPT | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 4
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$34,800,000 TAXABLE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES
2021B (September 16, 2021 )
($34.6M New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --381,274.83 381,274.83 -
06/30/2022 ----381,274.83
10/01/2022 1,495,000.00 0.260%351,946.00 1,846,946.00 -
04/01/2023 --350,002.50 350,002.50 -
06/30/2023 ----2,196,948.50
10/01/2023 1,500,000.00 0.310%350,002.50 1,850,002.50 -
04/01/2024 --347,677.50 347,677.50 -
06/30/2024 ----2,197,680.00
10/01/2024 1,505,000.00 0.560%347,677.50 1,852,677.50 -
04/01/2025 --343,463.50 343,463.50 -
06/30/2025 ----2,196,141.00
10/01/2025 1,520,000.00 0.950%343,463.50 1,863,463.50 -
04/01/2026 --336,243.50 336,243.50 -
06/30/2026 ----2,199,707.00
10/01/2026 1,535,000.00 1.200%336,243.50 1,871,243.50 -
04/01/2027 --327,033.50 327,033.50 -
06/30/2027 ----2,198,277.00
10/01/2027 1,555,000.00 1.500%327,033.50 1,882,033.50 -
04/01/2028 --315,371.00 315,371.00 -
06/30/2028 ----2,197,404.50
10/01/2028 1,580,000.00 1.700%315,371.00 1,895,371.00 -
04/01/2029 --301,941.00 301,941.00 -
06/30/2029 ----2,197,312.00
10/01/2029 1,610,000.00 1.870%301,941.00 1,911,941.00 -
04/01/2030 --286,887.50 286,887.50 -
06/30/2030 ----2,198,828.50
10/01/2030 1,640,000.00 1.970%286,887.50 1,926,887.50 -
04/01/2031 --270,733.50 270,733.50 -
06/30/2031 ----2,197,621.00
10/01/2031 1,675,000.00 2.070%270,733.50 1,945,733.50 -
04/01/2032 --253,397.25 253,397.25 -
06/30/2032 ----2,199,130.75
10/01/2032 1,710,000.00 2.170%253,397.25 1,963,397.25 -
04/01/2033 --234,843.75 234,843.75 -
06/30/2033 ----2,198,241.00
10/01/2033 1,750,000.00 2.270%234,843.75 1,984,843.75 -
04/01/2034 --214,981.25 214,981.25 -
06/30/2034 ----2,199,825.00
10/01/2034 1,790,000.00 2.370%214,981.25 2,004,981.25 -
04/01/2035 --193,769.75 193,769.75 -
06/30/2035 ----2,198,751.00
10/01/2035 1,835,000.00 2.470%193,769.75 2,028,769.75 -
04/01/2036 --171,107.50 171,107.50 -
06/30/2036 ----2,199,877.25
10/01/2036 1,880,000.00 2.570%171,107.50 2,051,107.50 -
04/01/2037 --146,949.50 146,949.50 -
06/30/2037 ----2,198,057.00
10/01/2037 1,930,000.00 2.670%146,949.50 2,076,949.50 -
04/01/2038 --121,184.00 121,184.00 -
06/30/2038 ----2,198,133.50
10/01/2038 1,985,000.00 2.770%121,184.00 2,106,184.00 -
04/01/2039 --93,691.75 93,691.75 -
06/30/2039 ----2,199,875.75
10/01/2039 2,040,000.00 2.870%93,691.75 2,133,691.75 -
04/01/2040 --64,417.75 64,417.75 -
06/30/2040 ----2,198,109.50
10/01/2040 2,100,000.00 2.970%64,417.75 2,164,417.75 -
04/01/2041 --33,232.75 33,232.75 -
06/30/2041 ----2,197,650.50
10/01/2041 2,165,000.00 3.070%33,232.75 2,198,232.75 -
06/30/2042 ----2,198,232.75
Total $34,800,000.00 -$9,547,078.33 $44,347,078.33 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $390,510.00
Average Life 11.222 Years
Average Coupon 2.4447718%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.4692782%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.4424344%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.4136979%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.4739105%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.4447718%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.222 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | 2021B TAXABLE | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 7
Draft of
5/20/21
Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) v3
8709966/RDB/mo
RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2021
A Resolution authorizing the issuance and the sale of not to exceed
$58,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt
basis, for the purpose of financing various City capital improvement
projects; authorizing the execution and delivery of one or more
supplemental trust indentures to secure said bonds; giving authority to
certain officials and officers to approve the final terms and provisions
of the bonds within the parameters set forth herein; authorizing the
taking of all other actions necessary for the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by this resolution; and related matters.
*** *** ***
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), is a duly organized and existing city of the
first class, operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the “State”);
WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City to
issue its sales and excise tax revenue bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt
basis, as hereinafter provided for the purpose of (a) financing all or a portion of the cost of (i)
acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets,
intersections and electrical facilities], as further described in the below defined Supplemental
Indenture, and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital
improvement program projects (collectively, the “Series 2021 Project”); (b) funding any
necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Series 2021 Bonds (defined below)
and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law pursuant to authority contained in the the Local
Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the “Act”), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended (the “Utah Code”), and other applicable provisions of law;
WHEREAS, for the purposes set forth above, the City has determined (a) to issue its Sales
and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $58,000,000 (the “Series 2021 Bonds”) (subject to the further limitations outlined herein)
pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and
supplemented to the date hereof (the “Master Indenture”), a copy of which is attached here as
Exhibit A and one or more Supplemental Trust Indentures (the “Supplemental Indenture”),
between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”) (the
Master Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture are sometimes collectively referred to
hereinafter as the “Indenture”), and (b) to cause the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds
to be applied in accordance with the Indenture;
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act to finance the Series 2021 Project, to enter into
the Supplemental Indenture, and to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to finance all or a portion of the
costs of financing the Series 2021 Project, to fund any necessary reserves, and to pay all related
costs authorized by law;
- 2 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code provides for the publication of a Notice of
Bonds to be Issued (the “Notice of Bonds”) and the running of a 30-day contest period, and the
City desires to cause the publication of such Notice of Bonds at this time in compliance with said
section with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code requires that a public hearing be held to
receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and the
potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private sector and that
notice of such public hearing be given as provided by law and, in satisfaction of such requirement,
the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds (the “Notice of Public Hearing”) pursuant to such Section;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-307(7) of the Utah Code requires the City to submit the question
of whether or not to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to voters for their approval or rejection if, within
30 calendar days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, a written petition requesting
an election and signed by at least 20% of the registered voters in the City is filed with the City;
and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City, it is in the best interests of the City that (a) the
Designated Officers (defined below) be authorized to approve the final terms and provisions
relating to the Series 2021 Bonds and to execute the Certificate of Determination (defined below)
containing such terms and provisions and to accept the offer of the underwriter for the Series 2021
Bonds (the “Underwriter”) for the purchase of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (b) the Mayor, the
Deputy Mayor or the Mayor’s designee (the “Mayor”), be authorized to execute the Official
Statement with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, all as provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows:
Section 1. Issuance of Bonds. (a) For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby
authorized and directed the execution, issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds in one
or more series (with such adjustments to the series designation as are necessary), on a taxable or
tax-exempt basis, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58,000,000. The Series 2021
Bonds shall be dated as of the date of the initial delivery thereof. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be
in authorized denominations, shall be payable, and shall be executed and delivered all as provided
in the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity as
provided in the Indenture.
(b) The form of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the form Supplemental Indenture,
subject to appropriate insertions and revisions in order to comply with the provisions of the
Indenture, is hereby approved.
(c) The Series 2021 Bonds shall be special obligations of the City, payable from and
secured by a pledge and assignment of the Revenues (as defined in the Indenture) received by the
City and of certain other moneys held under the Indenture on a parity with any other Bonds (as
defined in the Indenture) issued from time to time under the Master Indenture, including but not
limited to the City’s (i) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, (ii) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,
- 3 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Series 2013B, (iii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2014A, (iv) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, (v) Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, (vi) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,
Series 2019A and (vii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2019B. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not be obligations of the State or any other political
subdivision thereof, other than the City, and neither the faith and credit nor the ad valorem taxing
or appropriation power of the State or any political subdivision thereof, including the City, is
pledged to the payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not constitute
general obligations of the City or any other entity or body, municipal, state or otherwise.
Section 2. Series 2021 Bond Details; Delegation of Authority. (a) The Series 2021
Bonds shall mature on October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of
Determination) of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the
basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) from the Closing Date, payable
semiannually on April 1 and October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of
Determination) of each year, and at the rates per annum and commencing on the dates, all as
provided in that certain Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
C, of the Designated Officers (defined below) delivered pursuant to this Section 2, setting forth
certain terms and provisions of the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Certificate of Determination”).
(b) There is hereby delegated to the Designated Officers, subject to the limitations
contained in this resolution, the power to determine and effectuate the following with respect to
the Series 2021 Bonds and the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to make such
determinations and effectuations:
(i) the principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds necessary to
accomplish the purpose of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the recitals hereto and the
aggregate principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds to be executed and
delivered pursuant to the Indenture; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the
Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed Fifty-eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000);
(ii) the maturity date or dates and principal amount of each maturity of the
Series 2021 Bonds to be issued; provided, however, that the Series 2021 Bonds mature
over a period of not to exceed twenty-two (22) years from their date or dates;
(iii) the interest rate or rates, which may be taxable or tax-exempt rates, of the
Series 2021 Bonds and the date on which payment of such interest commences, provided,
however, that the interest rate or rates to be borne by any Series 2021 Bond shall not exceed
__________ percent (____%) per annum;
(iv) the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds and the purchase price to be paid by the
Underwriter of such Series 2021 Bonds; provided, however, that the discount from par of
each series of the Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a
percentage of the principal amount);
- 4 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
(v) the Series 2021 Bonds, if any, to be retired from mandatory sinking fund
redemption payments and the dates and the amounts thereof;
(vi) the time and redemption price, if any, at which the Series 2021 Bonds may
be called for redemption prior to their maturity at the option of the City; provided, however,
the first optional redemption date shall not be later than ten and a half years from the date
of delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds;
(vii) the amount of reserves necessary to be maintained in connection with each
series of the Series 2021 Bonds, if any;
(viii) the use and deposit of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds; and
(ix) any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers not
materially in conflict with the provisions of this resolution.
For purposes of this resolution and the Series 2021 Bonds, “Designated Officers” means
(a) the (i) Mayor of the City; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the
Mayor’s Chief of Staff; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the
Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer; or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the
Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the City and
(b) (i) the Chair of the City Council; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair
of the City Council, the Vice Chair of the City Council; or (iii) in the event of the absence or
incapacity of both the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council, any other member of the City
Council.
Following the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Designated Officers shall obtain such
information as they deem necessary to make such determinations as provided above and shall make
such determinations as provided above and shall execute the Certificate of Determination
containing such terms and provisions of such series of the Series 2021 Bonds, which execution
shall be conclusive evidence of the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the
matters stated therein. The provisions of the Certificate of Determination shall be deemed to be
incorporated into this Section 2.
Section 3. Approval and Execution of the Supplemental Indenture. One or more
Supplemental Indentures, in substantially the form of the Thirteenth Supplemental Trust Indenture
attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor is hereby
authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver each Supplemental Indenture on behalf
of the City, and the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered
and directed to affix to each Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and
countersign each such Supplemental Indenture, with such changes to each Supplemental Indenture
from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute
conclusive evidence of such approval. The provisions of each Supplemental Indenture, as
executed and delivered, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. The Master
Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture shall constitute a “system of registration” for all
purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act of Utah.
- 5 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 4. Final Official Statement. A final Official Statement of the City in
substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement presented at this meeting and in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized with such changes, omissions, insertions
and revisions as the Mayor shall deem advisable, including the completion thereof with the
information established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds by the Designated Officers
and set forth in the Certificate of Determination. The Mayor shall sign and deliver a final Official
Statement for distribution to prospective purchasers of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds and
other interested persons. The approval of the Mayor of any such changes, omissions, insertions
and revisions shall be conclusively established by the Mayor’s execution of such final Official
Statement.
Section 5. Preliminary Official Statement to be Deemed Final. The use and distribution
of a Preliminary Official Statement, in substantially the form presented at this meeting and in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized and approved, with such changes,
omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor and the City Treasurer, or the Deputy Treasurer
of the City (the “City Treasurer”), shall deem advisable. The Mayor and the City Treasurer are,
and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such
certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the
issuance, sale and delivery of any Series 2021 Bonds and to deem final each Preliminary Official
Statement within the meaning and for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to completion thereof with the information
established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 6. Other Certificates and Documents Required to Evidence Compliance with
Federal Tax and Securities Laws. Each of the Mayor, the City Recorder or any Deputy City
Recorder and the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to execute (a) such certificates
and documents as are required to evidence compliance with the federal laws relating to the tax-
exempt status of interest on any Series 2021 Bonds and (b) a Continuing Disclosure Agreement,
in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, and such other certificates and documents
as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other applicable federal securities laws.
Section 7. Other Actions With Respect to the Series 2021 Bonds. The officers and
employees of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect
to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action necessary in
conformity with the Act to carry out the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, without
limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered
in connection with the sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds. If (a) the Mayor, (b) the City
Recorder or (c) the City Treasurer shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and
countersign, respectively, the Series 2021 Bonds or the other documents that they are hereby
authorized to execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed, or attested and
countersigned, respectively, (i) by the Chief of Staff, (ii) by any Deputy City Recorder or (iii) by
the Deputy Treasurer of the City. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the officers
and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action as shall be necessary and
appropriate to issue the Series 2021 Bonds.
- 6 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 8. Notice of Bonds to be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder
shall cause the Notice of Bonds, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, to be
published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper published and of general circulation
within the City.
For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds, any
person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this resolution (including the
Supplemental Indenture attached hereto) or the Series 2021 Bonds hereby authorized or any
provisions made for the security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. After such time, no one
shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this resolution
(including the Supplemental Indenture) or the Series 2021 Bonds or any provisions made for the
security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds for any cause.
Section 9. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of
the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the Council on Tuesday, August 17, 2021, during the
Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., which, as determined by the Council Chair, shall be
held either virtually, at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room
315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any
combination thereof, to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of
the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private
sector.
Section 10. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. The City Recorder or any Deputy
City Recorder (the “City Recorder”) shall publish or cause to be published the Notice of Public
Hearing on the Utah Public Notice Website, created under Section 63F-1-701 of the Utah Code,
no less than 14 days before the public hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing shall be in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit H.
Section 11. Form of Petition. The form of the petition to be used by registered voters in
requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds shall be in substantially
the form attached hereto as Exhibit I.
