02/01/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
February 1,2022 Tuesday 2:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
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:10:54:46
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Chair’s determination.
As Salt Lake City Council Chair,I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake
City Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health
and safety of those who may be present.The decision to meet online follows a local
increase in COVID-19 cases in the City and elsewhere and will be re-evaluated
weekly.
The change in meeting attendance is a precautionary measure for the safety of the
public and City employees based on the latest reports from the Centers for Disease
Control and the Salt Lake County Health Department.The Council will return with
hybrid or in-person meetings when appropriate
We encourage those interested in participating in meetings to do so how they feel
most comfortable.City Council meetings are available on the following platforms:
•Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
We welcome and encourage your comments.You may provide comments by calling
our 24-Hour comment line,801-535-7654 or emailing
council.comments@slcgov.com.Council staff monitors voicemail and email inboxes
to ensure all comments received are shared with Council Members and added to the
public meeting record.View agenda-related comments at
www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
More information including Council meeting information and resources can be found
at www.SLCCouncil.com.
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 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:Redistricting Update ~2:30 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will receive an update on the City's redistricting process to update Council
District boundaries based on the 2020 Census results.A resident Redistricting Advisory
Commission will recommend maps to the Council.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
3.Informational:Equity Update ~2:40 p.m.
15 min
The Council will hold a discussion about various initiatives led by the City's Office of Equity
and Inclusion.These initiatives include,but are not limited to,improving racial equity and
justice in policing.Discussion may also include updates on the City's other work to achieve
equitable service delivery,decision-making,and community engagement through the
Citywide Equity Plan,increased ADA resources,language access,and other topics addressed
in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Commission and the Racial Equity in Policing
Commission.
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
4.Ordinance:Accessibility and Disability Commission ~2:55 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would amend Section 2.07.020,
Section 10.02.040,Section 10.02.110 and enact chapter 10.07 of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to the Accessibility and Disability Commission.The proposed changes would
formalize the Commission,recognizing its important advisory role in improving and
enhancing accessibility for community members experiencing a disability through a practice,
systematic,and solution-based approach.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 15,2022
5.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 ~3:15 p.m.
45 min
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal Year 2021-22.Budget
amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,
including proposed project additions and modifications.The proposed amendment includes
funding for new Arts Council employees,adding a second sergeant to the Special Victims
Unit,and additional Emergency Rental Assistance Program funding from the Federal
Government,among other items.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,February 15,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 1,2022
6.Ordinance:Rezone and Master Plan Amendment for the Former Fire
Station No.3 Property ~4:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning map
pertaining to properties located at 1085 East Simpson Avenue,1095 East Simpson Avenue,
1097 East Simpson Avenue,and 1104 East Sugarmont Drive to rezone those properties from PL
(Public Lands)District to CSHBD1 (Sugar House Business District)and amending the Sugar
House Community Plan Future Land Use Map.The purpose for the proposal is to consolidate
the subject properties with the property to the east for future development.Both properties are
owned by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City.There is no development proposal
associated with this request.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,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,February 15,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 1,2022
7.Tentative Break ~4:15 p.m.
20 min.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -n/a
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
8.Ordinance:Rezone at 1193 West California Avenue ~4:35 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property
located at approximately 1193 West California Avenue from R-1/7,000 (Single Family
Residential District)to R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District).If approved,the
property owner intends to subdivide the property,remove the existing home and construct
two new homes,potentially with attached ADUs.The owner anticipates retaining ownership
of both properties.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,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,February 15,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 1,2022
9.Ordinance:Rezone at 2060 North 2200 West ~4:50 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning map
pertaining to one parcel of property located at 2060 North 2200 West Street to rezone the
property from AG-2 (Agricultural District)to M-1 (Light Manufacturing District).The
amendment is to implement the master plan zoning and to accommodate future commercial
land uses.No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time.
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,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,February 15,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 1,2022
10.Resolution:Art Barn Public Benefits Analysis ~5:05 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize the waiver of
lease fees for the use of the Art Barn by the Salt Lake City Arts Council Foundation.The Salt
Lake City Arts Council Foundation &Arts Council Division is requesting to continue
utilizing 54 Finch Lane,or the “Art Barn”as the administrative headquarters,housing 6.5
Arts Council FTEs and multiple seasonal and part-time employees,as well as to provide a
home for the Finch Lane Art Gallery and its numerous exhibitions.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 1,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 22,2022
11.Informational:Apartment Study from the Gardner Institute ~5:25 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a briefing from Jim Wood,Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow at the
Gardner Policy Institute,about the apartment market in Salt Lake City,and a forthcoming
study that will be published by the Institute.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
12.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~5:55 p.m.
30 min
The Council will be briefed about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2022
Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
13.Board Appointment:Arts Council Board –Richard Taylor ~6:25 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Richard Taylor prior to considering appointment to the Arts
Council Board for a term ending February 1,2025.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 1,2022
14.Board Appointment:Arts Council Board –Ayanna Allen ~6:30 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Ayanna Allen prior to considering appointment to the Arts
Council Board for a term ending February 1,2025.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Standing Items
15.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
16.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.
17.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.
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
February 1, 2022
COVID 19
update
Current status
All but one of Utah's counties is reporting "high transmission."
Cases are beginning to plateau based on hospitalizations and
reports of COVID-like symptoms.
In SLCo 65.5% of kids aged 12-17 are fully vaccinated.
In SLCo, 26.7% of kids aged 5-11 are fully vaccinated.
There is still significant strain on hospitals statewide. Since early
January, hospitalizations for COVID have increased by 57%.
The state is still suggesting people not get tested unless they are
medically vulnerable or elderly.
Citywide
vaccination
average =
67.67%
Zip % fully vaccinated
1.4 1.11 1.18 1.25 2.1
84101 80.08 80.19 80.24 80.28 80.70
84102 61.68 61.72 61.82 61.86 62.08
84103 72.89 72.82 72.90 72.95 73.14
84104 51.40 51.64 51.78 51.87 52.23
84105 72.36 72.46 72.56 72.63 72.81
84106 66.13 66.30 66.38 66.53 66.81
84108 72.98 73.09 73.17 73.23 73.38
84109 73.72 73.96 74.19 74.34 74.65
84111 71.01 71.18 71.34 71.44 71.91
84115 60.08 61.08 61.28 61.43 61.82
84116 54.01 54.29 54.46 54.55 54.90
Homelessness Update:
HRC and Overflow Occupancy
January 10 –January 14th
STH -1000 West
Men's HRC
STH -King
Women's HRC
STH -Miller
Mixed HRC Total
St Vincent de
Paul/ Weigand
Center
Shelter Capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg number of beds occupied/night 290 185 198 673 68 / 30
Avg number of beds unoccupied/night 10 15 2 27
Avg % of beds occupied/night 96.7%92.7%98.9%96.2%
Avg % of beds unoccupied/night 3.3%7.3%1.1%3.8%
Resource Fair
Ballpark 1/21:
Courts-10 engagements, 6 cases
Ruff Haven -5 engagements
Rescue Mission-15 engagements
SLCo Health-6 vaccinations
Odyssey House Martindale-15+ engagements
Lunch-100 provided by 2 community volunteers
The Necessities Project -14 engagements
-Non-profit providing feminine hygiene
needs Ogden-Davis Co-SLC
-Kristen@thenecessitiesproject.org
-Venmo-@thenecessitiesproject
Cleaning and Abatement
A few locations are scheduled to be addressed this
week and next week.
Homelessness
update
Homelessness
Overflow
Shelter
status
801-990-9999
•St. Vincent de Paul-open nightly
•Weigand Center-open nightly
•Scattered Motel Rooms -24/7-referral only from
HRC's
•High Needs Temporary Housing Program
(formerly the Ramada Inn motel rooms)-referral-
only hotel rooms for elderly and medically
vulnerable people-24/7 open today 1/18/22
•Redwood Overflow Beds (formerly the Ramada
Inn common areas) -goal is to open nightly,
beginning mid -February.
•The best way to access emergency shelter beds
is:801-990-9999
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.tinyurl.com/slcredistricting
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Budget & Policy Analyst, and
Hassan Abdi, Public Engagement Coordinator
DATE:February 1, 2022
RE: City Council Redistricting Update
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
An advisory commission was used for the last redistricting ten years ago and the Council decided to use that
approach again. The Commission is envisioned to have at least one member from each Council District and may
have more. The two-week application period was open from Thursday, January 13 to Thursday, January 27 to
serve on the Council’s Redistricting Advisory Commission. Multiple communication channels were used to
notify the public of this opportunity. (See the Additional Info section for a summary of that public outreach.)
In February and March, the Commission is expected to meet approximately four times. A citywide postcard is
being developed to notify residents of redistricting and how to get involved. The Commission will recommend a
map (or maps) to adjust Council District boundaries based on the 2020 Census results. This is necessary to
ensure district populations are substantially similar for fair representation. In April, the Council hold a public
hearing(s), review the recommend map(s) and is tentatively scheduled to vote on a final map at the May 3 formal
meeting. The legal deadline to adopt a map is May 10.
A summary breakdown of applicants by Council District is listed below. A total of 40 applications were received.
Note that one application was received for a District Two property owner that does not have a primary residence
in Salt Lake City. Eight applications were received after the submission deadline, which was allowed in order to
ensure that each District had adequate options.
District One – Four applications District Two – Six applications District Three – Eight applications
District Four – Three applications District Five – 10 applications District Six – Four applications
District Seven – Four applications
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Guidance for Commission – The Council may wish to review what guiding principles to give the
Redistricting Advisory Commission. A draft of guiding principles is in the Additional Info section below
based on the 2011 redistricting. The Council may wish to hold a discuss on the guiding principles at a
future meeting.
2. Selection of Commission Members – The Council may wish to discuss how members of the
Commission will be selected.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Guiding Principles for the Commission
Below is a list of guiding principles based on the Council’s direction to the 2011 Commission.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: January 4, 2022
2nd Briefing: January 11, 2022
3rd Briefing: February 1, 2022
4th Briefing: TBD
Public Hearings: April 5 and/or 19, 2022
Potential Action: May 3, 2022
Page | 2
- Limit the number of maps recommended to the Council (limit was two in 2011)
- Evaluate maps based on the guiding principles and how competing values are balanced (e.g., one may
score higher on compactness while another better maintains communities of interest)
- Districts should strive to be compact and contiguous and avoid odd shapes (see Attachment 4 for legal
considerations of these terms)
- Protect minority communities by preserving the unique cultural and ethnic diversity of the residential
Westside
- Minimize the division of communities and consider social, cultural, geographic, and historical identities
- Exclude partisan data from being considered; shall not unduly favor or disfavor any political party (the
City Council is a nonpartisan legislative body)
- Housing patterns should be considered when extending a district to avoid splitting a residential area;
extending a boundary around a residential area to reach another residential area should be avoided
- Allow residents time to review maps, ask questions and provide comment before voting on final map
recommendations
- Provide materials in multiple languages so more residents can participate
- To the extent practicable, City neighborhoods and business districts should not be split between districts
Commission Application Public Outreach See Attachment 2 for the Application Form
Public involvement and participation are crucial to the City's redistricting process which directly impacts the
various communities across the City. The Redistricting Advisory Commission will serve in an advisory role to
recommend Council District maps that reflect Salt Lake City's values and communities and ensure each area is
fairly represented. To create awareness about the opportunity to serve on the Advisory Commission and inform
the public of the Commission’s role, the following engagement strategies were used:
- Press Release: A press release (Attachment 6) informing the media and the public about the Advisory
Commission and their responsibilities, how to apply, and other opportunities for the public
- Web Hub at www.tinyurl.com/slcredistricting: This is a central library for briefing videos, timeline,
summaries of steps in the process, documents, mapping files and more information. The hub includes a
redistricting 101 to help residents familiarize themselves with the topic. It also includes recaps of
the Council discussions and presentations from the Gardner Policy Institute (Attachment 3) and
the City’s Attorney Office (Attachment 4). The hub provides information on the Commission, the
expectation of those selected, and information on how to apply.
- Social Media Posts: Over the application period, 12 posts were posted on four platforms (Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter, and NextDoor). Every post had an English and Spanish caption and included a link
to the application and the web hub for the public to learn more. Also, Council Member’s District Next
Door pages were used to send posts encouraging residents to apply.
- Letter to All Recognized Community Organizations, and Salt Lake City’s Equity Office: Two emails were
sent to all recognized community organizations (often called community councils) within the city, and
other community organizations such as the Pride Center and League of Women Voters. The email
included a letter from Council Chair Dan Dugan (Attachment 5) and the application. Two emails were
also sent to the City’s Office of Equity and Inclusion. They shared the application with their email
distribution list of over 200 diverse communities and asked them to share it with their networks. The
Human Rights Commission and Racial Equity in Policing Commission were also notified.