Section 12. Issuance of Bonds After Thirty-Day Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-14-307(7) of the Act, if within thirty days after the publication of the
Notice of Public Hearing by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, a petition or petitions, in
the form specified by Section 11 hereof, are filed with the City Recorder, signed by not less than
twenty percent (20%) of the registered voters of the City (as certified by the County Clerk of Salt
Lake County) requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds, then the
Council shall proceed to call and hold an election on the Series 2021 Bonds. If such election is
held and a majority of the registered voters of the City voting thereon approve the Series 2021
Bonds, then, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City shall thereupon be authorized
to issue the Series 2021 Bonds. If no petition is filed within the thirty-day period after the date of
the final publication of such notice, or if it is determined that the number of signatures on the
petitions filed within the thirty-day period after the date of the final publication of such notice is
less than the required number, the City shall proceed to issue the the Series 2021 Bonds.
- 7 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 13. Sale of the Series 2021 Bonds; Purchase Contract. The Series 2021 Bonds
authorized to be issued herein are hereby authorized to be sold and delivered to the Underwriter,
upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract. The Mayor is hereby authorized,
empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Purchase Contract on behalf of the City in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit G, with such changes therein from the form
attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive
evidence of such approval. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized,
empowered and directed to affix to the Purchase Contract the seal of the City and to attest such
seal and countersign the Purchase Contract.
Section 14. City Recorder to Perform Certain Acts. The City Recorder is hereby directed
to maintain a copy of this Resolution (together with all exhibits hereto), a copy of the Master
Indenture and the form of the Supplemental Indenture on file in the City Recorder’s office (or the
City Recorder’s temporary office, as applicable) during regular business hours 1 for public
examination by registered voters of the City and other interested persons until at least thirty (30)
days from and after the date of publication of the Notice of Bonds and upon request to supply
copies of the form of petition specified in Section 11 hereof.
Section 15. Prior Acts Ratified, Approved and Confirmed. All acts of the officers and
employees of the City in connection with the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds are hereby ratified,
approved and confirmed.
Section 16. Resolution Irrepealable. Following the execution and delivery of a
Supplemental Indenture, this resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until all of the Series 2021
Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged.
Section 17. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this resolution
shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of
such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of
this resolution.
Section 18. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
approval and adoption.
(Signature page follows.)
1 Appointments are encouraged as the temporary office is not occupied during business hours due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
- 8 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 13th day of July
2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
_______________________________________
Chair
Salt Lake City Council
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Recorder
[SEAL]
APPROVED:
By ____________________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By ____________________________________
Senior City Attorney
A-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT A
[ATTACH COPY OF MASTER TRUST INDENTURE]
B-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT B
[ATTACH FORM OF THIRTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE]
C-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT C
[ATTACH FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION]
D-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT D
[ATTACH FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT]
E-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT E
[ATTACH FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT]
F-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT F
NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended, that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which it authorized and
approved the issuance of its sales and excise tax revenue bonds in one or more series, on a taxable
or tax-exempt basis (collectively, the “Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed
$58,000,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed ____% per annum and to mature
not later than 22 years from their date or dates and to be sold at a discount from par not to exceed
2.00%. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other
provisions as are contained in the Master Trust Indenture, described below, and the final form of
the Bonds and a Supplemental Trust Indenture, described below.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of paying all or part
of the cost of (a) (i) acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic
structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities] and (ii) acquiring, constructing,
improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects; (b) funding any
necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Bonds and (c) paying all related costs
authorized by law. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution,
including as part of the Resolution a draft, in substantially final form, of a Supplemental Trust
Indenture, and a copy of the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as heretofor
amended and supplemented (the “Master Indenture”), between the City and Zions
Bancorporation, National Association, a trustee, that were before the Council and attached to the
Resolution at the time of the adoption of the Resolution. The City will cause one or more
Supplemental Trust Indentures to be executed and delivered in such form and with such changes
thereto as certain designated officers of the City shall approve, provided that the principal amount,
interest rate or rates, maturity and discount, if any, will not exceed the respective maximums
described above.
The repayment of the Bonds will be secured by a pledge of the legally available revenues
from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2,
Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City Code);
(b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1,
Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt Lake City
Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of Salt Lake
City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City
pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to
Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities received
by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected
pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees associated with
cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20 (collectively,
the “Pledged Taxes”).
F-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
The City currently has $102,490,000 par amount of bonds or notes currently outstanding
that are secured by the Pledged Taxes. More detailed information relating to the City’s outstanding
bonds can be found in the City’s most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that is
available on the Office of the Utah State Auditor’s website (www.sao.state.ut.us).
Assuming a final maturity for the Bonds of approximately 21 years from the date hereof
and that the Bonds are issued in an aggregate principal amount of $__________ and are held until
maturity, based on the City’s currently expected financing structure and interest rates in effect
around the time of publication of this notice, the estimated total cost to the City of the proposed
Bonds is $__________.
A copy of the Resolution (including the draft of the Supplemental Trust Indenture and a
copy of the Master Indenture attached to the Resolution) may be examined by appointment at the
temporary office of the City Recorder located at Plaza 349, 349 South 200 East in Salt Lake City,
Utah, during regular business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. To schedule an appointment
please call (801) 535-7671. Additionally, a protected, pdf copy of the Resolution may be requested
by sending an email to the City Recorder at SLCRecorder@slcgov.com. The Resolution shall be
so available for inspection for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of the
publication of this notice.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of thirty (30) days from and
after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest
the legality of the Resolution (including the Supplemental Trust Indenture attached thereto) of the
City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the
Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality
or legality of the Resolution, the Bonds or the provisions for their security or payment for any
cause.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By ____________________________________
City Recorder
[SEAL]
G-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT G
[ATTACH FORM OF PURCHASE CONTRACT]
H-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT H
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE
SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”)
of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”), calling for a public
hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and
improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical
facilities] and acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital
improvement program projects (collectively, the “Project”) and the potential economic impact
that the Project will have on the private sector, pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act,
Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”).
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of (1) financing all or a portion of the
costs of the Project, (2) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the
Bonds, and (3) paying the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds.
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Fifty-
eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000) to finance the Project. The Bonds may be issued with other
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds being issued for other purposes so the principal amount may
exceed the amount listed above to finance the costs of the Project.
SALES TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED
The City proposes to pledge to the payment of the Bonds all of the legally available
revenues from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter
12, Part 2, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake
City Code); (b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt
Lake City Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to
Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of
Salt Lake City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by
the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant
to Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities
received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and
collected pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees
associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20.
H-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City will hold a public hearing during its City Council meeting which begins at
7:00 p.m. on August 17, 2021. The public hearing will be held either virtually, at the regular
meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building,
451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any combination thereof, as determined by the
Chair of the City Council. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the
public hearing in the manner that will be described in the agenda for the meeting. Written
comments may be submitted to the City, to the attention of the City Recorder, prior to the public
hearing.
PURPOSE FOR HEARING
The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance
of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE PETITION TO HOLD AN ELECTION
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code, if within 30
calendar days of the publication of this notice on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public
Notice Website, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least twenty percent
(20%) of the registered voters of the City is filed with the City, then the City shall submit the
question of whether or not to issue the Bonds to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection.
If no written petition is filed or if fewer than 20% of the registered voters of the City sign
a written petition, in either case, within 30 calendar days of the posting of this notice on July __,
2021, the City may proceed to issue the Bonds without an election.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By ____________________________________
City Recorder
I-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT I
PETITION
To: City Recorder
Salt Lake City, Utah
We, the undersigned citizens and registered voters of Salt Lake City, Utah, respectfully
request that an election be called by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, to authorize the
issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in a maximum
principal amount not exceeding $58,000,000, as to which notice of intention to issue was published
on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, pursuant to the provisions of a
resolution passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on July 13, 2021, and each for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this
petition; I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Utah; my residence and post office address are
correctly written after my name:
I-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
WARNING
It is a felony for any one to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any other name
than one’s own, or knowingly to sign one’s name more than once for the same measure, or to sign
such petition when one knows that he or she is not a registered voter.
REGISTERED VOTER’S PRINTED
NAME (MUST BE LEGIBLE TO BE
COUNTED)
SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED
VOTER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE,
ZIP CODE
[The following certification shall appear on the reverse side of each page
[attached to the Petition containing the signature of voters]
I-3 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
STATE OF UTAH )
: ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, _________________________, of _____________________, hereby certify that I am a
registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, that all the names which appear on this
sheet were signed by persons who professed to be the persons whose names appear thereon, and
each of them signed his or her name thereto in my presence, I believe that each has printed and
signed his or her name, and written his or her post office address and residence correctly, and that
each signer is a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 2021.
Notary Public (or other official title)
Signature:
Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com
2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)]
Division (Priority) / App Ref Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score
72 displayed 2 not included (Duplicates)60,584,684.35
T7 Division of Transportation / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent)900,000.00 6 to 0 18.17
T13 Division of Transportation / 1700 South Corridor Transformation (Redwood to 300 W)363,150.00 7 to 0 18.14
P2 Public Lands / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 420,000.00 6 to 0 17.57
P1 Public Lands / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 3,200,000.00 7 to 0 17.07
E5 Engineering / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 300,000.00 7 to 017
T12 Division of Transportation / Transportation Safety Improvements 500,000.00 7 to 017
E3 Engineering / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 750,000.00 6 to 0 16.8
C20 Sugar House Community Council / Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000.00 6 to 0 16.31
T11 Division of Transportation / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 16.29
F1 Fire / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 318,278.75 7 to 0 16.26
C5 Public Lands / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design 150,736.00 7 to 0 16.2
T2 Division of Transportation / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad Crossing (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 016
E2 Engineering / Pavement Condition Survey 175,000.00 7 to 0 15.85
T3 Division of Transportation / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 15.83
F4 Fire / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 694,784.80 6 to 0 15.79
P10 Public Lands / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 440,000.00 6 to 0 15.79
T10 Division of Transportation / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent)1,045,000.00 6 to 0 15.74
C4 Public Lands / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank Stabilization)490,074.00 5 to 0 15.7
T6 Division of Transportation / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4 Cent)215,000.00 6 to 0 15.67
F2 Fire / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop 374,863.94 6 to 0 15.57
T1 Division of Transportation / 200 South Transit Transformation (Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent)3,261,900.00 6 to 0 15.33
T4 Division of Transportation / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar House (1/4 Cent) 500,000.00 6 to 0 15.33
C6 Sugar House Park Authority / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace 183,834.00 6 to 0 15.31
P5 Public Lands / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report 475,000.00 6 to 0 15.29
F3 Fire / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop 815,894.86 5 to 0 15.29
C12 Public Lands / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts 99,680.00 6 to 0 15.21
T8 Division of Transportation / Neighborhood Byway Design & Construction (1/4 Cent) 1,045,000.00 5 to 0 15.17
E6 Engineering / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000.00 5 to 1 14.8
T9 Division of Transportation / 900 South Signal Improvements (900 South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 500,000.00 6 to 0 14.67
C17 Poplar Grove Community Member / 700 S Westside Road Reconfiguration 514,450.00 5 to 0 14.67
T14 Division of Transportation / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic Signal Upgrades 1,050,000.00 6 to 0 14.33
T5 Division of Transportation / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent) 856,042.00 5 to 1 14.29
P13 Public Lands / Jordan Park Looped Pathways 510,000.00 7 to 0 14.14
P12 Public Lands / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition 425,000.00 6 to 1 14.14
P11 Public Lands / Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682.00 7 to 0 14.07
C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility Renovation 500,000.00 4 to 2 14.03
E8 Engineering / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River) 3,000,000.00 6 to 014
C22 Ballpark Community Council / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ 500,000.00 4 to 114
E7 Engineering / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.87
FA3 Public Services Facilities Division / Streets Steam Bay 363,495.00 6 to 0 13.87
P3 Public Lands / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 610,000.00 6 to 1 13.86
C15 Engineering / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 449,315.00 5 to 1 13.85
T15 Division of Transportation / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece (1850 East)350,000.00 5 to 1 13.6
E1 Engineering / Street Improvements 2021/2022 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.4
C1 Tracy Aviary / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and bath house.156,078.00 5 to 1 13.31
C21 Public / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming 400,000.00 3 to 2 13.2
P6 Public Lands / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000.00 5 to 1 13.07
C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming 595,194.00 4 to 2 12.9
P14 Public Lands / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion Replacement 690,000.00 6 to 0 12.86
C11 Wingate Village Townhomes / Wingate Walkway 286,750.00 5 to 1 12.86
C7 Liberty Hills Tennis / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center 202,100.00 3 to 3 12.83
P9 Public Lands / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks 1,393,600.00 6 to 0 12.79
C23 N/A / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford 200,000.00 4 to 2 12.71
C9 Wasatch Community Gardens / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community Garden 103,500.00 4 to 2 12.43
C24 Citizen / Sugar House Safe Side Streets 500,000.00 5 to 1 12.31
P15 Public Lands / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement, and design development 225,000.00 3 to 2 12.29
C16 David B. Troester / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways 1,158,422.00 4 to 1 12.17
C8 Liberty Hills Tennis / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers 300,000.00 4 to 2 12.14
C13 Public Lands / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New Tree Planting 500,000.00 4 to 1 12.1
FA1 Public Services Facilities Division / Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla 5,860,449.00 4 to 1 11.83
C3 Liberty Hills Tennis / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D 500,000.00 2 to 3 11.77
P8 Public Lands / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1) 3,838,000.00 5 to 1 11.62
C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk 72,739.00 4 to 1 11.43
P17 Public Lands / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape Improvements 650,000.00 4 to 2 11.29
P16 Public Lands / Regional Athletic Complex Playground 450,000.00 5 to 1 11.17
E4 Engineering / Logan Avenue Reconstruction 1,405,000.00 4 to 211
E9 Engineering / Wingpointe Levee Design 800,000.00 5 to 1 10.55
FA2 Public Services Facilities Division / Delong Salt Storage Facility 1,504,427.00 5 to 1 9.43
C19 Streets and Sanitation / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction 1,311,920.00 2 to 4 8.43
C10 Ballpark Community Council / 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 100,000.00 1 to 5 7.67
P7 Public Lands / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and Knowledge 790,000.00 4 to 2 7.43
P4 Public Lands / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation 765,325.00 3 to 3 6.86
#Division
Priority Organization Name / Application Title Requested
Amount Votes Committee
Score
3 C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility
Renovation $ 500,000 4 to 2 14.03
4 E1 Engineering / Street Improvements 2021/2022 $ 3,500,000 6 to 0 13.4
5 E2 Engineering / Pavement Condition Survey $ 175,000 7 to 0 15.85
6 E3 Engineering / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 $ 750,000 6 to 0 16.8
7 E5 Engineering / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 $ 300,000 7 to 0 17
8 E6 Engineering / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 $ 70,000 5 to 1 14.8
9 FA1
Public Services Facilities Division / Facilities Capital Asset
Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla $ 5,860,449 4 to 1 11.83
10 F1 Fire / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade $ 318,279 7 to 0 16.26
11 F2 Fire / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop $ 374,864 6 to 0 15.57
12 C1 Tracy Aviary / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and
bath house. $ 156,078 5 to 1 13.31
13 C4 Public Lands / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank
Stabilization) $ 490,074 5 to 0 15.7
14 C5 Public Lands / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design $ 150,736 7 to 0 16.2
15 C6 Sugar House Park Authority / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake
Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace $ 183,834 6 to 0 15.31
16 C12 Public Lands / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts $ 99,680 6 to 0 15.21
17 P1 Public Lands / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 $ 3,200,000 7 to 0 17.07
18 P2 Public Lands / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master
Plan $ 420,000 6 to 0 17.57
19 P3 Public Lands / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 $ 610,000 6 to 1 13.86
20 P5 Public Lands / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape
Report $ 475,000 6 to 0 15.29
21 P6 Public Lands / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation &
Activation at Allen Park $ 420,000 5 to 1 13.07
22 P10 Public Lands / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt $ 440,000 6 to 0 15.79
23 P11 Public Lands / Foothills Trailhead Development $ 1,304,682 7 to 0 14.07
24 P12 Public Lands / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition $ 425,000 6 to 1 14.14
25 P13 Public Lands / Jordan Park Looped Pathways $ 510,000 7 to 0 14.14
26 P16 Public Lands / Regional Athletic Complex Playground $ 450,000 5 to 1 11.17
27 C17 Poplar Grove Community Member / 700 S Westside Road
Reconfiguration $ 514,450 5 to 0 14.67
28 C20 Sugar House Community Council / Highland High Crosswalk
Enhancements $ 85,000 6 to 0 16.31
29 T1 Division of Transportation / 200 South Transit Transformation
(Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent) $ 3,261,900 6 to 0 15.33
30 T2 Division of Transportation / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad
Crossing (1/4 Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 16
31 T3 Division of Transportation / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 15.83
32 T4 Division of Transportation / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar
House (1/4 Cent) $ 500,000 6 to 0 15.33
33 T5 Division of Transportation / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent) $ 856,042 5 to 1 14.29
34 T6 Division of Transportation / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4
Cent) $ 215,000 6 to 0 15.67
35 T7 Division of Transportation / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent) $ 900,000 6 to 0 18.17
36 T8 Division of Transportation / Neighborhood Byway Design &
Construction (1/4 Cent) $ 1,045,000 5 to 0 15.17
37 T9
Division of Transportation / 900 South Signal Improvements (900
South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 $ 500,000 6 to 0 14.67
38 T10 Division of Transportation / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent) $ 1,045,000 6 to 0 15.74
39 T11 Division of Transportation / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4
Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 16.29
2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program Grand Totals
Sorted by Funding Log Project #
#Division
Priority Organization Name / Application Title Requested
Amount Votes Committee
Score
2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program Grand Totals
Sorted by Funding Log Project #
40 T12 Division of Transportation / Transportation Safety Improvements $ 500,000 7 to 0 17
41 T13 Division of Transportation / 1700 South Corridor Transformation
(Redwood to 300 W) $ 363,150 7 to 0 18.14
42 C22
Ballpark Community Council / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood
Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ $ 500,000 4 to 1 14
43 C15 Engineering / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb $ 449,315 5 to 1 13.85
44 E4 Engineering / Logan Avenue Reconstruction $ 1,405,000 4 to 2 11
45 E7 Engineering / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) $ 3,500,000 6 to 0 13.87
46 E8 Engineering / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over
the Jordan River) $ 3,000,000 6 to 0 14
47 E9 Engineering / Wingpointe Levee Design $ 800,000 5 to 1 10.55
48 C16 David B. Troester / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways $ 1,158,422 4 to 1 12.17
49 FA2 Public Services Facilities Division / Delong Salt Storage Facility $ 1,504,427 5 to 1 9.43
50 FA3 Public Services Facilities Division / Streets Steam Bay $ 363,495 6 to 0 13.87
51 F3 Fire / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop $ 815,895 5 to 0 15.29
52 F4 Fire / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements $ 694,785 6 to 0 15.79
53 C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk $ 72,739 4 to 1 11.43
54 C3
Liberty Hills Tennis / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total
Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D $ 500,000 2 to 3 11.77
55 C7 Liberty Hills Tennis / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park
Tennis Center $ 202,100 3 to 3 12.83
56 C8 Liberty Hills Tennis / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at
Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers $ 300,000 4 to 2 12.14
57 C9 Wasatch Community Gardens / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community
Garden $ 103,500 4 to 2 12.43
58 C10 Ballpark Community Council / 1300 South Camping Resistant
Landscaping $ 100,000 1 to 5 7.67
59 C11 Wingate Village Townhomes / Wingate Walkway $ 286,750 5 to 1 12.86
60 C13 Public Lands / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New
Tree Planting $ 500,000 4 to 1 12.1
61 P4 Public Lands / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation $ 765,325 3 to 3 6.86
62 P7 Public Lands / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and
Knowledge $ 790,000 4 to 2 7.43
63 P8 Public Lands / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1) $ 3,838,000 5 to 1 11.62
64 P9 Public Lands / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks $ 1,393,600 6 to 0 12.79
65 P14 Public Lands / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion
Replacement $ 690,000 6 to 0 12.86
66 P15 Public Lands / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement,
and design development $ 225,000 3 to 2 12.29
67 P17 Public Lands / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape
Improvements $ 650,000 4 to 2 11.29
68 C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming $ 595,194 4 to 2 12.9
69 C19 Streets and Sanitation / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete
Street Reconstruction $ 1,311,920 2 to 4 8.43
70 C21 Public / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming $ 400,000 3 to 2 13.2
71 C23 N/A / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford $ 200,000 4 to 2 12.71
72 C24 Citizen / Sugar House Safe Side Streets $ 500,000 5 to 1 12.31
73 T15 Division of Transportation / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece
(1850 East) $ 350,000 5 to 1 13.6
74 T14 Division of Transportation / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic
Signal Upgrades $ 1,050,000 6 to 0 14.33
1
8
5
9
9
ATTACHMENT 6 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost
Estimate
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CFP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CFP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CFP
and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CFP. A high
alignment would indicate the CFP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CFP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CFP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 4/20/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 421,062$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,002,114$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,435,142$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,125,188$ D
14,983,506$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,105$ Current Month
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,718$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,718$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 14,542$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,656$ -$ -$ -$ 78,656$
Notes
^1 FY 2023Calendar
Month
1/26/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $104k in the next 9 months without offsetting expendituresFiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 4/20/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
ValuespSum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation
p Sum of Police AllocationCrime lab rent 8417001 -$ 118$ -$ (118)$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ A
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$
Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,512,316$ 289,499$ 71,246$ 2,151,572$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 6,966$ 3,941$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 13,145$ 949,764$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ 39,697$ 133,320$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 6,388$ 1,213$ 42$
337 Community Garden, 337 S 40 8416002 277$ -$ -$ 277$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 470$ 296$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 270$ 786$ C
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 19,702$ 64,364$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ -$ 6,589$ 20,411$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 16,546$ 50,034$ 59,025$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 407,516$ 37,648$ 70,081$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ -$ 257,265$ 92,736$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ 875$ 101,381$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 35,506$ 51,934$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 574,709$ 4,080$ 148,211$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 10,285$ 57,026$ 282,939$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ 979$ -$ 326,699$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ 9,165$ 2,088$ 388,747$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ -$ -$ 540,732$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 46,474$ 33,569$ 1,065,351$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 274,321$ 46,898$ 3,120,981$
Grand Total 11,415,868$ 1,512,215$ 794,781$ 9,108,873$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 32,718$ 8,309$ -$ D
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,821$ 1,539$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 142,326$ 69,591$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ 6,020$ 61,182$ 57,798$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 69,002$ 56,815$ 84,935$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 1,264$ 8,990$ 137,658$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ -$ -$ 152,500$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 15,688$ 235,628$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 213,551$ 607,870$ 2,036,669$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 681,222$ 3,382,117$ 5,228,908$
Total 24,384,609$ 2,496,081$ 5,197,908$ 16,690,620$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8,435,142$
5,125,188$
14,983,506$
8484002
8484003
8484005
421,062$
$1,002,114
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000
Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000
4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000
8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K
Site Master Plan $50K - $75K
City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K
Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000
Playground Improvements $150K - $250K
Native soil field $150,000
Sand-based field $400,000
Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000
Patch, repair and paint $150,000
New post tension court $250,000
Hand-built natural surface single track trail (18"-30"
wide)$6-12/LF
Machine-built natural-surface trail (4-6’ width)$20-25/LF
Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF
Concrete Trail $4.50/SF
Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF
Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K
Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+
Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350
Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K
Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles =
1.5 actual miles)500,000+
Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual
mile) 2,000+
Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000
Traffic Signals - New 250,000$
Traffic Signals - Upgrades 250,000$
HAWK Signals 130,000$
Crosswalk - Flashing 60,000$
Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights 25,000$
Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of
road $15K - $25K
Driver Feedback Sign 8,000$
Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)280,000$
Crack Seal (Lane Mile)5,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)500,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M
Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)4$
Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10
Streets
Drinking Fountains
Multi-purpose Field Improvements
Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts)
Path/ Trail Improvements
Transportation
Regular CIP Project Costs
General Rules of Thumb
NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (which may be
out of date), vary by project, and do not include on-going maintenance.
Parks
Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work)
Studies
Funding
Source
Cost
Center Description Remaining
Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status?
8317057 Deteriorated Sidewalk 2,237.00$
8318061 900 West Neighborhood nodes an 46,728.00$
8318062 Deteriorated or Missing Concre 5,987.00$
8318063 Jordan River Parkway 181,571.00$
8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C 112,658.00$
8317361 Street Reconstruction Improv 49.00$
8314031 Driver Feedback Signs 86,320.00$
8314033 SugarHouse Circulation 96,736.00$
8317030 Sugar House Park Roadway Maint 24,836.00$
8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program 20,841.00$
8317033 Paver Crosswalks Reconstructio 33,392.00$
8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru 14,522.00$
8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp 38,047.00$
8318154 1300 E Class C 443,879.00$
8310077 Regional Sports Complex Donati 3,154.00$
8314094 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp 8,598.00$
8314100 900 S Oxbow 619.00$
8314103 Warm Springs Park Master Plan 223.00$
8314104 Genesee Trailhead Acquistion 229,927.00$
8314105 Fisher Mansion Carriage House 102,751.00$
8315083 Wakara Way/Arapeen Dr Donation 35,566.00$
8317064 Jordan River Trail - Union P 500,000.00$
8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap 6,989.00$
8315073 City Cemetery Master Plan 25,740.00$
8316026 Six Traffic Signal Upgrades, 9 1,452.00$
8316031 Fairmont Park Pond Restoration 3,097.00$
8316041 PPL Deferred Maintenance, City 2,309.00$
8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 104,210.00$
8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W 13,195.00$
8316085 Contingency 100,000.00$
8317017 Recreation/Open Space GO Bond (16,584.00)$ Why is this negative?
8317024 Sorenson Multicultural Center 27,452.00$
8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction 455,159.00$
8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements 17,269.00$
8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh 128,823.00$
8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH 79,995.00$
8317055 Capital Facilities Plan 4,928.00$
8317096 Fire Station #3 2,200.00$ General Fund
Dontions
Class C
CDBG
8318027 Public Way Concrete Restoratio 40,413.00$
8318028 Bridge Maintenance 77,132.00$
8318033 Concrete Rehab 3,431.00$
8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails 109,235.00$
8318046 Warm Springs Restrooms 12,993.00$
8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway 272,091.00$
8318048 Miller Park ADA access 371,369.00$
8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control 7,023.00$
8318050 Artesian Well Park Redevelopme 1,332.00$
8318054 Fairmond Salt Storage 7,111.00$
8318055 9 Line Central Ninth 152,500.00$
8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP 110,104.00$
8318085 Computer Rm Cooling Units 40,787.00$
8318087 Ball Field Lights 2,979.00$
8318097 Percent for Art 98,161.00$
4,251,536.00$
General Fund
TOTAL of ALL SOURCES
600/700 North 26 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
I-215 to Redwood Road
In this western segment, 700
North will maintain two vehicle travel
lanes in each direction with left turn
lanes.
The redesign includes numerous
changes to balance vehicle mobility
with the needs of pedestrians and
cyclists.
Protected bike lanes
A curb-separated bike lane is
recommended for the street design.
Narrowing the vehicle travel lanes
frees up space for upgrades to
the bike facilities. The relatively
limited number of driveways and
lack of on-street parking makes this
configuration ideal.
Landscaped medians
Landscaped medians are placed
strategically in the center turn lane on
this segment of 700 North to support
pedestrian crossings, reduce the scale
of the street, add greenery, slow traffic,
and provide a neighborhood gateway.
Morton pedestrian-activated
crossing
This segment of 700 North lacks
frequent pedestrian crossings. This
pedestrian activated crossing at
Morton Drive can provide a place to
cross and help slow traffic as it enters
the neighborhood.MORTON DR.I - 215DOROTHEA WY.2200 West through I-215 Interchange
The segment of 700 North from 2200
West through the I-215 interchange,
while included in this corridor study, is
not shown in this illustrative diagram.
The lane configuration for this segment is
recommended to stay the same as existing,
with improvements focused on visibility,
protection, and conflict mitigation of active
transportation facilities.
600 - 700 North Illustrative Concept
LEGEND
Roadway lanes and parking
New landscaped areas
New pedestrian space
Bike lane
Bus stop DRAFT
27600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Star Crest Drive crossing
Star Crest Drive is planned as a
Neighborhood Byway. These Byways
formalize quiet streets into a network
of corridors that offer comfortable
routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The key strategy to a Neighborhood
Byway is to provide safe signalized
crossings at major barrier streets.
Trade on-street parking for a
protected bike lane
Complete streets inevitably involve
trade-offs and compromises. The south
side of 700 North between Morton
Drive and east of Sir Anthony Drive
(2.5 blocks) is the only place with on-
street parking between 2200 West and
Redwood Road. This plan recommends
removing this small amount of
residential-oriented on-street parking
to allow for a continuous protected bike
lane. This trade-off creates a safe bike
environment and maintains current
vehicle capacity.