- Email Campaigns: Three citywide email campaigns in both English and Spanish were sent. First, an
initial call for applications, then changes to the in-person requirement, and a last call for
applications with next steps. A section on redistricting was added to the monthly district
email newsletters for January and will continue to be added until the end of the redistricting process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2020 Census Population by Council Districts Summary Table
2. Redistricting Advisory Commission Application Form
3. Gardner Policy Institute 2020 Census Results Presentation to the Council on January 4, 2022
4. Redistricting Legal Requirements and Considerations Memo
5. Council Chair Letter to Recognized Community Organizations
6. Press Release for Redistricting Advisory Commission Applications
2010 2020 # %#%One 27,505 28,032 527 2%-500-2%Two 27,306 26,395 (911) -3% -2,137-7%Three 26,302 28,572 2,270 9%+400%Four 26,716 33,153 6,437 24% +4,62116%Five 25,904 26,936 1,032 4%-1,596-6%Six 26,546 28,767 2,221 8%+2351%Seven 26,132 27,868 1,736 7%-664-2%TOTALS186,411 199,723 13,312 7%Council DistrictCensus PopulationDeviation from Optimal District Population (28,532)Change from 2010 to 20202020 Census Results by Council Districts Summary Table
2020 Census Redistricting Data
Insights for the Salt Lake City Council
January 4, 2022
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What we get from the 2020 Census data (so far)
•Total populations for states, counties,
cities, and other statistical
geographies
•Detailed race and ethnicity (Hispanic
or Latino origin)
•Two age groups –over and under 18
years
•Housing units –occupied or vacant
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What we don’t get from 2020 Census data (so far)
•Full details from Census questionnaire,
including:
•Relationship in households
•Tenure
•Ancestry
•Sex
•Full age detail
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What is not included in the decennial census
•Characteristics of the population,
including:
•Educational attainment
•Household income
•Employment
•Veteran status
•Disability status
•Housing unit characteristics
Are available from the American Community Survey
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Salt Lake City is still the largest city in Utah
Top 10 Largest Cities in Utah, 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Census Redistricting File
199,723
140,230
116,961 115,162
98,129 96,904 95,342 87,321 81,773 77,487
Salt Lake
City
West Valley
City
West Jordan Provo Orem Sandy St. George Ogden Layton South
Jordan
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Salt Lake City is the largest it has ever been
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census
189,454 186,438199,723
68.9%
18.1%16.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Share of Salt Lake County PopulationTotal PopulationSalt Lake City Population Share of County
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Selected Cities in Salt Lake County by Rate of Growth, 2010 to 2020
153%
124%
54%
29%
21%21%17%13%
13%11%
10%8%
8%7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Rate of GrowthTotal Population2010 Census 2020 Census Percent Change, 2010 to 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Total Population by City Council District, 2020
33,153
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Districts east of I-15 added more new residents than those west of I-15
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
2,270
2,221
1,736
2010*2020
One 27,505 28,032
Two 27,306 26,395
Three 26,302 28,572
Four 26,716 33,153
Five 25,904 26,936
Six 26,546 28,767
Seven 26,132 27,868
Salt Lake City 186,411 199,723
Census PopulationCouncil District
Note: 2010 Reflects City Council Estimates used in
subcounty estimates found in Salt Lake City Data Book
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census
Four Census Tract Changes
Two areas were split from
one tract each into two.
•Former Tract 1014
•University of Utah
•Former Tract 1025
•South Temple to 400 South, I-
15 to West Temple
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Tracts west of State Street experienced the most absolute change in population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
+1,694
+1,736
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Citywide, the under 18 population declined by 4,993 between 2010 and 2020
2010 2020
One 9,110 7,458
Two 9,058 7,493
Three 4,319 3,948
Four 2,926 2,869
Five 5,255 4,677
Six 5,955 5,730
Seven 5,411 4,926
Salt Lake City 42,034 37,101
Council District
Census Population
Under Age 18
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Over 75% of tracts had declines in under 18 population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
-78
117
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
While only three tracts had declines in the 18 and over population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
+1,619
+1,772
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Increasing racial and ethnic diversity
Between 2010 and 2020, the
following populations
increased as a share of
citywide population
•Black or African American
•Asian
•Two or More Races and
Some Other Race (two
groups combined)
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
2020 Racial and Ethnic Composition of
Salt Lake City Council Districts
Area
Hispanic
or Latino NH White
NH Black
or African
American
NH
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native NH Asian
NH Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
NH Some
Other
Race
NH Two or
More
Council District 1 45.3%36.5%4.1%1.0%4.7%4.4%0.5%3.5%
Council District 2 47.4%32.4%3.8%1.1%4.9%7.0%0.4%3.1%
Council District 3 12.5%73.2%2.6%0.6%4.6%0.9%0.7%4.9%
Council District 4 13.1%68.2%3.1%1.1%8.2%0.8%0.7%4.7%
Council District 5 15.4%71.0%3.1%0.9%3.2%0.9%0.6%4.8%
Council District 6 6.5%78.1%1.4%0.3%8.4%0.4%0.7%4.2%
Council District 7 8.4%81.7%1.0%0.4%3.4%0.5%0.3%4.3%
Salt Lake City 20.8%63.4%2.7%0.8%5.4%2.0%0.6%4.2%
Note: NH means not Hispanic or Latino
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Hispanic or Latino origin
Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
White alone
Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Asian
Both Hispanic and Non-Hispanic, Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Some Other Race
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Non-Hispanic White Alone
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
65
35
387
3,361
211
589
-294
2010 2020
One 10,154 10,219
Two 8,506 8,541
Three 20,531 20,918
Four 19,261 22,622
Five 18,924 19,135
Six 22,762 22,468
Seven 22,186 22,775
Salt Lake City 122,324 126,678
Council
District
Census Population Non-
Hispanic White Alone
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Non-Hispanic White
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Hispanic or Latino Origin Population
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
2010 2020
One 13,234 12,694
Two 14,272 12,514
Three 3,107 3,577
Four 3,678 4,357
Five 4,326 4,145
Six 922 1,882
Seven 2,028 2,335
Salt Lake City 41,637 41,504
Council
District
Census Population
Hispanic or Latino-540
-1,758
470
307
960-181
679
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Hispanic or Latino Origin Population
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
1
January 3, 2022
Memo to City Council Staff – Legal Considerations Regarding Redistricting
Redistricting of city council and school board district boundaries is governed by
the United States Constitution, federal statutes, Utah statutes, and Salt Lake City
Code provisions.
Even though the City Council will not be redistricting the Salt Lake City School
District board this year, we have left in the discussion about school board
redistricting for future use.
U.S. Constitution
Equal Protection of the Laws
The “one person, one vote” rule is based on the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the City Council and school board districts.
It requires substantial equality of population among the districts. Reynolds v.
Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
Sometimes there is a push for districts based on number of registered voters,
actual voters, persons of voting age, or citizens of voting age. However,
most courts have ruled that “population” means “total population.” A
reason for that is that basing district size on number of voters fails to protect
the interests of the many people who reside in a place but don’t vote.
Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment provides that “the right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.”
2
Federal Statutes
Discrimination in voting against racial or language minorities is prohibited by the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 2 (52 U.S.C.A. § 10301).
If race is a motive in the redistricting, the courts will probably subject a
plan to strict scrutiny, which is very hard to survive.
Utah Statutes
City Council
Each City Council district must be of substantially equal population as the other
districts. Utah Code § 10-3-205.5(2)(b)(i). In the redistricting process the Council
must make any adjustments in the boundaries of the districts as may be required to
maintain districts of substantially equal population. The Council must do that
within six months after the Legislature completes its redistricting process. Utah
Code § 10-3-205.5(2)(b)(ii).
Utah Constitution Art. IX § 1 says: “No later than the annual general session
next following the Legislature’s receipt of the results of an enumeration
made by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall divide the
state into congressional, legislative, and other districts accordingly.
School Board
School board districts must be:
(1) substantially equal in population,
(2) as contiguous as practicable, and
(3) as compact as practicable. UCA § 20A-14-201(1)(b).
Contiguous
3
“Contiguous” means that no portion of a district is not connected to another portion
of the district.
Utah Code § 10-1-104(2) defines “contiguous” to mean:
(a) if used to describe an area, continuous, uninterrupted, and without an island of
territory not included as part of the area; and
(b) if used to describe an area's relationship to another area, sharing a common
boundary.
A court probably would consider that statutory definition to be valid.
Compact
According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1981), “compact” means
“having parts or units closely packed or joined.”
Courts in some states define “compact” in terms of physical shape or size, such as
having a small perimeter in relation to the area composed, and avoiding bizarre
designs, or even in terms of a circle containing the least land area outside the
district. 114 ALR 5th 311 § 3[a].
Courts in other states define compactness as referring to closely-united territory,
which is conducive to constituent-representative communication. Id. at 3[b].
The following ideas were in a redistricting case in Colorado.
The compactness requirement specifies that the boundaries of each district shall be
as short as possible. One of the most accurate ways to measure compactness is to
determine the smallest circle into which the district can be circumscribed and to
compare the ratio of the area of the district inside the circle to the area of the circle
itself. The closer these figures come to a 1 to 1 ratio, the more compact the district
will be.
Although there is no federal constitutional standard requiring compact districts,
more than half of the states include compactness as a constitutional or statutory
criteria for state legislative districting.
4
A second method of measuring compactness is to compare the aggregate linear
distance of the boundaries of each district.
In a practical sense, the compactness of a district will be directly affected by the
density and distribution of a state's population. Since population requirements have
priority, compactness must often be sacrificed in order to achieve an acceptable
range of population deviation. See Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F. Supp. 68, 87 (D.
Colo. 1982)
Salt Lake City Code
The City Council districts must be of substantially equal population. The districts
must be reapportioned after each federal census to maintain substantially equal
populations. City Code § 2.06.010.
The City Council could amend this, but it could not do so in a way that was
inconsistent with state statutes or that violated constitutional requirements.
Constitutional Requirements and Guiding Principles
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires election
districts or voting units for local governmental offices to be as equal in
population as possible. This requirement is known as the "one person, one
vote" rule and applies to all political subdivisions, including cities, counties,
towns, and villages. . . .
Whether a particular manner of apportionment runs afoul of the federal
Constitution, is . . . determined on a case-by-case basis. Since the one
person, one vote rule applies whenever the governing body to which a
challenged districting plan pertains exercises general governmental powers
over the entire geographical area that the governing body serves, one
consideration in determining the question of population equality is to
examine the geographic area to which the election or voting district pertains,
as well as the nature of the office or position involved. . . .
5
On the municipal or city level, whether districts for the election of
councilmen . . . have been based on population equality has depended on the
circumstances presented. . . .
The federal courts currently measure "population equality" according to the
total population in each district, but that method is not required. Thus, while
population equality could be determined on the basis of voting-age
population, a violation of equal protection does not occur because a
legislative body chooses not to use that method, or chooses not to base
equality on the number of registered voters in each district. . . .
The Equal Protection Clause . . . requires that, where districts exist, their
populations be equal so as to give equal weight to each vote cast.
That begs the question: "How equal is equal?" In other words, to what
degree may districts deviate from the population equality standard yet satisfy
the Equal Protection Clause? There is no fixed percentage that separates the
de minimis from the unconstitutional. A useful guideline is that a districting
plan with a maximum deviation from population equality (the sum of the
percentages by which the most overrepresented district and the most
underrepresented district, respectively, deviate from the equality ideal) of
less than 10% is likely to pass constitutional muster as a de minimis
departure from the one person, one vote rule. Nevertheless, there is no
guarantee that any figure, even the reasonably reliable 10%, will ensure
constitutionality; courts can require justifications even for deviations of less
than 10%, and can reject plans based on those deviations.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the deviation from population
equality is substantial. Once the plaintiff meets that burden, the defendant
must show either that the deviation is unavoidable, or that it is justified by an
effort to effectuate a rational state policy. Courts will tolerate slightly larger
deviations for local districting plans than for state or congressional plans
because: (1) municipalities need flexibility to meet changing needs; (2) it is
desirable to preserve the integrity of political subdivisions; and (3) local
districts often have small populations and relatively few officeholders. . . .
The decennial census is the established basis for redrawing district
boundaries in order to account for growth and shifts in population. The
Equal Protection Clause does not require that states or political subdivisions
6
redistrict more frequently than once every 10 years, even when population
changes are evident. . . .”