Sidewalk-level bikeway
This plan recommends a bike
path raised to sidewalk-level
between Redwood Road and
approximately 1500 West. This will
connect the protected bike lanes
to the west with high-comfort bike
infrastructure that accesses the
Jordan River Parkway, Riverside
Park, and Backman Elementary.
Sir Anthony pedestrian-
activated crossing
This segment of 700 North
lacks frequent pedestrian
crossings. This pedestrian
activated crossing at Sir
Anthony Drive can provide
a place to cross and help
slow traffic as it enters the
neighborhood.
Redwood Road crossing
improvements
While the recommended street
configuration does not create major
opportunities for shortening the
Redwood Road/700 North pedestrian
crossings, look for opportunities to
increase visibility, improve corner
environment, or optimize crossing
time.
Redwood Road intersection area
transit stops
The commercial node here is an
important destination for basic daily
needs. In anticipation of the new
transit service on 600 North (Rt 205)
and 1000 North (Rt 1) - part of the
Frequent Transit Network plan - Salt
Lake City and UTA are planning new
stops and upgrades to existing stops.
Transition to one through lane
each way
East of Redwood Road, the
corridor transitions to a
configuration with one vehicle lane
in each direction. This change is
necessary to create space in the
narrowest section of the corridor
to provide high-quality streetscape
features and multi-modal
environment.STAR CREST DR.SIR ANTHONY DR.REDWOODRD.DRAFT
600/700 North 28 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Improve on-street parking
Existing on-street parking remains - it is especially
important for Riverside Park use. However,
pedestrian crossings and traffic calming
will improve access and safety to
parking areas.
Manage driveway
access
Ensure commercial
driveway conflicts are
treated properly, with
bike markings and
driveway cuts do not
interrupt sidewalk
grade.
Access management
using raised medians is
appropriate for closely
spaced driveways near
Redwood Road.
New park edge
Reconfiguring 600/700
North to expand the
pedestrian and bicycle
environments also is a
major opportunity to
transform the edge of
Riverside Park to become
more permeable and
active with more shade,
pathways into the park,
and amenities such as
benches or even picnic
pavilions.
Improved crossing at
Jordan River
The Jordan River
Parkway crossing is
shortened and made
more visible by the
addition of curb bulb-
outs and a median
refuge.
Improved mid-park crossing
The existing pedestrian crossing at
Backman School and Riverside Park
is shortened and made more visible
by the addition of curb bulb-outs
and a median refuge.
Realign 1500 West to create
gateway and crossing
for park, school and
neighborhood
A major move recommended
by this plan is a realignment of
1500 West and the Riverside
Park parking lot driveway to
create a four-way intersection.
This four-way intersection
accomplishes several things: It
reduces the awkwardness of
this area; it creates a place for a
pedestrian crossing at Backman
School’s front door and the entry
to the park; it calms traffic; and it
creates the opportunity for entry
plazas for the park, school, and
neighborhoods to the east.Raised bike lane
along park and
school
High demand for
access to Riverside
Park and Backman
School, on-street
parking, and few
driveways mean an
ideal opportunity for
raised bike lanes at
the sidewalk grade
providing a safe bike
environment for the
full range of bike and
micromobility users
riding along 600/700
North.
The intersection reconfiguration also creates
public green space benefits - an active
use of the current landscaped triangle, a
terminus and quality access point for the wide
landscaped median and pathway extending
Riverside Park to the east, and perhaps even
an extension of Backman School outdoor
classroom space into these plazas. RIVER-SIDE DR.JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY1500 WESTRiverside Park
Backman
Elementary School
Keep center turn lane
The plan recommends including the two-way
center turn lane to allow more flexibility with
on-street parking and turning around. DRAFT
29600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Begin landscaped median parkway
with path
The reconfigured 1500 West/Riverside
Park driveway intersection is the
starting point for the wide landscaped
median that runs eastward to 900
West. The median has a pathway
running down it, flanked by trees;
users at this west end access the path
via the 1500 West crossing.
This west end of the median parkway
can also include neighborhood
gateway elements such as plantings,
monuments, or public art.
1300 West Neighborhood Byway
treatment
A Neighborhood Byway is planned
for 1300 West through Rose Park and
Fairpark. Where 1300 West crosses
600 North, the median parkway
can extend across the intersection,
creating a highly safe crossing and
neighborhood open space node. While
this design restricts left turns into and
from 1300 East, the trade-off with the
Byway crossing and public green space
created is worthy.
Protected bike lane
In this segment of 600 North, the
raised bike lane along the Backman
School/Riverside park segment
transitions to a bike lane in the
roadway, protected by a curb and
likely vertical delineators. This is an
opportunity created by the lack of on-
street parking for this segment. Having
the bike lane in the roadway allows
existing curb locations to remain.
Median intersection
treatments
Where the median parkway
crosses an intersection that
runs through the median
area, a special treatment will
be needed. Left turn lanes
will be preserved, but the
crossing median path will
need high-visibility markings,
and median noses should be
placed as close together as
possible. A raised crossing
could be considered.
Pedestrian realm largely remains as-is in this segment
The sidewalk and park strip will largely remain in its existing
condition for this segment of the corridor (Catherine Street to 1200
West). Exceptions are reconfigured corners and new bus stop areas.
Bus stops in a constrained environment
The lack of an on-street parking lane and only one through lane means that
room will need to be made for a bus pullout at the bus stops planned for this
segment - likely by routing the bike lane up onto the curb into the pedestrian
realm, behind the bus stop pad. CATHERINEST.1400 WESTCOLORADO ST.1300 WESTOAKLEY ST.Potential signal
Consider a full traffic
signal retrofit at 1400
West intersection.
DRAFT
600/700 North 30 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Narrower median
east of 1200 West
The inclusion of on-
street parking along
600 North east of
1200 West means that
the center planted
median will need to be
narrower - in the range
of 20 to 25 feet.
1200 West bulbout/plaza/crossing
The wide Fairpark streets (in contrast to
the narrow Rose Park streets) create the
opportunity for large bulb-outs extending
into the corridor’s cross streets on the south
side. These can be designed as public plazas,
especially in conjunction with new bus stops.
Perhaps the best such opportunity is at 1200
West, where a demonstration project along
these lines was built in 2020.
Pedestrian realm largely
remains as-is in this
segment
The sidewalk and park strip
will largely remain in its
existing condition for this
segment of the corridor.
Exceptions are bulb-outs at
intersection crossings and
new bus stop areas.
New bus stops
Bus stops along 600 North between
800 West and 1200 West will be located in
this segment’s wide existing park strips at 900
West, 1000 West, and 1200 West. Bus stops
can be catalysts for landscape, streetscape
and public space improvements that celebrate
neighborhood identity and provide rider
comfort. Some on-street parking will be
displaced to accommodate the bus stop
activity.
Buffered bike lanes
Buffered bikes lanes are an
appropriate design for this
segment given the changes
to vehicle travel lanes and
center median, which is
expected to reduce vehicle
speeds. Buffered bike lanes
also are compatible with other
priorities like on street parking
and driveway access.
Rambler Dr. intersection
Rambler Drive’s wide
parking lane on the south
side of its intersection with
600 North provides the
opportunity for bulb-out
curb extensions to shorten
the pedestrian crossing,
calm traffic and create
public open space.1200 WESTRAMBLER DR.MARION ST.More pedestrian crossings
In this diagram, marked pedestrian
crossings are shown at every “city
block” street - i.e. 1200 West, 1300
West) - however, with the slowed
design speed of the corridor and
median refuge, it may make sense
to consider additional crossings
at the interim streets (i.e. Marion
St., Chicago St.), which would also
provide access to the median space.
DRAFT
31600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
1000 West Intersection
At the 1000 West intersection
the plan recommends bulb-out
curb extensions, a median refuge,
and bus stops, transforming this
intersection into a more walkable,
rideable neighborhood node.
Transition to 2 through lanes
each way east of 900 West
900 West is a key transition
point. East of this point, 600
North transitions back to a
configuration of two through
lanes each way (the street cross
section is generally unchanged
from existing conditions).
800 West bike crossing
improvements
Where 600 North crosses 800 West,
the existing pedestrian activated
crossing is enhanced. This crossing
will move westbound cyclists coming
off the two-way path over the viaduct
into the westbound buffered bike lane
on the north side of the street, and
improve north-south crossing.
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Eastern end of center planted
median: neighborhood
gateway
The 900 West intersection
marks the eastern end of the
center planted median that runs
westward from Riverside Park;
the median could have features
creating a gateway to Fairpark
and Rose Park.1000 WEST900 WESTCHICAGO ST.800 WESTDEXTER ST.AMERICAN BEAUTY DR.DRAFT
1 DRAFT July 14, 2021
DRAFT 600/700 North Preferred Concept
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to summarize recommendations for 600/700 North corridor, and to
provide some context about the process and rational behind the recommendations. In late 2019 the
Study began without any funding commitments; since then several significant funding sources have
been cobbled together from various Federal, State, and local sources. The Preferred Concept presented
in this document reflects a transformative vision for the corridor, and it should be emphasized that
additional refinement and engineering is necessary to clearly understand how much additional funding
is needed. It is also noted that implementation is expected to occur in phases, with roadway
reconstruction activities preceded by spot improvements to crosswalks and bus stops.
Project Goals
The 600/700 North Corridor Stakeholder Committee established a set of 10 Corridor Goals:
1) Maintain and enhance the link among
600/700 North corridor neighborhoods and
the rest of Salt Lake City
2) Link people and neighborhoods across
600/700 North
3) Maintain the corridor’s regional connections
4) Calm traffic to create a safe corridor
5) Create a beautiful street with great places
reflecting neighborhood pride
6) Improve access to and leverage Jordan River
Parkway, Riverside Park, and the
surrounding corridor parks and open space
network
7) Support and shape corridor commercial
nodes with walkable character and
neighborhood-oriented services
8) Implement and support Salt Lake City’s
Frequent Transit Network and other transit
connections
9) Improve the safety, consistency, and
comfort of east-west bicycle travel in the
project area.
10) Create a comprehensive and integrated set
of solutions for the entire corridor
Working closely with the Committee, the project team developed three alternative concepts for the
corridor that achieve these goals in different ways:
Concept 1: Baseline with Improvements - The current roadway layout with five lanes generally remains.
Improvements are added for walking, biking, and transit.
Concept 2: Green Boulevard - A wide landscaped median is added to the center of the street in addition
to walking, biking, and transit improvements.
Concept 3: Streetside Park - A portion of the street space is repurposed as a linear park extending from
Riverside Park to provide a variety of amenities and public space.
2 DRAFT July 14, 2021
In addition to these core ideas, each concept included options for the Backman School/Riverside Park
area and the I-15 interchange area.
The team presented these options to the public through an online story map, which included a short
survey. The survey received nearly 500 responses that provided both quantitative and qualitative
feedback. This feedback conveyed a series of clear – sometimes complementary, sometimes conflicting -
messages:
• Desire for green space and community open space as well as overall investment in the Westside
neighborhoods, serving the purposes of creating a beautiful community and providing usable
community space – embodying Goal 5.
• Desire for safe bike travel along the corridor, embodying Goal 9.
• Desire to slow traffic and create an overall safe environment for all street users – embodying
Goal 4.
• Desire for 600/700 North to retain its function of moving people through Westside
neighborhoods and to regional destinations, embodying Goal 1; and concern that one lane each
way could not sufficiently move motor vehicle traffic now and in the future.
• Concern about the viability, sustainability and safety of open space and the fit of open space
within the neighborhood context.
In addition, although it was less emphasized by the public, one key goal of the project from the outset is
to integrate the new frequent transit network service into the corridor with high quality transit stops and
waiting environment.
The team also considered the results of detailed traffic modeling on the corridor that concluded that
one lane each direction from 900 West to Redwood Road can handle the existing traffic volumes as long
as left and right turns lanes are provided at key intersections.
The team received guidance from the Stakeholder Committee in interpreting these results. In speaking
with committee members, the team gleaned some key insights – that the area deeply desires a quality
investment, though many in the community fear the change such an investment would bring. At the end
of the day, many committee members expressed that a smaller, non-transformative project would not
create the type of traffic calming, connections, and public spaces that they feel the corridor needs,
embodied in the Corridor Goals.
Based on this feedback and these considerations, the team developed a Preferred Concept for the
600/700 North Corridor. The preferred concept is a mix of the three alternative concepts presented,
taking on the strengths of each. This preferred concept combines and applies the alternatives in ways
appropriate for the context of different segments of the corridor.
It may be useful to think of the overall shape of the preferred concept as an “hourglass,” with more
traffic demand and corresponding traffic capacity at either end of the corridor, serving the two freeway
3 DRAFT July 14, 2021
interchanges and 900 West and Redwood Road corridors, while the neighborhood core of the corridor,
between Redwood Road and 900 West, has less traffic demand and more desire for slow traffic and
neighborhood activity associated with homes, Backman School, Riverside Park and Jordan River Parkway,
and neighborhood commercial uses.
Correspondingly, the two ends of the corridor would retain two lanes each way, while this
“neighborhood core” of the corridor would be reconfigured to one lane each way – with the space
gained used to create a mutually reinforcing “ecosystem” of slower vehicle speeds, better active
transportation conditions, community space, and beautification.
Draft Preferred Concept diagram
The diagram above shows how these pieces fit together at a high level. Here is a breakdown:
• One part of the “neighborhood core” of the corridor, from 900 West to 1500 West, is a version of
Concept 2 with lanes reconfigured to one through lane each way and turn pockets at
intersections. This concept has the central feature of the landscaped median proposed in
Concept 2 but incorporates the usable open space popular with Concept 3’s linear park by
4 DRAFT July 14, 2021
including a pathway down the center of the median between two rows of trees, from 1200 West
to 1500 West. This median would be a modern version of the planted medians found
throughout Salt Lake’s streets such as 200 West and 600 East – with more useable space and
having sustainable landscaping. The segment of the median with the pathway would have
marked crossings across the minor side streets in the medians.
Typical cross section, 600 North from 900 West to 1500 West, showing two different approaches to bike facility.
Median path would only run from 1200 West to 1500 West.
• In addition to the popularity of the median concept with the public (it received the highest rating
of the three concepts), there are several practical arguments for a landscaped median
configuration:
o Having this space and pathway in the median is appropriate for the single-family
residential context of the corridor, creating the community open space desired by the
community, but separating it from people’s front yards.
o It is easier to plant larger trees in the median, where there would be no power lines
along it, unlike along the park strip.