143 A.L.R. Fed. 631 §§ 2[a][b] (1998)
[“[T]he “one person, one vote” rule requires substantial equality of population in
districts. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579 (1964); Board of Estimate of City of
New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 692-93 (1989).
However, while the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to make an honest and
good faith effort to construct legislative districts as nearly of equal population as is
practicable, but it doesn’t demand mathematical perfection. The Constitution
permits deviation when it is justified by legitimate considerations incident to the
effectuation of a rational state policy, such as compactness, continuity, maintaining
the integrity of political subdivisions, or competitive balance among political
parties. Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. 253,
258 (2016)
“The supreme court has developed a measure called the "maximum
population deviation" to measure disparities in population per legislator in
state legislative apportionment cases. The maximum population deviation is
calculated by the following steps:
First, the apportionment base, usually the state’s population, is divided
by the number of legislators in the legislative house under
consideration, to arrive at the norm if absolute population equality
were achieved.
Second, if a district has more persons than the ideal district, the ideal
district population is subtracted from the actual district population; the
resulting number is then divided by the ideal district population to get
the percentage of under-representation.
Third, if a district has fewer persons than the ideal district, its
population is subtracted from the population of the ideal district; the
7
resulting number is then divided by the ideal district population to get
the percentage of over-representation.
Finally, when the percentages of under-representation or over-
representation have been calculated for all districts (or all legislators
in multimember districts), the district that is most over-represented is
identified and the district that is most under-represented is identified;
these two percentages are then added together to obtain the maximum
population deviation.”
25 Am Jur 2d Elections § 25 (2021).
For example, suppose that a city’s population is 100,000 and it has seven city
council districts. 100,000 divided by seven is 14,286. That is the “ideal district”
population, in that each district would have exactly equal population. Suppose
further that one district is reapportioned to have only 14,000 people, and another is
reapportioned to have 15,000 people. The first district’s deviation from the ideal is
-286, which is a 2.0 percent deviation. The second district’s deviation is 714,
which is a 5.0 percent deviation. The 2.0 percent and 5.0 percent deviations are
added together to get a maximum population deviation, which in this case is 7.0
percent.
Though the description above refers to state legislative districts, the principles
apply to local government districts.
A rule of thumb is that if a maximum population deviation is under ten percent,
the redistricting will be presumed to be valid. On the other hand, if the maximum
population deviation exceeds ten percent, the governmental entity must bear the
burden of establishing that the deviation is not discriminatory.
There are many sources that attempt to describe guiding principles or factors that
may or may not be taken into account in redistricting. One source is the Utah
Independent Redistricting Commission. In 2021 the Commission adopted the
following “Threshold Criteria and Redistricting Standards”:
8
Contiguous
No part of a district can be entirely separated from the remainder of the
district.
Reasonably Compact
To the extent practicable, the Commission will submit maps with
districts that are reasonably compact. Districts shall avoid odd shapes or
contortions that cannot be explained by other legitimate redistricting
criteria.
Communities of Interest
The Commission shall, to the extent practicable, preserve communities
of interest. A “community of interest” is defined as a group of people in
a contiguous geographic area that share common policy interests,
whether cultural, religious, social, economic, or others that do not
necessarily coincide with the boundaries of a political subdivision. A
community of interest cannot be based on a relationship with a political
party, incumbent, or political candidate.
Geographic Boundaries
The Commission shall, to the extent practicable, follow natural,
geographic, or man-made features, boundaries, or barriers when drawing
district boundaries. A “geographic boundary” means natural barriers,
such as mountain ranges, significant rivers or large lakes, and other
bodies of water. A “man-made” feature refers to prominent aspects of the
built or human-designed environment, including streets and freeways.
Cores of Prior Districts
The Commission shall, to the extent practicable, preserve cores of prior
districts. In doing so, the Commission will consider district lines as
previously drawn. If possible, the Commission will utilize empirical
methods of measuring congruence in prior and proposed district
boundaries.
9
Municipalities and Counties
The Commission will, to the extent practicable, submit maps which
minimize the division of municipalities and counties across multiple
districts. The term “municipality” is defined in Utah Code § 10-1-
104(5). The Commission will, to the extent practicable, rely on
quantitative measurements of division.
Boundary Agreement
The Commission will, to the extent practicable, seek boundary
agreement among the map types submitted. Specifically, the Commission
will consider the alignment among the boundaries of the districts for the
Utah House of Representatives, the Utah State Senate, the Utah State
School Board, and the United States Congress.
Purposeful or Undue Favoring
The Commission will, to the extent practicable, prohibit the purposeful
or undue favoring or disfavoring of an incumbent elected official, a
candidate or prospective candidate for elected office, or a political party.
In so doing, the Commission will consider direct or indirect evidence of
intent and, where practicable, quantitative measures. The Commission
will not use residential addresses of incumbents, candidates, or
prospective candidates in creating its proposed maps.
Issues
Meaning of “Population.”
Reliance on the decennial federal census is a constitutionally permissible basis for
the apportionment of a legislative body, but it is not the required standard by which
substantial population equivalency is to be measured. The Fourteenth Amendment
allows apportionment plans to use bases other than population, but only when
population figures are unavailable and the figures employed substantially
approximate those that would have been derived from a census of the entire
population. Accordingly, registered voter figures may be used as the basis for the
apportionment of election districts, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause,
10
only if the results substantially reflect results obtainable by the use of another
permissible basis, such as total population. See CJS Const. Law § 1438 (2021).
Parents of School-aged Children?
It has been suggested that the City Council consider measuring “equal population”
by the number of parents of children in the public schools, rather than the general
population. However, because that is a restriction on voting other than residence,
age, or citizenship, courts would apply strict scrutiny in analyzing the restriction.
Strict scrutiny is extremely difficult to satisfy.
The purpose of the one person, one vote rule is to guarantee that “the vote of any
citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen.” Board of
Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 701 (1989). Therefore, the rule is intended to
protect voters and citizens, not just parents.
Courts have struck down attempts to use something other than general population,
such as property owners. See City of Herriman v. Bell, 590 F.3d 1176, 1186 (10 th
Cir. 2010). The court cited examples, including what it described as the “law
restricting voting in a school district election to those owning or leasing taxable
property or having children enrolled in that school district.” (Emphasis added.)
The Supreme Court, in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621
(1969), ruled that a law that restricted voting in a school district election to people
owning or leasing taxable property or having children enrolled in that school
district was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection.
More recently, the Illinois supreme court struck down a law that denied the vote in
school council elections to voters who did not, at the time of the election, have
children attending the public schools. Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education,
566 N.E.2d 1283, 1300 (Ill. 1990). The court applied strict scrutiny and said that
there had been no evidence that voters who do not have children attending the
public school have less interest in the candidates to be elected, or that parents with
children attending public schools have a special ability to choose school council
members. It said it was unreasonable to deny an equal voice to citizens who do
not, at the time, have children in the public schools.
11
Hypothetical Situation
Suppose that a school district with a population of 70,000 contained seven
existing voting districts, each containing 10,000 people. Suppose further that
there are 35,000 school-aged children in the entire district.
Suppose that District No. 1 contains 2,000 parents of school-aged children and
District No. 2 contains 5,000 parents of school-aged children. If it were proposed
to redistrict based on number of parents with school-aged children, then District
No. 2 would be right at the ideal number. However, the number of parents with
such children in No. 1 would have to be increased to get closer to the 5,000 ideal.
That would require taking population from other voting districts in order to
obtain more such parents for District No. 1.
The result might be that District No. 2 might need only 10,000 in overall
population to contain 5,000 parents of school-aged children, whereas District
No. 1 might have to grow to 20,000 people in order to contain 5,000 such
parents. The elected representation from District No. 2 would be 10,000 to 1, but
in District No. 1 would be 20,000 to 1. Such a plan would result in the dilution of
the votes of the people in District No. 1.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to protect an
individual's right to equal voting participation in at least two ways: through
rejecting overly restrictive voter qualifications (“vote denial”), and through
rejecting disproportionate voting districts (“vote dilution”).
* * *
With respect to voter apportionment, the Supreme Court has held that the Equal
Protection Clause requires state and local entities to divide electoral districts on the
basis of population, so that each person's vote is equally effective. . . . These cases
all recognize that the collective dilution of many individuals' votes can result in a
form of unconstitutional disenfranchisement, even when no one individual is
turned away at the ballot box. This principle is best recognized by the catch-
phrase “one person, one vote.” Kirk v. Carpeneti, 623 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2010)
(Emphasis added.)
12
In summarizing Kramer, the Supreme Court later said: “The fact that the school
district was supported by a property tax did not mean that only those subject to
direct assessment felt the effects of the tax burden, and the inclusion of parents
would not exhaust the class of persons interested in the conduct of local school
affairs. Hill v. Stone, 421 US 289, 295 (1975) (emphasis added).
Therefore, the City Council, in redistricting, should not interpret “population” to
mean only parents of school-aged children.
Effect of Boundary Changes on Incumbent Officers
School Board
With respect to school boards, statutory guidance exists.
Section 20A-14-201(3)(a) provides that “[r]eapportionment does not affect the
right of any school board member to complete the term for which the member was
elected.
Section 20A-14-201(3)(b) contains the following rules regarding school board
representation following reapportionment:
1. If only one board member whose term extends beyond reapportionment
lives within a reapportioned district, that board member shall represent that
district.
2. (a) If two or more members whose terms extend beyond reapportionment
live within a reapportioned district, the members involved shall select one
member by lot to represent the district.
(b) The other members shall serve at-large for the remainder of their terms.
(c) The at-large board members shall serve in addition to the designated
number of board members for the board for the remainder of their terms.
13
3. If no board member lives within a district whose term extends beyond
reapportionment, the seat shall be treated as vacant and shall filled as
provided by law.
City Council
In contrast to the school district scenario, Utah lacks a statute that expressly
addresses the effect of a redistricting boundary change on incumbent city council
members. However, some Utah Code sections indirectly provide guidance.
For example, § 10-3-201(1) says that the officers elected in a city general election
shall continue in office for four years except in case of death, resignation,
removal, or disqualification from office.
A redistricting change is none of those.
Furthermore, § 10-3-202 provides that each elected officer of a city shall hold
office for the term for which he or she is elected unless the office becomes vacant
under § 10-3-301. Section 10-3-301(5) says that a city elected officer must
maintain a principal place of residence within the district that the officer
represents.
In addition, Subsection 10-3-301(5) provides that an elected officer’s office
becomes automatically vacant if the officer, during the officer’s term of office,
establishes a principal place of residence outside the district that the officer
represents. This happens only if the officer acts affirmatively to move from the
state or precinct in the state and has the intent to remain in another state or
precinct. See § 20A-2-105(4)(j)(i).
Because a change of district boundaries does not involve the affirmative
act of a council member to move from the district, it seems unlikely that
his or her residence would change and thus there would be no automatic
vacancy.
Because no Utah statutes clearly address the issue, it is likely that the common law
would apply. Under the common law, the qualifications of candidates for office are
14
determined at the time they begin their term of office. Redistricting that changes
the residence of an incumbent member does not affect that member’s current
term of office. Candidates carry their residence with them throughout the entire
term of office to which they were elected. Kendra Carberry, Redistricting: A
Municipal Perspective, Colorado Lawyer 49, February 2002.
That view is supported by Olsen v. Merrill, 5 P.2d 226 (Utah 1931). In that case a
redistricting affected members of the Provo Board of Education. Mr. Olsen and
Mr. Startup were school board members. Before the redistricting, Mr. Olsen
resided in municipal ward No. 3, and Mr. Startup resided in ward No. 2.
After a redistricting, Mr. Olsen ended up living in ward No. 2 and Mr. Startup
resided in ward No. 1. The board of education met to select two new board
members to replace Mr. Olsen and Mr. Startup, on the premise that the positions of
those men had become vacant.
The Supreme Court disagreed, and ruled that the men were entitled to continue to
act as members of the board for the remainder of their terms. The redistricting
did not render them ineligible to continue as board members .1
Therefore, an incumbent City Council member will not lose his or her office due
to redistricting. That necessarily means that, temporarily, more than one Council
Member might live in a single district, and that during that time a district might
endure with no Council Member residing within it.
Boyd Ferguson
Senior City Attorney
1 The court distinguished situations in which the elected officials served only as representatives of the municipal
wards from which they were elected. In contrast, the Provo board members did not serve in a municipal ward office.
Instead, each board member, though elected from municipal wards, participated in the management and control of
the entire school system without regard to municipal wards.
January 12, 2022
Greetings Community and Neighborhood Leaders,
The Salt Lake City Council is preparing to redistrict the seven Council District boundaries based
on the 2020 Census results. We have a shared goal to use a fair and transparent process that invites trust
and public participation. A key part of this process is forming a Redistricting Advisory Commission of
residents, as was done in 2011.
The Commission will hear public input, deliberate potential boundary changes, and recommend
maps for the City Council’s final approval. While we know there is no perfect map to meet everyone’s
preferences, we believe an inclusive process that channels feedback from all residents will result in a
better map. And we want your help to refer interested residents to apply for membership on the
Redistricting Advisory Commission.
Attached to this letter is a copy of the application form. Please share this application with any
resident you feel has the competency, impartiality, and integrity to serve the City’s best interests and
meets the eligibility criteria.
Under state law, the Council must adopt a new map by May 10, 2022. The commission members
will be selected in the coming weeks and will meet several times. There will also be opportunities for
additional public input once the commission recommends maps to the City Council .
The Council had a public briefing by the Gardner Policy Institute on the results of the 2020
Census for the City overall and each Council District. The City Attorney’s Office also provided a briefing on
the legal requirements and considerations of redistricting. I encourage you to watch these briefings and
help spread the word to your neighbors. The more residents are aware of the redistricting process and
how it can affect their lives, the more I hope they will participate and ensure the final map ref lects our
communities.
Sincerely,
Dan Dugan
Chair, Salt Lake City Council
AF/bl
CC: Mayor Erin Mendenhall; Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff; Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer;
Kaletta Lynch, Chief Equity Officer; Moana Uluave-Hafoka, Equity Manager; Cindy Lou Trishman, City
Recorder
DAN DUGAN | DISTRICT 6 | COUNCIL CHAIR || DARIN MANO | DISTRICT 5 | COUNCIL VICE CHAIR ||
VICTORIA PETRO-ESCHLER|DISTRICT 1 ||ALEJANDRO PUY| DISTRICT 2 ||CHRIS WHARTON| DISTRICT 3||
ANA VALDEMOROS|DISTRICT 4 || AMY FOWLER | DISTRICT 7
News from SLC Council: Redistricting Advisory Commission Application
1/3
View this email in your browser
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jan. 13, 2022
Redistricting Advisory Commission Call for Applications
Working to ensure fairly represented, non-partisan voices help shape Salt Lake
City’s Districts.
SALT LAKE CITY – The City Council is organizing an independent commission
of residents to serve in an advisory role during the City's redistricting process.
The Council received an informational briefing from the Kem C. Gardner Policy
Institute about the 2020 Census results for Salt Lake City and individual results
for the seven Council Districts. This information will be used as part of the City's
Council redistricting process over the coming months.
Council Chair, Dan Dugan invites the community to apply and welcomes those
interested, "I encourage community members to apply for their district, it takes
a whole community to make this work fair and equitable, we need everyone to
care and get involved."
Subscribe Past Issues Translate
News from SLC Council: Redistricting Advisory Commission Application
2/3
Selected members will be expected to:
1)meet at least twice a month from February until the Council adopts new
boundaries,
2)attend meetings to gather concerns, ideas, and input, and
3)present a list of guiding values for District maps
4)present suggested maps for Council District boundaries for the City Council’s
consideration.
"Salt Lake City aims to be as transparent and apolitical as possible." said
Council Vice Chair Darin Mano, "We've decided this year to accept applications
for any invested Salt Lakers regardless of eligibility to vote. We encourage all
residents, including young people and those from traditionally marginalized
communities, to apply."
Redistricting is a process that occurs every ten years, where states use the
most recent census data to designate electoral boundaries within the state. The
process is necessary because it may create political inequities that, over time,
undermine democratic representation.
Local redistricting determines which neighborhoods and communities in the
City are grouped together into districts that elect City Council members. By
ensuring each district has approximately the same number of people,
redistricting provides fairer representation on the City Council.
The specific composition of the Commission will depend on the number and
quality of the applicants. The City Council will select at least one representative
from each district and may select at-large representatives as well.
It's Your city, Your Business! We encourage all Salt lake City residents to apply!
###
📞
To learn more about the commission and how to apply, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/SLCRedistricting. Applications are due January 27 by
close of business day 5pm.
News from SLC Council: Redistricting Advisory Commission Application
3/3
Beatrix Sieger
CCccommunicationsgroup@slcgov.com
beatrix.sieger@slcgov.com
801-535-7623
Council Website Meeting Times & Agendas
update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list
📞 ContactSubscribePast Issues Translate
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: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:February 1, 2022
RE: ORDINANCE: ACCESSIBILITY AND DISABILITY COMMISSION
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration proposes changing the status of the City’s current Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC)
to the Accessibility and Disability Commission (ADC) to bring it under the same legal framework as other City
commissions and boards. As proposed, these ordinance changes also would echo the framework established in
the ordinance adopted by Council in September 2021 that codified the Racial Equity and Policing Commission
(REP) in City code (that language appears in Attachment C1; there was no staff report). One result of that
change was to set the framework for a new structure or type of commission, which accommodated the
Administration’s preference to establish a formal relationship between the REP and the Human Rights
Commission (HRC). The current proposed ordinance modifications would use the same framework for the ADC.
Additional information appears in section A, below.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed modifications to the Accessibility and Disability Commission
along with several other ordinances, and potentially straw poll Council Members.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Proposed Changes to the Human Rights Commission (HRC).
1. One proposed change to the ADC would introduce overlapping membership between the HRC and
the ADC. One member of the HRC also would serve on the ADC, which is similar the REP’s case, in
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 1, 2022
Set Date: n/a
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: February 15, 2022
Page | 2
which one or two members serve on the HRC, as well. No members would be allowed to serve on all
three Commissions, and the membership eligibility requirements for each would remain
independent of one another. (See section 10.02.040.C in the legislative version of the proposal.)
2. The HRC would also be permitted, though not obligated, to review recommendations from the ADC
and issue a position of opposition or support of these. (See section 10.02.110.C.)
B.Characteristics of the Proposed Modified Accessibility and Disability Commission.
1. The ADC would consist of 15 members who “represent a diverse range of accessibility and disability
community perspectives.” As in other commissions, they would be appointed by the Mayor, with
advice and consent of the Council.
2. The purpose and goals of the ADC are defined as recommending “how the City can improve and
generally enhance accessibility and the experience of the disability community through a practice,
systematic, and solution-based approach.” See Policy Question A2.
3. The ADC is expected to meet monthly and required to meet at least every quarter.
POLICY QUESTIONS
A. If these revisions are adopted as proposed, it appears that the Accessibility and Disability Commission
would differ in several ways from most other City commissions and boards.
1. The overlapping memberships and ability of the HRC to “issue a position of support or opposition to
the Commission’s recommendation” would establish a new type of relationship that may not exist in
among other City boards and commissions. The Council may wish to ask the
Administration about the advantages and any disadvantages of this arrangement.
The Attorney’s Office may also be able to provide insight, including whether this
complies with the City policy that limits residents to serving on one board at a time.
The Council also may want to consider whether there are advantages and
disadvantages of extending the model laid out in this proposal to other existing
commissions and boards.
2. As the proposed ordinance changes are currently drafted, the powers and duties proposed for the
ADC do not include a relevant counterpart to the following language, which is granted to the REP
Commission. The Administration explained that this was an oversight. Would the Council like
to add such a power to the ADC?
10.06.100.2 Review recommendations issued by the human rights commission
and issue a statement of support or opposition to
recommendations of the human rights committee which are
relevant to the goals of the racial equity in policing commission.
Positions of support or opposition issued pursuant to this subpart
need not be reviewed by the human rights commission.
3. Typically, City boards and commissions report to both the Mayor and the Council equally. In several
sections of the proposed ordinance changes, the relationship between the Accessibility and
Disability Commission and the Mayor differs from this arrangement. The Administration explained
that this was an oversight. As in item 2, above, the Council may wish to ensure the ADC
would report to the Council as well as the Mayor in all cases..
Page | 3
The sections referred to in this question are the following:
10.07.020: PURPOSE & GOALS:
The City of Salt Lake is comprised of diverse and varied groups,
communities, and individuals, including people at all level of abilities. The
accessibility and disability commission shall serve as an advisor to the
mayor on how the City can improve and generally enhance accessibility and
the experience of the disability community through a practice, systematic,
and solution-based approach.
Council staff note: The REP’s purpose is defined in 10.06.020 as “advising the Council and the
Mayor.”
10.07.100: POWERS AND DUTIES:
A. The [Accessibility and Disability] commission shall:
1. Identify issues of importance to the accessibility and disability
community and provide information to the Mayor pertinent to those issues
2. Advise and assist the Mayor on issues affecting the accessibility and
disability community
3. Evaluate City policies and practices and make recommendations on how
to increase access and participation among individuals with disabilities.
B. Before making any recommendations to the Mayor, the Commission shall first share
the recommendation with the Human Rights Commission who may review the
recommendation and issue a position of support or opposition to the Commission’s
recommendation.
B.The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether existing staffing and budget are
sufficient to support this commission.
C. To help increase the numbers of disadvantaged and underrepresented residents on public boards and
commissions, some municipalities provide free on-site childcare during in-person meetings, transportation
services, and/or monetary compensation (albeit, at symbolic levels). Would the Council like to
schedule an opportunity in the future to discuss the question of some sort of compensation
for members of all City commissions and board?
ATTACHMENT
Attachment C1. 2021 Ordinance that Formalized the Racial Equity and Policing Commission (REP) in City Code.
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110 and enacting
Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission)
An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110 and enacting
Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission.
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, the Salt Lake City Council (the “Council”) and the
Mayor of Salt Lake City (the “Mayor”) approved a Joint Resolution, Resolution No. 26 of 2020 (the
“2020 Joint Resolution”), establishing the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and
WHEREAS, over the course of the last year the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing
met regularly for the purposes outlined in the 2020 Joint Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 Joint Resolution identified the objectives of the Commission on
Racial Equity in Policing for the next twelve months;
WHEREAS, the Council and the Mayor desire to establish a more permanent
commission, the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, that will advise the Council and Mayor
on matters related to the goal of eliminating racial discrimination in policing practices within Salt
Lake City as further set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that adopting this ordinance promotes the
health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the City.
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 2.07.020. That Section
2.07.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Board and Commissions Named) shall be and hereby is
amended to add Racial Equity in Policing Commission to the list of City boards and commissions as
follows:
2.07.020: CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NAMED:
For the purpose of this chapter the term "city board" or "board" means the following city boards,
commissions, councils, and committees:
Airport board
Board of appeals and examiners
Business advisory board
Citizens' compensation advisory committee
City and county building conservancy and use committee
Community development and capital improvement programs advisory board
Fire code board of appeals
Golf enterprise fund advisory board
Historic landmark commission
Housing advisory and appeals board
Housing trust fund advisory board
Human rights commission
Library board
Parks, natural lands, trails, and urban forestry advisory board
Planning commission
Public utilities advisory committee
Racial equity in policing commission
Salt Lake art design board
Salt Lake City arts council board
Salt Lake City sister cities board
Transportation advisory board
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.040. That Section
10.02.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Creation and Organization) shall be and hereby is amended
and reads as follows:
10.02.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION:
A. There is created the human rights commission which shall be composed of nine (9)
members.
B. Seven (7) representatives shall be appointed with one representative from each of the seven
(7) council districts; and two (2) representatives shall be appointed from the community who
represent the diversity of the city.
C. Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, at least one (1), but no more than two (2), of the
members of the human rights commission shall also serve on the racial equity in policing
commission. Membership eligibility requirements for the racial equity in policing commission is
independent of the eligibility requirements for the human rights commission.
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.110. That Section
10.02.110 shall be and is hereby amended and reads as follows:
10.02.110: POWERS AND DUTIES:
A. The commission shall make recommendations to the mayor and the council regarding the
commission's:
1. Ongoing review of ordinances or policies;
2. Use of educational resources on issues of discrimination and equal treatment;
3. Review of complaints of discrimination involving city departments or city services for
the purpose of identifying the possible systemic or institutional sources of such instances of
discrimination;
4. Review of legislation, policies, or other action by the city designed to further the
elimination of prejudice and discrimination;
5. Review of any pending legislation, policy changes, or other city action that may impact
human rights and relations;
6. Research conducted or factual data obtained, within budgetary constraints, on the status
and treatment of diverse populations and the best ways to improve human relations, to eliminate
discrimination and to secure full and equal participation;
7. Investigation of opportunities to collaborate with other groups to foster nondiscrimination
education;
8. Work in partnership to foster positive intergroup relations by instituting and conducting
educational programs; and
9. Actions as a resource at the request of community councils.; and
B. In addition to the powers and duties set forth in Subsection 10.02.110.A, the commission
may review recommendations brought by the racial equity in policing commission and issue a
position of opposition or support of those recommendation.