5 DRAFT July 14, 2021
o Putting the open space in the center allows the curbs to remain where they are and
keeps flexibility as to just how active the median can be.
o The median’s width from 1200 West to 1500 West would be about 30 feet, allowing for
an 8-to-10-foot path with plenty of room on either side for buffer and trees/landscaping,
as well as the ability to continue the path into the median nose alongside a narrow turn
pocket. For reference, the 600 and 800 East medians are about 24 feet; the 300 South
median in downtown, which has a pathway to access the median parking, is about 30
feet.
o The minor nature of the cross streets (and their narrow width on the Rose Park side)
also make well-marked median crossings feasible at Oakley Street, Colorado Street,
1400 West and Catherine Street/Circle. The median would extend across the 1300 West
intersection to enhance the crossing 1300 West Neighborhood Byway.
o The median is one big move that, if done well, could make a major contribution to
creating a slower, human scale environment – reducing the traffic to one lane each way
and adding landscaping makes a wide median a more hospitable place to be.
Examples of planted medians and median crossings in (clockwise from top left) Bogota, Colombia;
New York City; Downtown Salt Lake City; and Oakland, California.
• The other part of the neighborhood core segment, alongside Backman School and Riverside
Park, will be a blend of Concepts 2 and 3, with an alignment of 1500 West and the park drive to
create a crossable 4-way intersection serving as a gateway to the neighborhood, transition
between the two neighborhood core cross sections, and more navigable entry to the park.
6 DRAFT July 14, 2021
600/700 North through this segment west of 1500 West will have three lanes (short medians at
pedestrian crossings), on-street parking, and raised bike lanes behind the curb alongside
enhanced sidewalks, improving the safety and accessibility of this segment and its community
destinations.
Typical cross section, 600/700 North at Riverside Park
7 DRAFT July 14, 2021
An example of a recently constructed street in Sommerville, Massachusetts with a similar raised bike lane
configuration as to that envisioned on 600-700 North in the Riverside Park segment.
• For the corridor from 800 West to I-215, we believe we can cover over 80 percent of the east-
west distance with protected bike facilities, whether through a bike lane raised on the curb
(Backman School/Riverside Park segment), a pathway shared with pedestrians (between Jordan
River and Redwood Road), a curb/delineator-protected lane (1200 West to 1500 West and
Redwood to I-215), or in rare circumstances, a parking-protected lane (potentially some limited
places between 900 West and 1200 West and between Redwood and I-215).
• The transitional segments on either end of this neighborhood core – the “wide” part of the
hourglass, from 800 to 900 West and from Redwood Road to 2200 West - have more demand
for traffic coming on and off the freeways to Redwood Road and 900 West and so will adopt
Concept 1’s 5-lane cross section with multi-modal improvements such as a buffered bike lane,
curb extension “bulb-outs,” pedestrian refuges, and streetscape.
• The viaduct/I-15 interchange segment of the corridor will adopt the Concept 2 approach, with a
widened path, improved freeway ramp crossings and buffers, as well as an improved active
transportation crossing at 800 West, although the Concept 3 north side path could be
considered as a future phase.
We believe this corridor concept best balances and achieves the Corridor Goals established by the
Stakeholder Committee and creates a transportation and public space investment worthy of the
communities it will serve.
The following discusses these segments in more detail.
8 DRAFT July 14, 2021
900 West to 1500 West
• Reconfigured lanes to one through lane each direction
• Median with turn pockets at intersections - but with center path (1200 West to 1500 West) and
two rows of trees, street furniture and pedestrian scale lighting, with pedestrian refuge and
crossing at path, making median occupiable/usable space.
• Where the median meets intersections, consider raising the intersection between the median
segments halfway to the curb to create a calmer area to mitigate potential conflicts.
• A goal to protect the bike lane as much as feasible, and in balance with the residential driveways
and on-street parking, where currently existing. This can be a block-by-block solution that can be
largely protected by a vertical curb element from 1200 West to 1500 West, where no parking
exists, and potentially protected for some blocks from 900 West to 1200 West, particularly at the
1100-1200 West block with civic/commercial frontage and some blocks on the south side of 600
North with side on residential and few driveways. For the remaining blocks, a buffered bike lane
(on traffic side and parking side) would be employed, similar to some segments of the 300 South
protected bike lane.
• Bus stops in park strips at 900 West, 1000 West, 1200 West, 1300 West and 1400 West.
• For stops slated for 1300 West and 1400 West, we propose a bike bypass – a ramp from the
bike lane up to the sidewalk, which would become a short shared pathway going behind or in
front of the bus passenger waiting area and back down on the far side of the stop, giving the bus
a place to pull out. When there is no bus occupying the pull out, a cyclist can make the choice to
keep riding through the pull out.
• Preserve parking where existing, for the most part, the exception potentially being some
stretches where residences side-on to the roadway and a protected bike lane could be
implemented.
• Bulb-outs into the parking lane where they exist on both 600/700 North and cross streets.
• 1300 West is a planned Neighborhood Byway – here, the median could continue across the
intersection, reducing through traffic on this street and making it easter for active travelers to
cross 600 North.
1500 West to Redwood Road (Backman School/Riverside Park segment)
• Reconfigure 1500 West and Riverside Park Drives to align, with plazas on all four corners and
crossings of 600/700 North, creating a gateway to the neighborhoods, the park, and school.
• Center turn lane, though can consider medians at pedestrian crossings.
9 DRAFT July 14, 2021
• Parallel parking on both sides.
• Raised bike lanes behind parking alongside sidewalk to west side of bridge.
• Between the Jordan bridge and Redwood Road, we propose either a raised bike lane alongside
the sidewalk or a shared pathway on both sides for cyclists and pedestrians to share – due to
the need to protect cyclists within the limited right-of-way, and as the roadway transitions back
to a 5-lane section.
• Consider new, more permeable park edge along 600/700 North, replacing chain link fence.
• Consider new system of connected drives in the park offering on-street parking spaces.
Redwood Road to I-215/2200 West
A modified version of Concept 1 with:
• 5 lanes (two lanes each way and a center turn lane)
• Curb-protected bike lanes on north side (where no parking and very few driveways); curb-
protected bike lanes replacing parking on south side.
• New pedestrian crossings at Morton and Sir Anthony Drives.
• Intermittent medians breaking up the wide pavement and providing pedestrian refuges for the
new crossings.
• Curb extension bulb-outs where there is a parking lane.
Viaduct/I-15 interchange
Continue working with UDOT to make modifications include:
• Widened path/sidewalk with upgraded curb ramps and crosswalk signals.
• Painted on-street bike lanes.
• Modify eastbound right turn lane to interchange with more abrupt turn angle.
• Reduce NB-to-EB curve to manage high vehicle speed.
• Consider Alternative Concept 3’s north side pathway as a future phase
Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
POLICY QUESTIONS:
1. $300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may wish to
discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy
priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded
capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new assets.
The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also reviewing
individual CIP projects.
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
2. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for
ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor
provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be
completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations.
ARPA Funding
• CIP FY21
o The general purpose appropriation for street reconstructions
o Rehabilitation of bridges over the Jordan River at 400 S and 650 N
• CIP FY22
o The general purpose appropriation for street reconstructions
o 200 South transit complete street
• Projects with Drainage and Stormwater Improvement Expenses
o 100 South
o 300 West
o 900 East
o 900 South
o Local Streets #1
o Local Streets #2
o 200 South (FY22)
o 900 South (FY22)
o Local Streets Projects (FY22)
• Bridges
o 650 North
Damaged by earthquake and application submitted to UDOT for $5.6M
o 400 South
Rehabilitation cost estimated at $2.8M
3. Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an
application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy document,
if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow constituent street
reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the worst first based on a
data-driven process, etc.
The Administration would greatly appreciate policy guidance from Council that establishes an agreeable
allowance for CIP staff to disqualify applications that are not within the required funding amounts, are in
Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
violation of a City code, or if an application violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or
other policy document.
The Administration would also request Council allowance to phase out constituent applications for street
reconstructions as City staff have developed an equitable and data-driven approach to these improvements.
4. Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest in
being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. Some
constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some projects
get more support from departments than others.
The CIP team is in the process of uploading all projects to a centralized database. We anticipate this will
be completed within the next 60 days. We request the opportunity to provide an analysis to Council of the
funding allocated by various Council districts, zip codes, neighborhoods, or other relevant demographic
information.
Following this analysis, CIP staff would like to hold community meetings in areas with the least funding
awarded to provide hands-on, pre-submission workshops in multiple languages.
The CIP Team is proposing a new “CIP Collaborative” that will offer high level assistance with division
staff and education about the CIP and its application process. This initiative would include engagement
components such as:
o CIP Handouts/Brochures (English & Spanish) available at the City’s libraries and other public
buildings and distributed to Community Councils (Liaisons) that provide the CIP details and
appropriate contact information for inquiries
o “CIP Collaborative” meeting(s) held sometime in July or August of each year that give
constituents an opportunity for facetime with the appropriate City division for a Q&A session and
to educate and develop a feasible project scope for their application prior to submission deadlines
o Broadening of the Constituent application timeline to allow more time for collaboration and
submission
o Regular communication with all Community Council Liaisons to ensure transparency of the CIP
process and any updates
o Staff attendance at Community Council Meetings (as requested) to educate and inform
Constituents on CIP criteria and the process to apply
Note: The intention in broadening the constituent timeline and adding an engagement element is to give
staff more time to assist the applicants, not to discourage submissions but rather, encourage complete and
feasible project scopes that meet the CIP eligibility criteria.
5. Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council
may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant
building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more
efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of
FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent:
The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public
Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than
Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the
Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget
for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related
FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget.
Full building maintenance costs are different than basic measures taken to preserve a vacant building in its
current condition until it can be developed, improved, or disposed of. Public Services has performed basic
measures only, and these costs are difficult to quantify because they comprise call-back, overtime, and lost
productivity time in addition to materials and supplies. Facilities bills CAN for some of its expenses, but
personnel costs cannot be billed. Most of the expense paid by CAN for FY21 was for security services to
patrol and respond to break-ins. Public Services is preparing asset stabilization plans for each vacant
property (Warm Springs, Fisher Mansion, Fleet Block, Old PSB, Glendale Water Park). Plans will include
immediate measures Facilities can take to mitigate and repair damages. Some funding for stabilization is
included in the proposed bond that will hopefully prevent further asset degradation. We are also continuing
to investigate contracted property management companies that will perform the basic work currently done
by Facilities and respond to after-hours calls from the alarm systems if they are workable. When final
plans are prepared, they will include recommendations for funding and possible outsourcing. If the long-
term management of these buildings is shifted to the Facilities portfolio, FTE’s will be required.
CAN has also recently kicked off a Community Land Trust study that will contemplate the structure and
governance of a third-party entity that provides profession asset and portfolio management over agreed
upon City properties.
6. CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety of
mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly
Page | 6 reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
The CIP team is in the process of uploading all projects to a centralized database. We anticipate this will
be completed within the next 60 days.
7. Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The State
Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services. The
Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans
regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement
the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide
the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23.
Transportation coordinates regularly with the County on funding opportunities. So far, we haven’t heard
much interest from the County on levying this tax. The Division will continue to push Salt Lake City
projects forward with both UTA and the County so that they are well positioned for potential new revenue
sources like this one.
8. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing in
January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals, metrics,
and requests.
Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
9. Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C
funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes to
transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are only
going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the
voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent.
The needs for both street reconstruction and multi-modal transportation projects far exceed the funding
available from these two sources. While it may appear that these two funding sources are spent
independently, they are often blended on projects to ensure that reconstruction projects include the full
suite of complete streets elements. Transportation will continue to collaborate to ensure further integration
in future years.
Engineering ran an analysis using Cartegraph that determined we would need an additional $20 million
per year just to get back to an overall average OCI score of fair condition. The Division is currently
working to refine this analysis so it can be presented to Council/Administration in the next 6 months.
CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
FY 2021-22 PROJECTS OVERVIEW A-1
FY 2021-22 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY A-2
DEBT SERVICE CIP
DEBT SERVICE CIP B-1
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND B-4
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER FUNDS B-5
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-1
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-1
ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-1
GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-17
PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-21
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS E-41
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page has been intentionally left blank
Capital Improvement Program Overview
Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital
expenditures needed to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. Two elements guide the City in
determining the annual schedule of infrastructure improvements and budgets. This includes the current
fiscal year's capital budget.
Salt Lake City’s FY 2021-22 budget appropriates $703,068,753 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C”
Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private
funds. The Salt Lake City Council considers their input in determining which projects will be
recommended for funding in this budget. The Enterprise Fund recommendations are consistent with
each respective business plan. These plans were developed in cooperation with the respective advisory
boards and endorsed by the Administration. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City fund
recommendations are consistent with Board policy. All grant-related CIP recommendations are
consistent with applicable federal guidelines and endorsed by the Administration.
Capital Improvement Program Book (CIP Book)
Salt Lake City’s FY2021-22 budget presents all CIP projects in its own document, the CIP book. By creating
and providing City Council a CIP book the City believes it will provide more clarity and transparency
regarding the recommended capital improvement projects. Major General Fund projects Transportation
Infrastructure, Local Street Reconstruction, ADA Improvements and Sidewalk Rehabilitation for the
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and capital improvement of deteriorated streets city-wide, total
appropriation of $11,090,091 is proposed. Of this amount the budget appropriates $3,653,052 general
fund, $2,046,329 of Class “C” fund, $4,900,000 transportation tax, and 491,520 of Impact Fee funds.
Projects include traffic signal upgrades, transportation safety improvements, and pedestrian and
neighborhood byway enhancements.
Parks, Trails and Open Space Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement proposed budget
includes a total appropriation of $7,786,889 from various funding sources. Projects include various
improvements in Jordan Park, Pioneer Park, RAC, Poplar Park, Three Creeks, Sugar House, Glendale Water
park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park. Liberty Park, Pioneer Park, Warm Springs Park, Memory Grove Park,
Poplar Park, Taufer Park, Cottonwood Park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park.