C. B. The commission shall report to the council and the mayor no less than once each year on
its activities, recommendations, and findings concerning matters on human rights and
nondiscrimination policies. The report shall be in writing and made accessible to the public.
D. C. Beginning September 30, 2010, the commission shall prepare an annual report for the
mayor and city council assessing the effectiveness of the city's actions in implementing chapters
10.04 and 10.05 of this title.
SECTION 4. Enacting the Text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 10.06. That Chapter 10.06 of
the Salt Lake City Code shall be and is hereby enacted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 10.06
RACIAL EQUITY IN POLICING COMMISSION
SECTION:
10.06.010: General Provisions
10.06.020: Purpose
10.06.030: Definitions
10.06.040: Creation and Organization
10.06.050: Term
10.06.060: Vacancy
10.06.070: Eligibility for Membership
10.06.080: Compensation
10.06.090: Meetings
10.06.100: Powers and Duties
10.06.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS:
The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to the racial equity in policing commission
except as otherwise set forth in this chapter.
10.06.020: PURPOSE:
A. The City of Salt Lake is comprised of diverse and varied groups, communities, and
individuals. The practice of discrimination in a public safety setting against these groups,
communities, or individuals on the grounds of ancestry, national origin, or race adversely affects
the general welfare of the city and the vitality of its neighborhoods.
B. Discriminatory practices may appear and be perpetuated in several forms including in the
less obvious implicit biases, microaggressions, or within systemic processes or training.
Discriminatory practices in public safety result in a lack of safety for specific residents and can
segregate the community.
C. The Salt Lake City racial equity in policing commission is created for the general purpose
of advising the council and mayor on how to further the goal of eliminating racial discrimination
in policing practices within Salt Lake City. Review of policies, culture and the budgetary
practices of the Salt Lake City Police Department is vital to the goal of eliminating racial
discrimination in policing.
10.06.030: DEFINITIONS:
Unless otherwise specified, as used in this chapter:
CITY: Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah.
COMMISSION: Salt Lake City racial equity in policing commission created in section
10.62.040 of this chapter.
COUNCIL: Salt Lake City council.
MAYOR: The duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of Salt Lake City.
MEMBER: A person appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council who is
duly qualified as an acting and voting member of the commission.
NATIONAL ORIGIN: The place of birth of an individual or any lineal ancestors.
PERSON: An individual.
10.62.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION:
A. There is created the racial equity in policing commission which shall be composed of
fifteen (15) members.
B. The Mayor shall appoint, with advice and consent of the Council, fifteen (15) members
who represent the cultural, ethnic and racial diversity of the City. Four (4) of the fifteen (15)
members shall be between the ages of sixteen (16) and twenty-one (21) at the time of their
appointment to serve as youth representation. Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, at least one
(1) but no more than two (2) of the fifteen (15) members shall also be a member of the human
rights commission.
10.06.050: TERM:
Notwithstanding Section 2.07.050, the term of members of the commission shall two (2) years,
except that the initial term of seven (7) members of the commission first appointed to the
commission shall be for one (1) year to establish staggered terms. Each member's term shall
expire on the applicable last Monday in December.
10.06.060: VACANCY:
If a vacancy occurs for any reason before the member's term expires, the mayor, in exercising his
or her discretion in making appointments, shall take into consideration the community diversity
of the city and current representation on the commission.
10.06.070: ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP:
Each member of the commission shall be at least sixteen (16) years of age. Members need not be
residents of the City but shall maintain strong ties to Salt Lake City and have the potential to be
affected by the work of the Salt Lake City Police Department.
10.06.080: COMPENSATION:
A member may receive reasonable compensation for their service as a commission member
pursuant to applicable Salt Lake City policies.
10.06.090: MEETINGS:
The commission is expected to meet monthly but shall meet no less than quarterly. The annual
meeting schedule shall be set at the first regular meeting in January of each year.
10.06.100: POWERS AND DUTIES:
A. The commission shall:
1. Examine Salt Lake City Police Department’s policies, culture, and budget and make
recommendations to the Mayor and Council on ways to further the goals of the
commission.
2. Engage and interact with the public to receive community input related to Salt Lake City
Police Department’s policies, culture, and budget.
3. Evaluate and study national best-practice policies for policing.
4. Make recommendations to the Mayor and Council on a racial equity plan for the Salt
Lake City Police Department.
5. Explore means and make recommendations on how the Salt Lake City Police Department
may increase diversity within its workforce.
B. Before finalizing recommendations for the mayor and the council, the commission shall share
the recommendation with the human rights commission, who may review the recommendation
and issue a position of support or opposition to the commission’s recommendation.
C. In addition to the powers and duties specified in this Section, the Commission may:
1. Make recommendations to the mayor and the council on methods of engaging with
community advocate groups and other community members on police practices or other
public safety matters.
2. Review recommendations issued by the human rights commission and issue a statement
of support or opposition to recommendations of the human rights committee which are
relevant to the goals of the racial equity in policing commission. Positions of support or
opposition issued pursuant to this subpart need not be reviewed by the human rights
commission.
3. Review the current structure of the Civilian Review Board, evaluate national models, and
may make recommendations to the Mayor and the Council on how to increase the
effectiveness of the Civilian Review Board.
D. Recommendations to the mayor and council shall be in writing and presented at a council
meeting.
SECTION 5. 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:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance Creating Racial Equity in Policing Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney
8/17/21
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Received: 1/11/22
Date Sent to Council: 1/21/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 1/11/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Kaletta Lynch, Chief Equity Officer __________________________
SUBJECT: Accessibility and Disability Commission Ordinance
STAFF CONTACTS: Ashley Lichtle, ADA Coordinator, Ashley.Lichtle@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Draft a n ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040,
Section 10.02.110 and enacting Chapter 10.07 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the
Accessibility and Disability Commission
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Accessibility Advisory Committee was formed to serve as an advisor on how the City can
improve and generally enhance accessibility and the experience of the disability community
through a practice, systematic, and solution-based approach. The Accessibility Advisory
Committee provides a deep and complex understanding of disability and disability resources in
the City and statewide, and each member has a commitment to and passion for making Salt Lake
City accessible and inclusive to all. Current Accessibility Advisory Committee have been active
on the Accessibility Advisory Committee for many years and represent a diverse range of
accessibility and disability community perspectives.
The Accessibility Advisory Committee has spent years identifying issues of importance to the
accessibility and disability community and providing information pertinent to those issues The
Accessibility Advisory Committee also advises and assists the City on issues affecting the
accessibility and disability community and evaluates City policies and practices and makes
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 21, 2022 16:32 MST)
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
recommendations on how to increase access and participation among individuals with
disabilities.
This proposal is to transition the Accessibility Advisory Committee into the Accessibility and
Disability Commission by amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110 and
enacting Chapter 10.07 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Accessibility and Disability
Commission
EXHIBITS:
•Proposed ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110
and enacting Chapter 10.07 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Accessibility and
Disability Commission
NOTES:
•Kaletta Lynch, Chief Equity Officer, and Ashley Lichtle, ADA Coordinator, plan to
attend VIRTUALLY to present this ordinance proposal.
•The current Accessibility Advisory Committee has reviewed this proposed ordinance and
are in agreement with the terms and proposed changes included.
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2022 2
3
(An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110 and enacting 4
Chapter 10.07 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Accessibility and Disability Commission) 5
6
An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 2.07.040, Section 10.02.040, and Section 7
10.02.110 and enacting Chapter 10.07 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Accessibility and 8
Disability Commission. 9
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (the “Council”) desires to create an Accessibility and 10
Disability Commission for the purposes identified herein; and 11
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that adopting this ordinance promotes the 12
health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the City. 13
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 14
SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.07.020. That Section 15
2.07.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Board and Commissions Named) shall be and hereby is 16
amended to add Accessibility and Disability Commission to the list of City boards and commissions 17
as follows: 18
2.07.020: CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NAMED: 19
Accessibility and disability commission 20
Airport board 21
Board of appeals and examiners 22
Business advisory board 23
Citizens' compensation advisory committee 24
City and county building conservancy and use committee 25
Community development and capital improvement programs advisory board 26
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Fire code board of appeals 27
Golf enterprise fund advisory board 28
Historic landmark commission 29
Housing advisory and appeals board 30
Housing trust fund advisory board 31
Human rights commission 32
Library board 33
Parks, natural lands, trails, and urban forestry advisory board 34
Planning commission 35
Public utilities advisory committee 36
Racial equity in policing commission 37
Salt Lake art design board 38
Salt Lake City arts council board 39
Salt Lake City sister cities board 40
Transportation advisory board 41
42
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.07.040. That Section 43
2.07.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Appointment; Advice and Consent:) shall be and hereby is 44
amended as follows: 45
2.07.040: APPOINTMENT; ADVICE AND CONSENT: 46
A. Appointments of city board members shall be made by the mayor with the advice and consent of 47
the city council unless otherwise provided by this code or other law regarding a particular city board. 48
B. City boards should represent a cross section of the city. To ensure that a cross section is 49
represented, the city council should apply the following criteria in considering appointments to 50
city boards: 51
1. Individuals should serve on only one board at a time, thus allowing more people to serve 52
on boards. 53
2. City boards should have representatives from all geographic areas of the city. 54
3. Individuals who have not been involved in city government should be encouraged to 55
participate through appointment to city boards. 56
4. Equal opportunity principles should be recognized in appointments. 57
5. Appointees should be city residents unless an exception in this code or other law 58
applicable to a particular city board provides otherwise. 59
C. Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation, whether merit or appointed, shall not be eligible 60
for membership on a city board unless an exception in this code or other law applicable to a 61
particular board allows such appointments. Such exceptions include the: 62
1. Housing authority board, as provided in section 35A-8-404, Utah code; and 63
2. Utah performing arts center board, as provided in section 2.96.020 of this title. 64
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
D. Spouses and family members of city employees may be considered for appointment to a 65
city board when the board is not advisory to the employee's department or job responsibilities. 66
67
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.040. That Section 68
10.02.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Creation and Organization) shall be and hereby is amended 69
and reads as follows: 70
10.02.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION: 71
A. There is created the human rights commission which shall be composed of nine (9) 72
members. 73
B. Seven (7) representatives shall be appointed with one representative from each of the seven 74
(7) council districts; and two (2) representatives shall be appointed from the community who 75
represent the diversity of the city. 76
C. Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, at least one (1), but no more than two (2), of the 77
members of the human rights commission shall also serve on the racial equity in policing 78
commission and one other member of the human rights commission shall also serve on the 79
accessibility and disability commission. Membership eligibility requirements for the racial equity 80
in policing commission and the accessibility and disability commission are is independent of the 81
eligibility requirements for the human rights commission. 82
83
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.110. That Section 84
10.02.110 shall be and is hereby amended and reads as follows: 85
10.02.110: POWERS AND DUTIES: 86
A. The commission shall make recommendations to the mayor and the council regarding the 87
commission's: 88
1. Ongoing review of ordinances or policies; 89
2. Use of educational resources on issues of discrimination and equal treatment; 90
3. Review of complaints of discrimination involving city departments or city services for 91
the purpose of identifying the possible systemic or institutional sources of such instances of 92
discrimination; 93
4. Review of legislation, policies, or other action by the city designed to further the 94
elimination of prejudice and discrimination; 95
5. Review of any pending legislation, policy changes, or other city action that may impact 96
human rights and relations; 97
6. Research conducted or factual data obtained, within budgetary constraints, on the status 98
and treatment of diverse populations and the best ways to improve human relations, to eliminate 99
discrimination and to secure full and equal participation; 100
7. Investigation of opportunities to collaborate with other groups to foster nondiscrimination 101
education; 102
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
8. Work in partnership to foster positive intergroup relations by instituting and conducting 103
educational programs; 104
9. Actions as a resource at the request of community councils; and 105
B. In addition to the powers and duties set forth in Subsection 10.02.110.A, the commission 106
may review recommendations brought by the racial equity in policing commission and the 107
accessibility and disability commission and issue a position of opposition or support of those 108
recommendation. 109
C. The commission shall report to the council and the mayor no less than once each year on its 110
activities, recommendations, and findings concerning matters on human rights and 111
nondiscrimination policies. The report shall be in writing and made accessible to the public. 112
D. Beginning September 30, 2010, the commission shall prepare an annual report for the mayor 113
and city council assessing the effectiveness of the city's actions in implementing chapters 10.04 114
and 10.05 of this title. 115
116
SECTION 5. Enacting the Text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 10.07. That Chapter 10.07 of 117
the Salt Lake City Code shall be and is hereby enacted to read as follows: 118
CHAPTER 10.07 119
ACCESSIBILITY AND DISABILITY COMMISSION 120
SECTION: 121
10.07.010: General Provisions 122
10.07.020: Purpose & Goals 123
10.07.030: Definitions 124
10.07.040: Creation and Organization 125
10.07.050: Term 126
10.07.060: Vacancy 127
10.07.070: Eligibility for Membership 128
10.07.080: Compensation 129
10.07.090: Meetings 130
10.07.100: Powers and Duties 131
132
10.07.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: 133
The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to the accessibility and disability 134
commission except as otherwise set forth in this chapter. 135
136
10.07.020: PURPOSE & GOALS: 137
The City of Salt Lake is comprised of diverse and varied groups, communities, and individuals, 138
including people at all level of abilities. The accessibility and disability commission shall serve 139
as an advisor to the mayor on how the City can improve and generally enhance accessibility and 140
the experience of the disability community through a practice, systematic, and solution-based 141
approach 142
143
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
10.07.030: DEFINITIONS: 144
Unless otherwise specified, as used in this chapter: 145
CITY: Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah. 146
COMMISSION: Salt Lake City accessibility and disability commission created in section 147
10.62.040 of this chapter. 148
COUNCIL: Salt Lake City council. 149
DISABILITY: has the same meaning as is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 150
1990, 42 USC section 12102. 151
MAYOR: The duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of Salt Lake City. 152
MEMBER: A person appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council who is 153
duly qualified as an acting and voting member of the commission. 154
NATIONAL ORIGIN: The place of birth of an individual or any lineal ancestors. 155
PERSON: An individual. 156
157
10.07.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION: 158
A. There is created the accessibility and disability commission which shall be composed of 159
fifteen (15) members. 160
B. The Mayor shall appoint, with advice and consent of the Council, fifteen (15) members 161
who represent a diverse range of accessibility and disability community perspectives. 162
Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, one (1) of the fifteen (15) members shall also be a 163
member of the human rights commission. 164
165
10.07.050: TERM: 166
The term of members of the commission shall be as set forth in Section 2.07.050, except that the 167
initial term of five (5) members of the commission first appointed to the commission shall be for 168
two (2) years to establish staggered terms. Each member's term shall expire on the applicable 169
last Monday in December. 170
171
10.07.060: VACANCY: 172
If a vacancy occurs for any reason before the member's term expires, the mayor, in exercising his 173
or her discretion in making appointments, shall take into consideration the existing 174
representation on the commission. 175
176
10.07.070: ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP: 177
Each member of the commission shall either live, work, or own real property in Salt Lake City; 178
own a business in Salt Lake City; or be employed by or otherwise serve as a representative of an 179
organization or government agency serving the accessibility or disability community of Salt 180
Lake City. Notwithstanding section 2.07.040.C, up to one member of the board shall be a city 181
employee. 182
183
10.07.080: COMPENSATION: 184
A member may receive reasonable compensation for their service as a commission member 185
pursuant to applicable Salt Lake City policies. In the event that a commission member serves in 186
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
their capacity as an employee of the State of Utah or any other governmental entity that 187
commission member shall be ineligible to receive compensation. 188
189
10.07.090: MEETINGS: 190
The commission is expected to meet monthly but shall meet no less than once quarterly. The 191
annual meeting schedule shall be set at the first regular meeting in January of each year. 192
193
10.07.100: POWERS AND DUTIES: 194
A. The commission shall: 195
1. Identify issues of importance to the accessibility and disability community and provide 196
information to the Mayor pertinent to those issues 197
2. Advise and assist the Mayor on issues affecting the accessibility and disability 198
community 199
3. Evaluate City policies and practices and make recommendations on how to increase 200
access and participation among individuals with disabilities. 201
B. Before making any recommendations to the Mayor, the Commission shall first share the 202
recommendation with the Human Rights Commission who may review the recommendation and 203
issue a position of support or opposition to the Commission’s recommendation. 204
205
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been 206
published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code 207
§10-3-713. 208
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of 209
______________, 2022. 210
______________________________ 211
CHAIRPERSON 212
213
ATTEST: 214
215
______________________________ 216
CITY RECORDER 217
218
219
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 220
221
222
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 223
224
225
______________________________ 226
MAYOR 227
228
______________________________ 229
CITY RECORDER 230
231
(SEAL) 232
233
Bill No. ________ of 2022. 234
Published: ______________. 235
Ordinance Creating Accessibility and Disability Commission 236
237
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110 and enacting
Chapter 10.07 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Accessibility and Disability Commission)
An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 2.07.040, Section 10.02.040, and Section
10.02.110 and enacting Chapter 10.07 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Accessibility and
Disability Commission.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (the “Council”) desires to create an Accessibility and
Disability Commission for the purposes identified herein; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that adopting this ordinance promotes the
health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the City.
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 2.07.020. That Section
2.07.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Board and Commissions Named) shall be and hereby is
amended to add Accessibility and Disability Commission to the list of City boards and commissions
as follows:
2.07.020: CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NAMED:
Accessibility and disability commission
Airport board
Board of appeals and examiners
Business advisory board
Citizens' compensation advisory committee
City and county building conservancy and use committee
Community development and capital improvement programs advisory board
Fire code board of appeals
Golf enterprise fund advisory board
Historic landmark commission
Housing advisory and appeals board
Housing trust fund advisory board
Human rights commission
Library board
Parks, natural lands, trails, and urban forestry advisory board
Planning commission
Public utilities advisory committee
Racial equity in policing commission
Salt Lake art design board
Salt Lake City arts council board
Salt Lake City sister cities board
Transportation advisory board
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.07.040. That Section
2.07.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Appointment; Advice and Consent:) shall be and hereby is
amended as follows:
2.07.040: APPOINTMENT; ADVICE AND CONSENT:
A. Appointments of city board members shall be made by the mayor with the advice and consent of
the city council unless otherwise provided by this code or other law regarding a particular city board.
B. City boards should represent a cross section of the city. To ensure that a cross section is
represented, the city council should apply the following criteria in considering appointments to
city boards:
1. Individuals should serve on only one board at a time, thus allowing more people to serve
on boards.
2. City boards should have representatives from all geographic areas of the city.
3. Individuals who have not been involved in city government should be encouraged to
participate through appointment to city boards.
4. Equal opportunity principles should be recognized in appointments.
5. Appointees should be city residents unless an exception in this code or other law
applicable to a particular city board provides otherwise.
C. Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation, whether merit or appointed, shall not be eligible
for membership on a city board unless an exception in this code or other law applicable to a
particular board allows such appointments.
D. Spouses and family members of city employees may be considered for appointment to a
city board when the board is not advisory to the employee's department or job responsibilities.
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.040. That Section
10.02.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Creation and Organization) shall be and hereby is amended
and reads as follows:
10.02.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION:
A. There is created the human rights commission which shall be composed of nine (9)
members.
B. Seven (7) representatives shall be appointed with one representative from each of the seven
(7) council districts; and two (2) representatives shall be appointed from the community who
represent the diversity of the city.
C. Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, at least one (1), but no more than two (2), of the
members of the human rights commission shall also serve on the racial equity in policing
commission and one other member of the human rights commission shall also serve on the
accessibility and disability commission. Membership eligibility requirements for the racial equity
in policing commission and the accessibility and disability commission are independent of the
eligibility requirements for the human rights commission.
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.110. That Section
10.02.110 shall be and is hereby amended and reads as follows:
10.02.110: POWERS AND DUTIES:
A. The commission shall make recommendations to the mayor and the council regarding the
commission's:
1. Ongoing review of ordinances or policies;
2. Use of educational resources on issues of discrimination and equal treatment;
3. Review of complaints of discrimination involving city departments or city services for
the purpose of identifying the possible systemic or institutional sources of such instances of
discrimination;
4. Review of legislation, policies, or other action by the city designed to further the
elimination of prejudice and discrimination;
5. Review of any pending legislation, policy changes, or other city action that may impact
human rights and relations;
6. Research conducted or factual data obtained, within budgetary constraints, on the status
and treatment of diverse populations and the best ways to improve human relations, to eliminate
discrimination and to secure full and equal participation;
7. Investigation of opportunities to collaborate with other groups to foster nondiscrimination
education;
8.Work in partnership to foster positive intergroup relations by instituting and conducting
educational programs;
9.Actions as a resource at the request of community councils; and
B. In addition to the powers and duties set forth in Subsection 10.02.110.A, the commission
may review recommendations brought by the racial equity in policing commission and the
accessibility and disability commission and issue a position of opposition or support of those
recommendation.
C. The commission shall report to the council and the mayor no less than once each year on its
activities, recommendations, and findings concerning matters on human rights and
nondiscrimination policies. The report shall be in writing and made accessible to the public.
D.Beginning September 30, 2010, the commission shall prepare an annual report for the mayor
and city council assessing the effectiveness of the city's actions in implementing chapters 10.04
and 10.05 of this title.
SECTION 5. Enacting the Text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 10.07. That Chapter 10.07 of
the Salt Lake City Code shall be and is hereby enacted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 10.07
ACCESSIBILITY AND DISABILITY COMMISSION
SECTION:
10.07.010: General Provisions
10.07.020: Purpose & Goals
10.07.030: Definitions
10.07.040: Creation and Organization
10.07.050: Term
10.07.060: Vacancy
10.07.070: Eligibility for Membership
10.07.080: Compensation
10.07.090: Meetings
10.07.100: Powers and Duties
10.07.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS:
The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to the accessibility and disability
commission except as otherwise set forth in this chapter.
10.07.020: PURPOSE & GOALS:
The City of Salt Lake is comprised of diverse and varied groups, communities, and individuals,
including people at all level of abilities. The accessibility and disability commission shall serve
as an advisor to the mayor on how the City can improve and generally enhance accessibility and
the experience of the disability community through a practice, systematic, and solution-based
approach
10.07.030: DEFINITIONS:
Unless otherwise specified, as used in this chapter:
CITY: Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah.
COMMISSION: Salt Lake City accessibility and disability commission created in section
10.62.040 of this chapter.
COUNCIL: Salt Lake City council.
DISABILITY: has the same meaning as is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 USC section 12102.
MAYOR: The duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of Salt Lake City.
MEMBER: A person appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council who is
duly qualified as an acting and voting member of the commission.
NATIONAL ORIGIN: The place of birth of an individual or any lineal ancestors.
PERSON: An individual.
10.07.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION:
A. There is created the accessibility and disability commission which shall be composed of
fifteen (15) members.
B. The Mayor shall appoint, with advice and consent of the Council, fifteen (15) members
who represent a diverse range of accessibility and disability community perspectives.
Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, one (1) of the fifteen (15) members shall also be a
member of the human rights commission.
10.07.050: TERM:
The term of members of the commission shall be as set forth in Section 2.07.050, except that the
initial term of five (5) members of the commission first appointed to the commission shall be for
two (2) years to establish staggered terms. Each member's term shall expire on the applicable
last Monday in December.
10.07.060: VACANCY:
If a vacancy occurs for any reason before the member's term expires, the mayor, in exercising his
or her discretion in making appointments, shall take into consideration the existing
representation on the commission.
10.07.070: ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP:
Each member of the commission shall either live, work, or own real property in Salt Lake City;
own a business in Salt Lake City; or be employed by or otherwise serve as a representative of an
organization or government agency serving the accessibility or disability community of Salt
Lake City. Notwithstanding section 2.07.040.C, up to one member of the board shall be a city
employee.
10.07.080: COMPENSATION:
A member may receive reasonable compensation for their service as a commission member
pursuant to applicable Salt Lake City policies. In the event that a commission member serves in
their capacity as an employee of the State of Utah or any other governmental entity that
commission member shall be ineligible to receive compensation.
10.07.090: MEETINGS:
The commission is expected to meet monthly but shall meet no less than once quarterly. The
annual meeting schedule shall be set at the first regular meeting in January of each year.
10.07.100: POWERS AND DUTIES:
A. The commission shall:
1. Identify issues of importance to the accessibility and disability community and provide
information to the Mayor pertinent to those issues
2. Advise and assist the Mayor on issues affecting the accessibility and disability
community
3. Evaluate City policies and practices and make recommendations on how to increase
access and participation among individuals with disabilities.
B. Before making any recommendations to the Mayor, the Commission shall first share the
recommendation with the Human Rights Commission who may review the recommendation and
issue a position of support or opposition to the Commission’s recommendation.
SECTION 6. 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
______________, 2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance Creating Accessibility and Disability Commission
1/21/2022
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards,
Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:February 1, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number Six FY2022
________________________________________________________________________________
Budget Amendment Number Six includes thirty-five proposed amendments and requested changes to seven funds.