Public Facilities Public Facilities' capital improvement proposed budget includes a total appropriation of
$1,252,230 is for improvements a Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program to retire deferred capital
replacement projects that are long overdue.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-1
Debt ServiceDebt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2012A Bond 333,514 333,514
Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond 530,801 530,801
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond 744,951 744,951
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond 2,009,296 2,009,296
Sales Tax Series 2019 A Bond 366,151 366,151
Sales Tax Series 2022 Bond 3,657,667 3,657,667
B & C Roads Series 2014 975,377 975,377
ESCO Debt Service to Bond 896,500 896,500
ESCO Steiner Debt Service 0
ESCO Parks Debt Service 0
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
Debt Service Projects Total 8,538,880 0 975,377 984,133 0 0 10,498,390
OngoingOngoing Projects
Crime Lab 560,869 560,869
Facilities Maintenance 350,000 350,000
Parks Maintenance 250,000 250,000
Ongoing Projects Total 1,160,869 0 0 0 0 0 1,160,869
Other OngoingOther Ongoing
Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES 200,000 200,000
Public Services- Smiths Ballfield 154,000 154,000
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner 148,505 148,505
Public Services - Memorial House 68,554 68,554
Other Ongoing 0 0 0 0 0 571,059 571,059
Maintenance Funded Projects
MaintenanceMultimodal Street Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 21,429 278,571 300,000
Trails Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Maintenance Funded Projects Total 21,429 278,571 0 0 400,000 0 700,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-2
New CIPNew/Maintenance Projects Total
Kensington Byway Ballpark 500,000 500,000
400 South Viaduct Trail 310,000 90,000 500,000 900,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 317,792 35,300 353,092
A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 416,667 416,667
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component 3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 400,000 444,400
Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 75,000 675,000 750,000
Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000 85,000
Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 6,223 312,056 318,279
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 172,000 200,000
Pavement Conditions Survey 3,571 171,429 175,000
Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 349,026 84,307 433,333
Urban Trails 6,500 1,038,500 1,045,000
Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 484,146 484,146
Area Studies 201,000 201,000
Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop 374,864 374,864
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 415,800 453,222
Local Link Construction 50,000 450,000 500,000
Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove and Replace 183,834 183,834
Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 354,167 354,167
Liberty Park Basketball Court 99,680 99,680
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 940,500 1,045,000
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000 70,000
700 South Westside Road Configuration 223,450 291,000 514,450
900 South Signal Improvements 96,500 233,500 70,000 100,000 500,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 282,200 307,598
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-3
New Projects (Continued)SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation 300,000 300,000
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Street Improvements 2021/2022 2,046,329 2,046,329
Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations 51,700 104,378 156,078
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
Capital Asset Replacement Program 1,252,230 1,252,230
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
New Projects Total 4,249,391 3,176,129 2,046,329 7,291,970 4,500,000 0 21,263,819
Cost Overrun 88,514 71,600 160,114
Percent for Art 66,386 53,700 120,086
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/CDBG Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects.
14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 571,059 34,474,337
Other Capital Improvement Programs
CDBGCity Infrastructure Projects ( CIP Engineering/Transportation)
SLC Transportation-route 4 Frequent Transit Route 322,000 322,000
Total CDBG 322,000 322,000
AirportAirport CIP Projects
Pump House #5 Renovations 928,000 928,000
Pump Station & Diversion Valve 1,300,000 1,300,000
Gate 39 Reconstruction 165,000 165,000
North Cargo Apron Development 25,605,000 25,605,000
Taxiway F Reconstruction 580,000 580,000
Taxiway P, N, & H3 Pavement 1,620,000 1,620,000
Taxiway Q Pavement Rehabilitation 1,646,000 1,646,000
Bureau of Land Management Access Road 1,660,000 1,660,000
Bureau of Land Management Apron 2,731,000 2,731,000
Landside Lighting Wire Replacement 1,566,000 1,566,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-4
Airport (Continued)Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 219,500 219,500
Roadway Entrance feature and Landscape 250,000 250,000
GA Zone 3 Corporate Hangar Site Develop 1,205,000 1,205,000
Terminal Redevelopment Program 164,849,000 164,849,000
North Concourse Program 186,614,000 186,614,000
Total Airport CIP Projects 390,938,500 390,938,500
GolfGolf CIP Projects
Maintenance Equipment 257,575 257,575
Range Improvements 177,836 177,836
Tee Box Leveling 60,000 60,000
Total Golf CIP Projects 495,411 495,411
Public UtilitiesPublic Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements 18,019,000 18,019,000
Treatment Plant Improvements 7,350,000 7,350,000
Deep Pump Wells 1,630,000 1,630,000
Meter Chang-Out Programs 2,500,000 2,500,000
Water Service Connections 2,950,000 2,950,000
Reservoirs 1,650,000 1,650,000
Pumping Plants and Pump Houses 1,550,000 1,550,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 1,533,000 1,533,000
Distribution Reservoirs 2,350,000 2,350,000
Landscaping 68,000 68,000
Treatment Plants 191,045,826 191,045,826
Collection Lines 32,405,000 32,405,000
Lift Stations 2,685,000 2,685,000
Storm Drain Lines 7,362,500 7,362,500
Riparian Corridor Improvements 250,000 250,000
Detention Basins 50,000 50,000
Landscaping 168,000 168,000
Storm Water Lift Stations 700,000 700,000
Street Lighting Projects 2,240,000 2,240,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects 276,506,326 276,506,326
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-5
RDARedevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects
Station Center Infrastructure 332,179 332,179
Total RDA CIP Projects 332,179 332,179
SustainabilityTotal Sustainability CIP Projects
No Projects 0
Total Sustainability CIP Projects 0 0
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP 668,594,416 668,272,416
GRAND TOTAL 14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 669,165,475 703,068,753
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-6
Salt Lake City
Impact Fee Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT Parks Impact Fee Streets Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Fire Impact Fee TOTAL
Impact FeesImpact Fee Projects
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
400 South Viaduct Trail 90000 90,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 35,300 35,300
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component
3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 44,400
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 28,000
Urban Trails 6,500 6,500
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 37,422
Local Link Construction 50,000 50,000
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 104,500
900 South Signal Improvements 70,000 70,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 25,398
SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
Total Impact Fee by Type 6,800,450 491,520 — 984,133 8,276,103
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-7
Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects FY 2022
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Fund Impact Fee Total
Unfunded ProjectsConstituent 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 3000 S Highland Dr to 1500 E 449,315 449,315
Engineering Logan Ave Reconstruction Logan Avenue from 1700 East to 2000 East and 2000 East from 1700 South to Bryan Avenue
1,405,000 1,405,000
Engineering Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)200 South over Jordan River (Approx. 1220 West 200 South)
3,500,000 3,500,000
Engineering Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over Jordan River)
400 South & 650 North over Jordan River 3,000,000 3,000,000
Engineering Wingpointe Levee Design Jordan River Surplus Canal between 3700 West North Temple Drive and Terminal Drive
800,000 800,000
Constituent Three Creeks West Bank Roadways 1300 S. 1000 W.1,158,422 1,158,422
Facilities Delong Salt Storage 719 S Delong St 1,504,427 1,504,427
Facilities Steam Bay 1910 West 500 South 363,495 363,495
Fire Mixed-Use Three Story Prop 1600 South Industrial Rd.815,895 815,895
Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 1600 South Industrial Rd.694,785 694,785
Constituent Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Valdez Drive 72,740 72,740
Constituent Winner on Wasatch Dee Glan Tennis Court Construction
1216 S. Wasatch Drive 500,000 500,000
Constituent Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center
1105 S Constitution Dr.202,100 202,100
Constituent Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing
1105 S Constitution Dr.300,000 300,000
Constituent Harrison Ave and 700 E Community Garden 1300 S. 700 E.103,500 103,500
Constituent 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 1300 South between Main and West Temple 100,000 100,000
Constituent Wingate Walkway 475 N. Redwood Road 286,750 286,750
Constituent 1200 East Median 1200 East bet. So. Temple & 200 S. and 300 S & 500 S.500,000 500,000
Parks & Public Lands Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation
2740 South 2700 East 765,325 765,325
Parks & Public Lands Enhancement of the Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge
200 N Street 790,000 790,000
Parks & Public Lands Cemetery Roadway Improvements, Phase 1 200 N Street 3,838,000 3,838,000
Parks & Public Lands 9Line and Rose Park Asphalt Pump Tracks 700 West 900 South & 900 North Cornell Avenue 1,393,600 1,393,600
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-8
Unfunded Projects (Continued)Parks & Public Lands Richmond Park Playground and Park improvements
440 East 600 South 690,000 690,000
Parks & Public Lands Library Square Feasibility, Civic Engagement and Design Development
Block 37, bounded by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East
225,000 225,000
Parks & Public Lands Donner & Rotary Glen Park Community Park Irrigation & Landscape Design and Construction
2850 East Sunnyside & 2903 E Kennedy Drive 650,000 650,000
Constituent Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Various 595,194 595,194
Constituent Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction
Harvard Ave bet. 1300 & 1500 East 1,311,920 1,311,920
Constituent Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues (600 East to 700 East) and 600 East (Kensington Ave to 1700 South)
400,000 400,000
Constituent Stratford Bike Crossing 1700 E. Stratford 200,000 200,000
Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets 900 East on the west, 2100 South on the south, 1100 East on the east, and Garfield Avenue on the north
500,000 500,000
Transportation Sunnyside 9Line Trail Missing Piece 1805 to 1851 East Sunnyside Avenue.350,000 350,000
Transportation Multimodal Intersections & Signals Various 945,000 105,000 1,050,000
Total Unfunded CIP Projects 27,016,868 1,498,600 28,515,468
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-9
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-10
This page has been intentionally left blank
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$333,514 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
June 2012 10/1/2032 RDA
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of constructing
and improving various City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North
Temple Boulevard. The bonds were issued with a par amount of $15,855,000. As of June 30, 2021,
$10,845,000 in principal remains outstanding.
The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt
service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The Series
2012A bonds mature on October 1, 2032.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$530,801 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
November 2013 10-01-2033 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of
financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar, and to pay for a portion of various improvements to
create a “greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000. As of June 30,
2021, $5,470,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2033.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$744,951 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
September 2014 10-01-2034 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of
acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property and roads.
The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2021, $8,430,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2034.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-1
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,009,296 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
June 2016 10-01-2028 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of
the Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the
acquisition, construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building
for use as City offices and other capital improvements within the City.
Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on
the Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. The refunding resulted in a net present
value savings of $2,363,890.47 for the City. As of June 30 2021, $17,910,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2028.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$366,151 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
December 2019 04-01-2027 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a
portion of the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX
Extension to the Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown.
The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. The refunding resulted in a net present
value savings of $299,661 for the City. As of June 30, 2021, $2,095,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
April 1, 2027.
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$975,377 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
August 2014 04-01-2024 Class C
The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of
constructing and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West,
and 17th South Street from State Street to 700 East.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-2
The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2021, $2,820,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on April 1, 2024.
ESCO Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$82,850 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund
This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division.
ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County
$148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs
of this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment.
ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$517,200 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks.
Crime Lab Improvements Capital Lease Debt
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$118,300 Capital Lease March 2015 September 2021 General Fund
This capital lease provided the funding for the improvements to the leased space for the Crime Evidence Lab.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$500,900 LBA Lease Revenue
Bonds
March 2016 04-15-2037 Impact Fees
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series
2016A in March 2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14
Project.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2021, $5,755,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-3
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds
mature on April 15, 2037.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$483,233 LBA Lease Revenue
Bonds
April 2017 04-15-2038 Impact Fees
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
in April 2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project.
The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2021, $7,555,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND
Crime Lab Rental Payments
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$560,869 General Fund
Yearly Rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab
Facilities Maintenance
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$350,000 General Fund
The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop
problems early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building
stock.
Parks Maintenance
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$250,000 General Fund
The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop
problems early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-4
Percent for Art
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$120,086 General Fund
To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures and other works of art. (1% of CIP)
Cost overrun
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$160,114 General Fund
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER SOURCES
Smith Ballfield Naming Rights
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$156,000 Other -Donations
Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming
rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing
the deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 27 yrs. old.
CIP Memorial House
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$68,554 Other - Rental
A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the
use of the funding is to be determined.
Real Estate Services – Surplus Land
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$200,000 Other – Surplus
Land
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-5
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B
2021 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
Don’t need for CIP Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
October 2019 04-01-20 RDA
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the
purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and
related improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B.
The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable
to pay any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it.
The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of
$6,396,905. As of June 30, 2021, $57,740,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1 beginning in 2020. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1.
The bonds mature on April 1, 2038.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-6
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-3
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-4
This page intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-3
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-4
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-5
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-6
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-7
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-8
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-9
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-10
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-11
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-12
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-13
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-14
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-15
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-16
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-17
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-18
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-19
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-20
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-21
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-23
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-24
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-25
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-26
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-27
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-28
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-29
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-30
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-31
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-32
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-33
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-34
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-35
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-36
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-37
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-38
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-39
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-40
This page has been intentionally left blank
The Department of Airports
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any
general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of
Airports has 610.8 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and
promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel
experience.
The Fiscal Year 2022 budget continues to show financial impacts due to COVID-19. The Salt Lake City
International Airport, along with all other airports in the U.S. and abroad, has been acutely impacted by
the broad-based economic shutdown resulting from efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including
reductions in flights and declines in passenger volumes. The Airport continues to look for ways to control
costs and provide airline and concession relief through the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) grant as well as the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation ACT
(CRRSAA) grant. These grants will offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing
fee and terminal rents charged in FY22. While the American Rescue Plan has been passed, no allocations
or awards have been made at this time and are not reflected in the Airports FY22 budget. While
passenger demand continues to increase on a monthly basis, the Department of Airports will act
prudently in managing the FY22 budget and look for ways to continue to save operating and capital
expenses where feasible and look for ways to strengthen our revenues.
The developed FY22 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits while facing challenges of
decreased passengers and revenues. The Department of Airports will continue to fund important capital
projects while deferring non-critical projects to preserve cash and liquidity. These projects include the
Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which will improve
ongoing operations, create jobs, and provide economic stimulus to the City’s and State’s economy.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-3
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-4
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-5
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-6
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-7
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-8
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-9
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-10
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-11
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-12
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-13
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-14
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-15
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-16
The Salt Lake City Golf Division
The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding
cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess
revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have
limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund
was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward
building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds have not been
released for use as the fund balance has been needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund
deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division has proposed increasing the Golf CIP Fund
from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the
Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The projected increase
for the final six months of FY22 from the proposed increase is $124,800.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will
be using $257,575 in FY 2022 to purchase additional, mostly used equipment (lease-return equipment
from high-end private courses).
The Golf Division will be focusing on making improvements to the driving ranges and practice areas
located at five of our six locations and have allocated $177,866 from the Golf CIP Fund for solid-surface
hitting stations with artificial turf hitting mats along with new dispensers/washers.
The Golf Division will be undergoing a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling
a number of tee boxes at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY22 from the Golf CIP Fund for
materials and equipment rentals.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-17
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-18
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-19
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-20
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water,
and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund
these activities. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue
bonds, and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation
Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the
services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were
developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these
assets requires long term project and financial planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year
2022, the department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on
existing projects. Some planned capital improvement projects initially anticipated for FY2021 were
deferred and reprioritized to FY2022 and beyond. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in
the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the
largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging
problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment
plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Alternatives from a recently completed condition
assessment for all three plants are being evaluated. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that
Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water
rights and exchange agreement obligations.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-21
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-23
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-24
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-25
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-26
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-27
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-28
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-29
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-30
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-31
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-32
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-33
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-34
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-35
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-36
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-37
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-38
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-39
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-40
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) works to revitalize neighborhoods and commercial
districts that experience disinvestment. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial, planning, and
revitalization tools to support redevelopment projects that encourage economic investment, assist in the
housing for low-and moderate-income households, and help implement Salt Lake City’s Master Plan. The
RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income
revenue, depending on the specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned
infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that
anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval
process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects
costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the
City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2022 budget proposes only one
potential City public infrastructure project. The Station Center infrastructure project is an allocation for
the construction and upgrading of utilities and infrastructure surrounding the Agency’s properties in the
Depot District. This project is currently being designed in conjunction with the City’s Transportation and
Engineering Departments.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-41
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-42
Item E3
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
DATE:July 20, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR ADOPTING FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT
AMENDMENTS
Motion 1 –
I move that the Council suspend the rules and adopt an ordinance amending sections
of the Salt Lake City code relating to campaign finance reporting and personal
campaign committees.
Motion 2 –
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: July 20, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
CITY RECORDER
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 15, 2021
Council Chair Fowler
FROM: Lauren Shafer, Deputy City Recorder – Elections Specialist
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
SUBJECT: 2021 Campaign Finance Changes due to opting into Municipal Alternate Voting
Method Pilot Program (also known as Ranked Choice Voting) and General
Campaign Finance Updates
STAFF CONTACT:
Lauren Shafer, Deputy City Recorder Elections Coordinator 801-535-6221
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Request the City Council consider adopting the proposed ordinance
which adds a new campaign finance report when participating in the Municipal Alternate Voting
Method Pilot Program. The proposed ordinance also has general campaign finance changes to
align City Ordinance with current State Code.
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Under traditional voting Salt Lake City has four campaign
finance reports due prior to the General Election. However, when opting into the Municipal
Alternate Voting Method Pilot Project without a Primary – also known as Ranked Choice
Voting – the City Recorder’s Office is no longer able to enforce two of those reports due to
their association to a Primary Election. The City Recorder’s Office proposes a new report to
mirror the transparency efforts of campaign finance reporting. In this memo, the reports no
longer applicable (due to opting into the Pilot Project) will be discussed and the proposed
intermediary report is listed in the schedule.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
CITY RECORDER
Campaign Finance Reports under Traditional Voting:
Under a traditional voting method Salt Lake City has two campaign finance reports that
revolve specifically around a Primary Election. The Pre-Primary report, and the Unsuccessful
in a Primary report. These reports show what candidates are spending in between the
Declaration of Candidacy period and the General Election. The Pre-Primary report takes place
roughly two months after the Declaration of Candidacy period and a week before what would
be the Primary Election. The Unsuccessful in a Primary report takes place 30 days after the
Primary Election. Those reports in chart form are below:
Report Name Report Period Dates Due Date
July Report February 14, 2021 – June 28, 2021 July 1, 2021
Pre-Primary June 29, 2021 – July 31, 2021 August 3, 2021
Unsuccessful in a
Primary
August 1, 2021 – September 6, 2021 September 9, 2021*
General Election September 7, 2021 – October 23, 2021 October 26, 2021
Post General Election October 24, 2021 – November 29, 2021 December 2, 2021
February #4 November 30, 2021 – February 12,
2022
February 15, 2022
Unsuccessful Final September 7, 2021 – February 12, 2022 February 15, 2022
*This is roughly three months after candidates file
Campaign Finance Reports under Ranked Choice Voting Without a Primary:
Under Ranked Choice Voting without a Primary Election, the two reports mentioned above –
Pre-Primary and Unsuccessful in a Primary – are no longer enforceable due to not holding a
Primary Election. Voters will not be provided the option to search or view to see how
candidates are spending/receiving contributions twice after Declaration of Candidacy. In this
scenario, voters will see nothing from July 1, 2021 (prior to the Declaration of Candidacy
period) to October 26, 2021 (a week prior to the General Election). Relevant report dates are
listed below:
Report Name Report Period Dates Due Date
July Report February 14, 2021 – June 28, 2021 July 1, 2021
General Election September 7, 2021 – October 23, 2021 October 26, 2021
Post General Election October 24, 2021 – November 29,
2021
December 2, 2021
February #4 November 30, 2021 – February 12,
2022
February 15, 2022
Adding a New Report to Act as Intermediary Report:
Ranked Choice Voting without a Primary, due to its pilot status, does not have intermediary
reports required. The Recorder’s Office recommends the consideration of adding a new report to
act as
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
CITY RECORDER
an intermediary report specifically for Ranked Choice Voting without a Primary when
selected as the election method. Adding the new report would allow constituents and
other candidates the ability to view the spending/receiving of contributions of candidates
in the middle of the campaign period. The due date of the proposed intermediary report is
open to discussion; however, the City Recorder’s Office is proposing a report due on
September 9, 2021 and encompassing contributions and expenditures from June 29, 2021
to September 6, 2021. This way, the report would be posted a month after the
Declaration of Candidacy period and roughly a month before ballots are mailed out.
The proposed report is in blue in the table below.
Report Name Report Period Dates Due Date
July Report February 14, 2021 – June 28, 2021 July 1, 2021
Pre-General June 29, 2021 – September 6, 2021 September 9, 2021**
General Election September 7, 2021 – October 23, 2021 October 26, 2021
Post General Election October 24, 2021 – November 29,
2021
December 2, 2021
February #4 November 30, 2021 – February 12,
2022
February 15, 2022
Unsuccessful Final September 7, 2021 – February 12,
2022
February 15, 2022
**This is roughly a month after candidates file and a month before ballots begin to be
mailed out
The proposed adjustment would add one more date to the important election dates to be
aware of which are outlined below:
Date Election Timeline Item
July 1, 2021 July 1 Campaign Finance Report is due
August 10, 2021 Declaration of Candidacy begins
August 17, 2021 Declaration of Candidacy ends
August 18, 2021 List of candidates posted on the City Recorder’s website
September 9, 2021 Pre-General Campaign Finance Report is due***
October 11, 2021 (week of) Vote by Mail ballots are mailed out starting this week
October 26, 2021 General Campaign Finance Report is due
November 2, 2021 General Election
***This is the proposed report
EXHIBITS:
1) Clean version of proposed ordinance
2) Legislative version of proposed ordinance
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
(Campaign finance reporting and personal campaign committees)
An ordinance amending Sections 2.46.010 and 2.46.090 of the Salt Lake City Code,
relating to campaign finance reporting and personal campaign committees.
WHEREAS, the city desires to make certain changes relating to campaign finance
reporting and personal campaign committees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Sections
2.46.010 and 2.46.090 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to such changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that:
SECTION 1. Section 2.46.010 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to definitions, is
amended as follows:
Amending the definition of “Reporting Date.” The definition of “Reporting Date” is
amended to read as follows:
REPORTING DATE: A. Ten days before the election, for a campaign finance statement required
to be filed not later than seven days before a primary election or general election conducted by
the city;
B. The day of filing, for a campaign finance statement required to be filed not later than 30
days after a primary election or general election conducted by the city;
C. Three days before the filing date, for any other campaign finance statement required to be
filed pursuant to this chapter; and
D. If the city opts into the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project created in Utah
Code section 20A-4-602 and therefore does not hold a primary election, 30 days after the day on
which the primary election otherwise would have been held.
2
SECTION 2. Section 2.46.090 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to personal campaign
committees, is amended as follows:
2.46.090: FINANCIAL REPORTING:
A. Personal Campaign Committees:
1. Each personal campaign committee shall file with the city recorder a campaign finance
statement containing the information required in this section, on the following dates:
a. July 1 of any election year;
b. Except as provided in subsection A2 of this section, no later than seven days before
the day on which any municipal general or primary election is held;
c. Except as provided in subsection A2 of this section, no later than 30days after the
day on which the municipal general election is held;
d. On February 15 of every year unless a termination report has been filed with the city
recorder as provided by subsection A8 of this section or its successor subsection; and
e. If the city opts into the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project created in
Utah Code section 20A-4-602 and elects not to hold a primary election, 30 days after
the day on which the primary election otherwise would have been held.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this subsection A1, the personal campaign
committee for a candidate shall be required to file a campaign finance statement on the dates
specified in subsections A1a, A1b, and A1c of this section only during an election year in
which the elective office that such candidate seeks is open for election.
2. The personal campaign committee for each candidate who is eliminated at a primary
election shall file with the city recorder a campaign finance statement within 30 days after the
day on which the primary election is held. Personal campaign committees for candidates who
lose at a primary election need not file a campaign finance statement seven days before the
general election pursuant to subsection A1b of this section or thirty (30) days after the general
election pursuant to subsection A1c of this section.
3. During the seven day period before any election, each personal campaign committee shall
file with the city recorder a verified report of each contribution over $500.00 within 24 hours
after receiving each such contribution. Such report shall contain the information required by
subsection A4b(2)(A) of this section.
4. Each campaign finance statement shall:
a. Contain a summary of contributions and expenditures reported in previously filed
campaign finance statements during the calendar year in which the statement is due;
b. Except as provided in subsection A4c of this section:
(1) Report all of the committee's or candidate's itemized and total:
(A) Contributions during the election cycle received before the close of the
reporting date; and
3
(B) Expenditures during the election cycle made through the close of the
reporting date; and
(2) Identify:
(A) For each contribution in excess of $50.00, the amount of the contribution,
the name and address of the donor, and the date the contribution was made;
(B) The aggregate total of all contributions that individually do not exceed
$50.00; and
(C) For each expenditure, the amount of the expenditure, the name of the
recipient of the expenditure, the date the expenditure was made, and the
purpose of the expenditure; or
c. Report the total amount of all contributions and expenditures if the committee or
candidate receives $500.00 or less in contributions and spends $500.00 or less on the
candidate's campaign.
5. Each campaign finance statement shall contain a statement by the secretary or by the
chairperson of the committee to the effect that:
a. All contributions and expenditures not theretofore reported have been reported;
b. There are no bills or obligations outstanding and unpaid except as set forth in the
campaign finance statement;
c. The campaign finance statement represents a good faith effort by the committee to
comply with the provisions of this chapter; and
d. The information contained in the campaign finance statement is, to the best
knowledge of the committee, true, accurate and complete.
6. In the event the personal campaign committee had no contributions or expenditures
during the calendar year, the campaign finance statement shall state that no contributions were
received and no expenditures were made during that calendar year.
7. Within 30 days after distribution of any surplus campaign funds and/or the payment or
compromise of all debts, a personal campaign committee shall file a campaign finance statement
with the city recorder. The campaign finance statement shall state the amount of such surplus and
the name and address of any recipient of such surplus, and shall identify any debt that was paid
or compromised and the name and address of any person to whom any debt was paid or
compromised.
8. In the event a personal campaign committee has permanently ceased operations, the
secretary or chairperson of the committee shall file a termination report with the city recorder
certifying that the personal campaign committee has permanently ceased operations.
9. The requirements of this chapter shall not be construed to abrogate the necessity of
making any other reports or disclosure required by law.
10. With respect to contributions received and expenditures made before the effective date of
this section, the first campaign finance statement filed pursuant to this section need only contain
the information required by this section to the extent such information is known by the personal
campaign committee that files such campaign finance statement.
4
B. Political Committees:
1. Each political committee that has received contributions or made expenditures that total
at least $750.00 during a calendar year shall file a verified financial statement with the city
recorder on:
a. July 1 of any election year;
b. No later than seven days before the day on which any municipal primary or general
election is held; and
c. January 10, reporting contributions and expenditures as of December 31 of the
previous year.
2. The political committee shall report:
a. A detailed listing of all contributions received and expenditures made since the filing
of the last financial statement; and
b. For financial statements filed on July 1 and before the municipal general election, all
contributions and expenditures as of three days before the required filing date of the
financial statement.
3. If the political committee had no contributions or expenditures since the filing of the last
financial statement, the financial statement shall state that no contributions were received and no
expenditures were made since the filing of the last financial statement.
4. The verified financial statement shall include:
a. The name and address of any individual that makes a contribution to the reporting
political committee, if known, and the amount of the contribution;
b. The identification of any publicly identified class of individuals that makes a
contribution to the reporting political committee, if known, and the amount of the
contribution;
c. The name and address of any political committee, group, or entity that makes a
contribution to the reporting political committee, and the amount of the contribution;
d. The name and address of each candidate, personal campaign committee, party
committee, or political committee that received an expenditure from the reporting
political committee, and the amount of each expenditure;
e. The total amount of contributions received and expenditures disbursed by the
reporting political committee;
f. A statement by the political committee's secretary or chairperson to the effect that:
(1) All contributions and expenditures not theretofore reported have been reported;
(2) There are no bills or obligations outstanding and unpaid except as set forth in the
financial statement;
(3) The financial statement represents a good faith effort by the committee to
comply with the provisions of this chapter; and
(4) The information contained in the financial statement is, to the best knowledge of
the committee, true, accurate and complete; and
g. A summary page in the form required by the city recorder that identifies:
5
(1) Beginning balance;
(2) Total contributions during the period since the last financial statement;
(3) Total contributions to date;
(4) Total expenditures during the period since the last financial statement; and
(5) Total expenditures to date.
5. Contributions received by a political committee that have a value of $50.00 or less need
not be reported individually, but shall be listed in the financial statement as an aggregate total.
6. Two or more contributions from the same source that have an aggregate total of more
than $50.00may not be reported in the aggregate, but shall be reported separately.
7. Within 30days after distribution of any surplus campaign funds and/or the payment or
compromise of all debts, a political committee shall file a verified financial statement with the
city recorder. The financial statement shall state the amount of such surplus and the name and
address of any recipient of such surplus, and shall identify any debt that was paid or
compromised and the name and address of any person to whom any debt was paid or
compromised.
8. In the event a political committee has permanently ceased operations, the secretary or
chairperson of the committee shall file a termination report with the city recorder certifying that
the political committee has permanently ceased operations.
9. The requirements of this chapter shall not be construed to abrogate the necessity of
making any other reports or disclosure required by law.
10. With respect to contributions received and expenditures made before the effective date of
this section, the first financial statement filed pursuant to this section need only contain the
information required by this section to the extent such information is known by the political
committee that files such financial statement.
C. Filing Time: A campaign finance statement or other report required under this chapter
shall be considered filed if it is received by the city recorder or the recorder's office by 5:00 P.M.
on the date it is due.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in
accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code section
10-3-713.
6
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ____________,
2021.
____________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
___________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________.
Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed.