Total expenditures coming from fund balance are $2,701,648. The Council may wish to note that the
Administration is proposing to add sixteen ongoing FTE’s using Fund Balance, and those positions would need to
be added to the upcoming annual budget. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be
$29,721,935 or 21.29% above the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY2020.
State law was updated and set a maximum General Fund Balance limit of 35%. The increase is a result of higher-
than-expected revenues and unspent funds dropping to Fund Balance at the end of FY2021. The Finance
Department will be available at the briefing to provide a more detailed revenues update as summarized in the table
later in this report.
Inflation Impacts for Upcoming FY2023 Annual Budget
Although there are positive revenue and fund balance reports, staff wanted to mention that there will likely be
several inflationary impacts that may offset that positive news. Some departments have mentioned they expect
significant cost increases for existing services and contract renewals as part of the upcoming FY2023 annual budget.
For example, item A-13 in this budget amendment represents a 36% budget increase for fuel purchases. In addition,
the CIP Cost Overrun Account is less able to offset project cost increases in response to pandemic-related
construction supplies inflation so either project scopes are reduced, or additional funding may be needed. The
FY2022 annual budget included significant use of one-time funding for ongoing expenses which will need to have
ongoing revenue identified in future fiscal years to continue. The Council may wish to consider if some
proposed items in this budget amendment would be better evaluated during the annual budget
with the full context of the City’s competing needs.
Project Timeline:
Set Date: February 1, 2022
1st Briefing: February 1, 2022
2nd Briefing: Feb. 8 or 15 (if needed)
Public Hearing: February 15, 2022
Potential Action: March 1, 2022
Page | 2
Revenue for FY2022 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for Fiscal Year 2022. The Finance
Department will be available at the briefing to review individual revenue line-item changes.
According to the Administration, projections for fiscal year 2021 were better than expected, while projections for
fiscal year 2022 continue to trend above budget. Sales tax for the first quarter was well above budget and the prior
year. Franchise tax is lagging below budget from a decrease in water franchise ($250,000) and telephone
($150,000) franchise taxes.
Other notable increases include licenses which are above budget driven by increases in airport parking taxes and
innkeepers’ tax. Permits remain very strong with increases in plan check fees and building permits. Field
reservations, land leases and building leases are leading to an increase in Charges, Fees and Rentals. Notable
decreases include a decrease in moving violations and justice court fines. Fire reimbursement from the airport is
also below budget.
Page | 3
Fund Balance
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures.
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) has confirmed amounts that lapsed to General Fund Balance
at the end of Fiscal Year 2021. If all items are approved as proposed by the Administration, then combined General
Fund Balance would be 21.29% or $29,721,935 above the 13% minimum target.
Impact Fees Update
The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of
unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of December 13, 2021. As a result, the
City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all FY2022. The Administration reports work
is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan. The transportation section was
updated last year. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,644,113 More than a year away -
Parks $11,709,246 More than a year away -
Police $471,211 More than a year away -
Transportation $6,585,173 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Page | 4
Section A: New Items
(note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items)
A-1: Suazo Business Center Membership ($25,000 from General Fund Balance)
This $25,000 would fund an annual membership for the Suazo Business Center, resulting in an ongoing
partnership with an organization that provides technical support for businesses owned by Latinx residents and
members of other underrepresented groups. The Center's location on the West Side facilitates access for area
residents, and it was able to expand its services last year because of $25,000 that the Council approved in FY2021
Budget Amendment #2. At the time, one-time federal CARES Act funding was available to cover this amount for
one year, but this request is for ongoing City general fund support.
Policy Questions:
Membership Level – The Council may wish to ask the Administration is there are other membership levels
available for the City.
Evaluate During Upcoming Annual Budget – The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration
whether this item could be addressed in the upcoming annual budget rather than in a budget
amendment. Would the Council prefer to address this in the annual budget?
A-2: Move Grants Manager from ARPA to General Fund ($66,000 from General Fund Balance)
In the FY2022 annual budget the Council approved one Grants Manager FTE in the Finance Department using
ARPA funding assuming the final guidance from the U.S. Treasury allowed such a use. The Finance Department has
determined the position is not a qualified use and requests the Council shift the position to the General Fund. The
position will continue to assist with tracking, reporting and compliance of ARPA funding as well as other grants.
The City has seen an increase in grant applications to approximately 100 in the last two fiscal years. The City is on
track for a similar number of grants in FY2022. The bipartisan infrastructure bill recently passed in Congress and
signed by the President increases funding opportunities over the next several years and could also result in more
grant applications.
A-3: Healthcare Innovation Branding Biohive ($50,000 from General Fund Balance)
Council staff asked DED why another $50,000 was needed after the same amount, also identified as one-time, was
approved in Budget Amendment #4 of FY2021, and what deliverables would result from this amount of spending.
The Department’s response did not address this specific question about the additional funding. The Department has
provided general information about the goals of the program (see Attachment 1).
Policy Questions:
Ongoing or One-time Need – The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration if this is in fact more
of an ongoing need, and if so whether it should be addressed in the upcoming annual budget rather than as
sequential budget amendment requests.
Status of Earlier $50,000 – The Council may wish to ask the Department if funds from FY2021 are fully
spent or encumbered, and what data was collected because of the previous expenditure.
A-4: Fix the Bricks Program and FTE Transfer from Fire Department to Community and
Neighborhoods Department (Budget Neutral)
This item would transfer an Office Technician II FTE and an hourly Office Technician from the Emergency Division
within the Fire Department to the Housing Stability Division within the CAN Department. No budget impact would
be incurred as the positions already exist. Note that both positions are currently vacant. Ongoing administration of
the FEMA grant which funds Fix the Bricks and the two positions would also transfer to the CAN Department.
The Housing Stability Division administers several other ongoing Federal grants, many from the U.S. HUD
Department, and could apply those existing skillsets to this FEMA grant. The Division’s housing rehabilitation
employees have also assisted Fix the Bricks operations in the past such as environmental reviews, floodplains,
Page | 5
historic preservation, noise abatement and control, etc. There may be benefits of combining Fix the Bricks with the
housing rehabilitation programs that offer small and medium sized repairs to qualified low- and moderate-income
homeowners. The two Fix the Bricks employees would be supervised by the Housing Project Manager that also
oversees the housing rehabilitation program.
Demand has exceeded program capacity since launching several years ago. Last year an engineering firm was
contracted with for home inspection and repair approvals which is speeding up that step of the process. Contractors
must be on the approved list to submit seismic improvement project bids. A training program for contractors is
being developed to try and get more added to the approved list. Issues related to supply chains and job vacancies
are also reported to be slowing the pace of contractor’s work.
The multiple emergencies of the past two years and ongoing pandemic have reduced Emergency Management
staff’s ability to work on Fix the Bricks.
Policy Questions:
Resources to Increase Pace of Seismic Improvements – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
what additional resources, staffing and/or program changes could decrease wait times for residents.
FEMA’s Use of Funding Timeliness Expectations – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if
FEMA has any timeliness requirements or expectations about the use of grant funds awarded to the City.
The program recently completed using funding from 2017.
Geographic Equity – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration potential changes to improve
geographic equity of program participants such as helping low- and moderate-income residents cover the
25% cost share, using a sliding scale based on income, and assistance navigating funding options (historic
tax credits, grants, local community organizations, etc.). The Council may also wish to ask if information is
available on the current distribution of participants for completed projects and those on the waiting list.
A-5: Additional Police Sergeant for Special Victims Unit ($135,971 from General Fund Balance)
This request would create a second sergeant for the Special Victims Units (SVU) in the Police Department and
provide funding for a vehicle, computer, and other equipment. The current sergeant supervises 12 detectives which
is more than best practice and raises span of control issues. The SVU caseload has increased in recent years. A
major driver of the growing caseload is sexual assault evidence kit DNA matches in the national database. A DNA
match can provide suspect identification and other new information for investigation. In 2014 and 2015 over 700
sexual assault evidence kits from cold cases were submitted to the State Crime Lab for processing. The Police
Department reports over 400 DNA matches have been identified which provides new leads to investigate.
If the second sergeant is approved, then the SVU would designate a team focused on sex crimes investigations
including the new DNA leads from the older sexual assault evidence kits. This is expected to improve case
investigations and the Department’s ability to process the cold cases.
The Department reports similar workload and span of control issues are being experienced for victim advocates
working with the SVU. A grant funded advocate was embedded in the SVU to directly work with detectives
investigating cold cases. However, the grant funding ends September 2022. Continuing the position by using
General Fund dollars could be a request in the FY2023 annual budget. The Department reports one or two more
SVU detectives may also be requested given the high number of DNA matches from sexual assault evidence kits.
Policy Question:
Resources to Increase Pace of Cold Case Investigations – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
what resources in addition to SVU police officers could improve the pace of cold case investigations. For
example, are there upstream or downstream resources that could help crime lab evidence processing,
victim advocates, the justice court or prosecutor’s office?
Evaluate During Upcoming Annual Budget – The Council may wish to ask if this position should be
considered in the context of the annual budget, or if the need is more immediate/urgent because of the
caseload?
Page | 6
A-6: Police Access Control Upgrade and Support ($214,538 from General Fund Balance)
This request would replace the original security access control system at the Public Safety Building which was
installed nine years ago. The funding includes $113,198 for hardware (controllers, readers, and server), $56,340 for
installation and ongoing maintenance and support estimated at $45,000 annually. The new system allows the
building to continue meeting Federal and State security compliance rules.
The hardware includes a new server that could act as the backbone for a new standard security system across all city
facilities. The approach was developed by IMS, Facilities and Engineering. The Police Department would be the first
to move to the new system. Additional funding may be needed to transfer other departments and facilities into the
new system
A-7: Fireworks Budget ($25,000 from General Fund Balance)
This request would fund two fireworks shows in July 2022: one at Jordan Park on Independence Day, July 4th, and
another at Liberty Park on Pioneer Day, July 24th. Funding and contracts for the two shows are typically needed in
the spring to ensure vendor availability. The Administration states the shows could be cancelled based on certain
conditions such as an air quality index of 100+ and severe drought. The Council removed funding for the shows in
the FY2022 annual budget because of the ongoing drought. At the time some Council Members expressed concern
about fireworks in general, that they are always bad for air quality. Some current Council Members have expressed
similar concerns.
Policy Question:
Alternative Celebration Options – The Council may wish to discuss alternative options to celebrate the two
July holidays such as festivals, laser & light shows, drone shows, etc.
A-8: This item will be held as a future briefing about the City’s efforts to diversify public safety
response options
A-9: Arts Council Staff Increase of 3 FTEs ($175,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Administration indicates that the Arts Council needs additional staff support to handle current workload as
well as the duties/role of the Mayor’s Advisor on Arts and Culture which was shifted from the Mayor’s Office to the
Arts Council. A total of three (3) FTEs are being requested: two (2) Arts Council Program Coordinators and one (1)
Arts Council Program Manager. The Council may wish to note that these same positions were initially proposed in
the last annual budget process requesting the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) monies to fund the
positions, however, these positions did not qualify for ARPA funds, and the Council did not prioritize them for
funding with General Fund dollars when balancing the budget before adoption. The Administration is requesting
that these positions be funded now using fund balance – six months each for two program coordinators and six
months for one program manager.
The job descriptions are as follows:
Arts Council Program Coordinators (Annual salary and benefits $94,383 – Six months is $47,192)
The incumbents would coordinate, organize, and implement Arts Council & Economic Development-related
programs and services; implement marketing efforts, collaborate on grant writing and reporting; provide
information and technical assistance as needed to artists, arts organizations, and the public; and track income and
expenses.
Arts Council Program Manager (Annual salary and benefits $121,116 – Six months is $60,558)
The incumbent would direct one or more major program and initiative(s) within the City’s Department of Economic
Development, including arts and culture programming, small business and entrepreneurship support, and
recruitment and retention activities. Activities would include being responsible for the department programs,
working with community members, advisory boards, and project management with the end goal to support the
City’s arts, economic and equity master plan goals.
Policy Questions:
Work for the Non-profit and/or the City – The Council may wish to ask whether the new staff members will
perform work that relates to the non-profit organization, or whether the work will be directly for Salt Lake
City.
Page | 7
Evaluate During Upcoming Annual Budget – The Council may wish to discuss if this proposal would be
better evaluated during the annual budget with the full context of the City’s competing needs. The FY2022
annual budget tentatively included using ARPA funding for three new Arts Council FTEs, but U.S. Treasury
guidance determined those positions were an ineligible use. The Administration shared the following
context regarding this policy question:
1. “ZAP Grant Funding: Since 2016, the Arts Council’s award from Salt Lake County Zoo, Arts, and Parks
(ZAP) Tier I grant funding has averaged $360,000 annually, based on qualifying programming and
operating expenses. This prestigious grant, of which the Arts Council is the only local Arts Agency within
among only 22 organizations countywide, is a continuing opportunity to leverage funds outside the City.