____________________________
MAYOR
___________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ______ of 2021.
Published: _____________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: _Katherine Lewis_____
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2
No. ______ of 2021 3
4
(Campaign finance reporting and personal campaign committees) 5
6
An ordinance amending Sections 2.46.010 and 2.46.090 of the Salt Lake City Code, 7
relating to campaign finance reporting and personal campaign committees. 8
WHEREAS, the city desires to make certain changes relating to campaign finance 9
reporting and personal campaign committees; and 10
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Sections 11
2.46.010 and 2.46.090 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to such changes. 12
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: 13
SECTION 1. Section 2.46.010 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to definitions, is 14
amended as follows: 15
Amending the definition of “Reporting Date.” The definition of “Reporting Date” is 16
amended to read as follows: 17
REPORTING DATE: A. Ten (10) days before the election, for a campaign finance statement 18
required to be filed not later than seven (7) days before a primary election or general election 19
conducted by the city; 20
B. The day of filing, for a campaign finance statement required to be filed not later than thirty 21
(30) days after a primary election or general election conducted by the city; and 22
C. Three (3) days before the filing date, for any other campaign finance statement required to 23
be filed pursuant to this chapter; and. 24
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2
D. If the city opts into the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project created in Utah 25
Code section 20A-4-602 and therefore does not hold a primary election, 30 days after the day on 26
which the primary election otherwise would have been held. 27
SECTION 2. Section 2.46.090 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to personal campaign 28
committees, is amended as follows: 29
2.46.090: FINANCIAL REPORTING: 30
A. Personal Campaign Committees: 31
1. Each personal campaign committee shall file with the city recorder a campaign finance 32
statement containing the information required in this section, on the following dates: 33
a. July 1 of any election year; 34
b. Except as provided in subsection A2 of this section, no later than seven (7) days before 35
the date of day on which any municipal general or primary election is held; 36
c. Except as provided in subsection A2 of this section, no later than thirty (30) days after 37
the date of day on which the municipal general election is held; and 38
d. On February 15 of every year unless a termination report has been filed with the city 39
recorder as provided by subsection A8 of this section or its successor subsection; and. 40
e. If the city opts into the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project created in 41
Utah Code section 20A-4-602 and therefore does not elects not to hold a primary election, 30 42
days after the day on which the primary election otherwise would have been held. 43
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this subsection A1, the personal campaign 44
committee for a candidate shall be required to file a campaign finance statement on the dates 45
specified in subsections A1a, A1b, and A1c of this section only during an election year in which 46
the elective office that such candidate seeks is open for election. 47
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
3
2. The personal campaign committee for each candidate who is eliminated at a primary 48
election shall file with the city recorder a campaign finance statement no later than thirty within 49
(30) days after the date of day on which the primary election is held. Personal campaign 50
committees for candidates who lose at a primary election need not file a campaign finance 51
statement seven (7) days before the general election pursuant to subsection A1b of this section or 52
thirty (30) days after the general election pursuant to subsection A1c of this section. 53
3. During the seven (7) day period before any election, each personal campaign committee 54
shall file with the city recorder a verified report of each contribution over five hundred dollars 55
($500.00) within twenty four (24) hours after receipt of receiving each such contribution. Such 56
report shall contain the information required by subsection A4b(2)(A) of this section. 57
4. Each campaign finance statement shall: 58
a. Contain a summary of contributions and expenditures reported in previously filed 59
campaign finance statements during the calendar year in which the statement is due; 60
b. Except as provided in subsection A4c of this section: 61
(1) Report all of the committee's or candidate's itemized and total: 62
(A) Contributions during the election cycle received before the close of the reporting 63
date; and 64
(B) Expenditures during the election cycle made through the close of the reporting 65
date; and 66
(2) Identify: 67
(A) For each contribution in excess of fifty dollars ($50.00), the amount of the 68
contribution, the name and address of the donor, and the date the contribution was made; 69
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
4
(B) The aggregate total of all contributions that individually do not exceed fifty dollars 70
($50.00); and 71
(C) For each expenditure, the amount of the expenditure, the name of the recipient of 72
the expenditure, the date the expenditure was made, and the purpose of the expenditure; or 73
c. Report the total amount of all contributions and expenditures if the committee or 74
candidate receives five hundred dollars ($500.00) or less in contributions and spends five 75
hundred dollars ($500.00) or less on the candidate's campaign. 76
5. Each campaign finance statement shall contain a statement by the secretary or by the 77
chairperson of the committee to the effect that: 78
a. All contributions and expenditures not theretofore reported have been reported; 79
b. There are no bills or obligations outstanding and unpaid except as set forth in the 80
campaign finance statement; 81
c. The campaign finance statement represents a good faith effort by the committee to 82
comply with the provisions of this chapter; and 83
d. The information contained in the campaign finance statement is, to the best knowledge 84
of the committee, true, accurate and complete. 85
6. In the event the personal campaign committee had no contributions or expenditures 86
during the calendar year, the campaign finance statement shall state that no contributions were 87
received and no expenditures were made during that calendar year. 88
7. Within thirty (30) days after distribution of any surplus campaign funds and/or the 89
payment or compromise of all debts, a personal campaign committee shall file a campaign 90
finance statement with the city recorder. The campaign finance statement shall state the amount 91
of such surplus and the name and address of any recipient of such surplus, and shall identify any 92
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
5
debt which that was paid or compromised and the name and address of any person to whom any 93
debt was paid or compromised. 94
8. In the event a personal campaign committee has permanently ceased operations, the 95
secretary or chairperson of the committee shall file a termination report with the city recorder 96
certifying that the personal campaign committee has permanently ceased operations. 97
9. The requirements of this chapter shall not be construed to abrogate the necessity of 98
making any other reports or disclosure required by law. 99
10. With respect to contributions received and expenditures made before the effective date 100
hereofof this section, the first campaign finance statement filed pursuant to this section need only 101
contain the information required by this section to the extent such information is known by the 102
personal campaign committee that files such campaign finance statement. 103
B. Political Committees: 104
1. Each political committee that has received contributions or made expenditures that total 105
at least seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) during a calendar year shall file a verified financial 106
statement with the city recorder on: 107
a. July 1 of any election year; 108
b. No later than seven (7) days before the day on which any municipal primary or general 109
election is held; and 110
c. January 1031, reporting contributions and expenditures as of December 31 of the 111
previous year. 112
2. The political committee shall report: 113
a. A detailed listing of all contributions received and expenditures made since the filing of 114
the last financial statement; and 115
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
6
b. For financial statements filed on July 1 and before the municipal general election, all 116
contributions and expenditures as of three (3) days before the required filing date of the financial 117
statement. 118
3. If the political committee had no contributions or expenditures since the filing of the last 119
financial statement, the financial statement shall state that no contributions were received and no 120
expenditures were made since the filing of the last financial statement. 121
4. The verified financial statement shall include: 122
a. The name and address of any individual that makes a contribution to the reporting 123
political committee, if known, and the amount of the contribution; 124
b. The identification of any publicly identified class of individuals that makes a 125
contribution to the reporting political committee, if known, and the amount of the contribution; 126
c. The name and address of any political committee, group, or entity that makes a 127
contribution to the reporting political committee, and the amount of the contribution; 128
d. The name and address of each candidate, personal campaign committee, party 129
committee, or political committee that received an expenditure from the reporting political 130
committee, and the amount of each expenditure; 131
e. The total amount of contributions received and expenditures disbursed by the reporting 132
political committee; 133
f. A statement by the political committee's secretary or chairperson to the effect that: 134
(1) All contributions and expenditures not theretofore reported have been reported; 135
(2) There are no bills or obligations outstanding and unpaid except as set forth in the 136
financial statement; 137
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
7
(3) The financial statement represents a good faith effort by the committee to comply 138
with the provisions of this chapter; and 139
(4) The information contained in the financial statement is, to the best knowledge of the 140
committee, true, accurate and complete; and 141
g. A summary page in the form required by the city recorder that identifies: 142
(1) Beginning balance; 143
(2) Total contributions during the period since the last financial statement; 144
(3) Total contributions to date; 145
(4) Total expenditures during the period since the last financial statement; and 146
(5) Total expenditures to date. 147
5. Contributions received by a political committee that have a value of fifty dollars ($50.00) 148
or less need not be reported individually, but shall be listed in the financial statement as an 149
aggregate total. 150
6. Two (2) or more contributions from the same source that have an aggregate total of more 151
than fifty dollars ($50.00) may not be reported in the aggregate, but shall be reported separately. 152
7. Within thirty (30) days after distribution of any surplus campaign funds and/or the 153
payment or compromise of all debts, a political committee shall file a verified financial statement 154
with the city recorder. The financial statement shall state the amount of such surplus and the 155
name and address of any recipient of such surplus, and shall identify any debt that was paid or 156
compromised and the name and address of any person to whom any debt was paid or 157
compromised. 158
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
8
8. In the event a political committee has permanently ceased operations, the secretary or 159
chairperson of the committee shall file a termination report with the city recorder certifying that 160
the political committee has permanently ceased operations. 161
9. The requirements of this chapter shall not be construed to abrogate the necessity of 162
making any other reports or disclosure required by law. 163
10. With respect to contributions received and expenditures made before the effective date 164
hereofof this section, the first financial statement filed pursuant to this section need only contain 165
the information required by this section to the extent such information is known by the political 166
committee that files such financial statement. 167
C. Filing Time: A campaign finance statement or other report required under this chapter shall 168
be considered filed if it is received by the city recorder or the recorder's office by five o'clock 169
(5:00) P.M. on the date it is due. 170
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in 171
accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code section 172
10-3-713. 173
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ____________, 174
2021. 175
____________________________ 176
CHAIRPERSON 177
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 178
179
___________________________ 180
CITY RECORDER 181
182
Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________. 183
184
Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed. 185
186
187
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
9
____________________________ 188
MAYOR 189
190
191
192
___________________________ 193
CITY RECORDER 194
195
196
(SEAL) 197
198
199
Bill No. ______ of 2021. 200
Published: _____________________. 201
202
203
204
205
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: _______________________
Boyd Ferguson
Date: __________________
Item E2
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
DATE:July 20, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR ADOPTING UPACA INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Motion 1 –
I move that the Council adopt the resolution authorizing the attached interlocal
agreement between Salt Lake City, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and the Utah
Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA), for operation of the George S. and Delores
Dore Eccles Theater.
Motion 2 –
I move that the Council not adopt the resolution.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
RESOLUTION NO. ______ of 2021
RESOLUTION OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
EXECUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE
CITY AND UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AGENCY, FOR OPERATION OF
THE THEATER KNOWN AS THE GEORGE S. AND DOLORES DORÉ ECCLES
THEATER
WHEREAS, under Utah Code Ann. §§ 11-13-101, any two or more public agencies may
enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action.
WHEREAS, Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake
City , and the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (“UPACA”) an interlocal agency, desire to
enter into the Second Amendment to an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (“Agreement”),
attached and incorporated into this Resolution as Exhibit “A”, for the operation of the performing
arts venue to be known as the George S. and Dolores Doré Eccles Theater.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council that the attached
Second Amendment between Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Redevelopment Agency of Salt
Lake City and UPACA is hereby ratified, effective June 30, 2021, and the Salt Lake City Mayor
is authorized to execute the same.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
_____________________________________
Amy Fowler, Council Char
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
1
Salt Lake County Contract No. SG13517C
SECOND AMENDMENT
TO
OPERATING AGREEMENT
UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT (“Second Amendment”)
is effective as of June 30, 2021, by and between the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency, an interlocal
entity and political subdivision of the State of Utah (“Owner”), Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah
municipal corporation (“City”), the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, a public agency
(“RDA”) and Salt Lake County, a body corporate and politic of the state of Utah (“County”, and/or
“Operator”). Owner and Operator may be referred to individually as a “Party”, or collectively as the
“Parties”.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Parties executed that certain Operating Agreement Utah Performing Arts Center
(“Operating Agreement”), with an effective date of March 19, 2013, which Operating Agreement is
identified as Salt Lake County Contract No. SG13517C and sets forth certain requirements for
Operator to operate the George S. and Dolores Doré Eccles Theater, formerly known as the Utah
Performing Arts Center (“Theater”), beginning on March 19, 2013, and ending on December 31,
2041.
B. Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the Operating Agreement, the Parties now wish to amend the
Operating Agreement to extend Operator’s operation and supervision of UPAC Site for an additional
five years.
AGREEMENT
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
1. The Parties agree to renew Amendment 1, covering Operator’s operation of UPAC Site
for an additional five-year term from the Effective Date of Amendment 1. The Parties acknowledge
the Effective Date of Amendment 1 is June 30, 2016, therefore this renewal shall be effective June 30,
2021, and end June 30, 2026.
2. Amendment. All Parts, Paragraphs, Attachments and other provisions of the
Agreement and any prior amendments thereof not specifically modified by this amendment shall be
the same and remain in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW]
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner, Operator, City and RDA have executed this Second
Amendment to be effective as of the Effective Date.
OPERATOR:
SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic
of the State of Utah
By:
Its: Mayor or Designee
Print Name:
County, by resolution of its County Council, a copy of which is attached hereto, caused this Second
Amendment to Operating Agreement be signed by the Mayor, or her designee.
Approved As To Form
__________________________
Deputy District Attorney
H:\share\CWANGSGARD\Arts & Culture\UPAC\Operating Agreement\Amendment2\Second Amendment to UPACA Ops Agreement (7.06.21).docx
Craig J.
Wangsgard
Digitally signed by Craig J.
Wangsgard
Date: 2021.07.06 14:06:40 -06'00'
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner, Operator, City and RDA have executed this Second
Amendment to be effective as of the Effective Date.
OWNER:
UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AGENCY, an
interlocal agency of the State of Utah
By: ______________________________________
Its: ______________________________________
Date: ________________
Approved as to legal form:
Attorney for Salt Lake County
_______________________________
Craig Wangsgard, Deputy District Attorney
Approved as to legal form:
Attorney for Salt Lake City
_______________________________
________________, Senior City Attorney
Approved as to legal form:
Attorney for Redevelopment Agency
___________________________
________________, Senior City Attorney
Owner, by resolution duly adopted by its Board, a copy of which is attached hereto, caused this
Agreement to be signed by its ________________________.
Craig J. Wangsgard Digitally signed by Craig J.
Wangsgard
Date: 2021.07.06 14:06:58 -06'00'
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner, Operator, City and RDA have executed this Second
Amendment to be effective as of the Effective Date.
CITY:
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah
municipal corporation
Erin Mendenhall
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Recorder
Approved as to legal form:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
_______________________________
________________, Senior City Attorney
City, by resolution duly adopted by its City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto, caused this
Second Amendment to Operating Agreement to be signed by its Mayor and attested by its City
Recorder.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner, Operator, City and RDA have executed this Second
Amendment to be effective as of the Effective Date.
RDA:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
SALT LAKE CITY, a public agency
Erin Mendenhall
Executive Director
Approved as to legal form:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
___________________________
________________, Senior City Attorney
RDA, by resolution duly adopted by its Board, a copy of which is attached hereto, caused this
Agreement to be signed by its Executive Director, and approved as to legal form by its legal counsel.