Due to strategic shifts in programming in 2018, the Arts Council no longer incurs the $1.5 to 2 million
dollars cost of in-house expenses to the Twilight Concert Series. A natural consequence of this shift is that
the annual ZAP award is calculated based on three years of qualifying expenditures; thus, the
organization’s qualifying expenditures have been significantly decreasing with compounding effects. The
Arts Council projects over $175,000 in losses by 2022. The additional staffing costs will qualify as
expenditures to begin to mitigate and stabilize this award in the next three years (although it will not
reach its previous levels due to lower expenditures). So, less expenditures lead to a lesser grant award. It
should be noted that the ZAP grant revenue losses will still occur and compound despite new staffing
expenditures mitigating the stabilization of this critical funding. In preparation for FY23 the staff and
board are currently considering tiered approaches and scenarios to programmatic cuts while mitigating
service losses to the arts community during one of the hardest hit industries through the COVID-19
pandemic.
2. Programmatic & Mayoral goal execution and staffing capacity: Since 2013, the Arts Council has been
a staff of six full-time City employees (5 in 2011). Since that time significant changes to programming
scope, budget, and priorities/values-and a rapidly growing city-have occurred with no increases to full-
time support. Over the years, there have been increases to program funds and the grants budget without
additional staffing support. Major impacts include our ability to deliver program services namely in
Public Art and the new maintenance fund, all public programs such as Living Traditions Presents, City
Arts Grants; and new initiatives of the City, and the Mayor’s Plan-all outside the scope of baseline
programs and functions of our Local Arts Agency designation.
Additionally, in 2020 the full-time policy role of Mayor’s Advisor on Arts & Culture was eliminated from
the Mayor’s Office and that role condensed to the Arts Division Executive Director. This has resulted in
expanded Citywide and external communications, projects, policy, and consultation (internal and
external) asked of the Executive Director as a result, and the incorporation of the management of the
Cultural Core project into the Arts Council. For the Arts Council to continue its development efforts (which
have shown measurable increases in recent years) to begin to mitigate the ZAP losses, and leverage value
to the City, capacity needs to exist to staff the above efforts.
[If the Council were to wait to fund the positions during the annual budget process], the above
considerations would just be further postponed and continue the strains mentioned. The Arts Council has
requested staffing at the Department since FY21 to mitigate these challenges. It has been in the Mayors
Plan to “Stabilize the Structure and Funding of the Arts Council” in Plans 2020-2022. While our team is
passionate and committed, we have experienced staff retention and morale issues related to high volumes
of work. Retaining the incredible talent that we currently have is of the utmost importance for service
continuity to the arts community.”
A-10: Allen Park CIP Rescope (Budget Neutral to Swap Funding Sources)
In FY2021 CIP, the Council approved $450,000 of recaptured bond funds to create an Adaptive Reuse and
Activation Plan for Allen Park. In FY2022 CIP, the Council approved $420,000 of parks impact fees for historic
preservation and renovation work at 11 structures in the park and capital improvements like pedestrian stairway
connections and new amenities. The funding includes analysis, cost estimates and construction ready designs.
Additional funding requests for construction would come to the Council in future budget openings.
Page | 8
This request is to rescope the FY2022 CIP funding of $420,000 to be used on the Adaptive Reuse and Activation
Plan instead of the pre-construction work for structure renovations and capital improvements. This change
accommodates legal limitations that bond funds may not be spent on the plan. The FY2021 CIP funding of
$450,000 would be used for the pre-construction work instead of developing the Reuse Plan. The total funding
available for Allen Park would not change.
The Parks and Public Lands Department provided the below breakdown of how the bond funds have been spent so
far. $284,253 of bond funds remain and need to be spent quickly to comply with spending deadlines. The remaining
bond funds are anticipated to be fully spent on waterline replacements, water meter replacements and roof
upgrades. Construction schedules estimate the work could be completed over the coming summer months.
-$75,000 for Assets & Structures Inventory & Documentation/Assessments of Historic Features
-$33,993 for Roof Stabilization & Leak Repair, George Allen Home
-$31,433 for Construction Documents for Water Line / Water Meter Replacement & Irrigation Upgrade
-$11,560 for Installation of Power Boxes for Site Power / Event Infrastructure
-$11,505 for Waste and Hazardous Materials Removal from Historic Residences
-$2,256 for Engineering fees charged for review of construction documents
A-11: Executive Assistant in the Mayor’s Office ($39,792 from General Fund Balance)
This item would add one executive assistant FTE to the Mayor’s Office. The requested funding is for five months.
The fully loaded annual cost is estimated at $95,501 and would be added to the FY2023 annual budget.
A-12: Citywide Equity Study ($90,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Council approved $100,000 for this study in Budget Amendment #4 of FY2020. This additional funding adds
several tasks to the study scope:
-Task 1. Additional project coordination and management for 2022.
-Task 2. Documentation and mapping of current community engagement processes at the City, including
those spearheaded by the Civic Engagement Team and those led by departments.
-Task 3. Review of current City data on how/whether constituents receive information or provide feedback.
-Task 4. Review of representation of different constituencies on City advisory boards and other groups.
-Task 4. Interviews, virtual workshops, focus groups and other discussions with City staff and community
leaders.
-Task 5. Review of the literature concerning good practices for public sector communication and
engagement with hard-to-reach populations.
-Task 6. Case studies of good practices employed by state or local governments.
-Task 7. Recommendations for solidifying and strengthening current efforts and creating new avenues for
outreach and engagement.
-Task 8. Piloting new community engagement strategies.
-Task 9. Report and three presentations.
A-13: Fuel Cost Increases ($938,076 to Fleet Fund from Several Sources)
Fuel inflation in the market has caused costs to exceed the FY2022 Fleet Fund budget for fuel. This item will
increase the fuel budget to be enough to reach the end of the fiscal year. The FY2022 budget has $2.6 for fuel
purchases which would be increased 36% to $3.5 million. Council staff requested a funding source breakdown for
the additional budget. The information was not available at the time of publishing this staff report.
A-14: COVID Personal Protective Equipment ($200,000 from General Fund Balance)
The City’s supply of masks and other PPE to combat COVID is depleting. This request is for an additional $200,000
to purchase additional supplies to keep citizens, visitors, and employees safe in City owned buildings. The new
masks will be medical grade and tests will also be procured.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
B-1: ARPA Authorized HUD HOME Grant Funding for Admin and Planning Funds ($176,660 from
HOME-ARPA Grant)
Page | 9
HUD has authorized the City to access 5% ($176,659.75) of admin and planning funds of the City's 2021 HUD
HOME-ARPA award (total award, $3,533.195). HOME-ARPA funds are designated for housing opportunities for
individuals experiencing homelessness. These admin and planning funds will facilitate existing City staff and
expenses related to the HUD-required HOME-ARPA Community Assessment. The Community Assessment will
identify needs and opportunities to help direct the HOME-ARPA funds.
It’s important to note that the total award is one-time additional grant funding from HUD. This is separate from the
annual HOME grant funding the City receives. After HUD reviews and approves the Community Assessment, the
Council would need to adopt a substantial amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for the City to accept
and be able to use the funding.
Housing Stability staff will provide the Council with a quick overview of this one-time funding, the process and
timeline.
Policy Question:
Community Needs for this Funding – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what
community needs should be prioritized for this funding and any recommendations for stakeholders to be
included in developing the Community Assessment.
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Interest Income on Bonding ($64,140 and $80,977 from CIP Fund)
The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in October 2019 for the purpose of funding the
reconstruction of City streets. The total par amount of the bonds issued were $17,540,000. At the time the bonds
were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, the unspent bond proceeds have been
earning interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect the actual proceeds available including
accumulated interest from October 2020 through August 2021. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020, were
issued in September 2020 for the purpose of funding the reconstruction of City streets. The total par amount of the
bonds issued were $17,745,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee.
Since then, the unspent bond proceeds have been earning interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
the actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from February 2021 through August 2021.
D-2: WITHDRAWN
D-3: Reimburse Misc. Grants for Unreimbursed HUD HOPWA Funds ($32,495 from Bank Pool
Clearing Account)
Finance discovered that $32,494.55 was paid out to a subgrantee in 2017, but never reimbursed from HUD for
HOPWA Cost Center 7261611. The HUD reimbursement deadline of three years has passed for these funds. Housing
Stability has identified unrestricted funds from 7800404 Bank Pool Clearing to make the City whole. This budget
amendment will facilitate the transfer of funds from a 78 Fund Class to a 72 Fund Class.
The Bank Pool Clearing account is used for housing related expenses like credit and title reports, mortgage
insurance premiums, and loan fees. The Finance Department worked with the Housing Stability Division to change
policies, procedures and staff training to avoid the City losing out on missed reimbursements in the future.
D-4: Treasury ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds ($3 million from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Treasury has reallocated unspent Emergency Rent Assistance Program (ERAP) 1 funds set-aside for the State of
Utah by low-performing cities and made these funds available to apply for by high-performing cities, such as Salt
Lake City. These reallocated funds are for direct client assistance only. To administer Salt Lake City’s initial ERAP 1
award, the City contracted with the State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent
Relief application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/. Coordinating with DWS, Housing Stability staff have
determined that Salt Lake City could apply for $3,000,000 in reallocated ERAP 1. These funds will further assist
Salt Lake City residents with deposit, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and utility arrears, again utilizing the Utah Rent
Page | 10
Relief application portal. Note: This new request is separate from, and does not affect, the City’s other Treasury
ERAP 1 ($6,067,033) and ERAP 2 ($4,800,559.40) awards. See attached funding agreement. (Note: 7262150-
Treasury ERA Direct Financial Assistance, is the current Cost Center for ERAP 1 Direct Client Assistance)
Nearly all of the $6 million from ERAP 1 has been spent with some outstanding invoices pending processing. The
deadline to spend ERAP 1 funds is September 30, 2022. The deadline to spend ERAP 2 funds is September 30,
2025. If D-4 and D-5 are approved as requested, then the City’s total funding from ERAP would be $13,867,632.
D-5: Treasury ERAP 2 Reallocated Funds ($2,880,366 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's second allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act, Treasury
Emergency Rent Assistance (ERAP) 2 funds, in the amount of $2,880,335.64, for the purpose of addressing
housing stability for Salt Lake City residents. See attached funding agreement. The City approved the first allocation
of the ERAP 2 funds in BA1 of FY 21-22, in the amount of $1,920,233.76. The City's total ERAP 2 award is
$4,800,599.40. BA1 included the following budget items for those funds: Direct Client Assistance $1,632,199, and
Community Partner Admin $288,034.76. To administer Salt Lake City’s first and second allocations of ERAP 2, the
City will contract with the State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent Relief
application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/.
The City has previously and successfully contracted with DWS for the City’s ERAP 1 funds. This budget amendment
aligns with Treasury guidance on eligible activities and allowable percentage amounts for ERPA 2. In addition to
further supporting Direct Client Assistance (deposits, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and utility arrears), and the
associated Community Partner Admin to facilitate the proper distribution of these funds, Housing Stability is
requesting City Admin to support one (1) FTE, and funds to support Housing Stability services. Re: the one (1) FTE:
Currently, the City’s ERAP 1 and 2 funds are being administered by 1 PTE. This position is necessary to facilitate the
City administration, coordination, and compliance monitoring. This position was pervious approved by Council
with ERAP 1 funding. Since then, the administration of these funds has demonstrated that a FTE is required. This
one (1) requested position would be Grade 26, Community Development Grant Specialist, fully loaded for 39
months. (April 2022 - Jun 2025, at $34.50 an hour [$215,280], plus benefits [$53,820]. Total $269,100.) This
position would be fully funded by ERAP funding and would sunset when funding expires. Re: Housing Stability
services: According to the Treasury, eligible “Housing Stability” services include: Case management, Eviction
prevention, Eviction diversion programs, Mediation between landlords and tenants, Housing counseling, Fair
housing counseling, Housing navigators or promotors that help households access ERA programs or find housing,
Housing-related services for survivors of domestic abuse or human trafficking, Legal services or attorney’s fees
related to eviction proceedings and maintaining housing stability, Specialized services for individuals with
disabilities or seniors that support their ability to access or maintain housing. A public competitive process would
receive applications from providers for eligible Housing Stability services.
Staff note: after transmittal updated numbers confirmed the total amount should actually be $41 less than the
originally requested budget. This will be adjusted for the Council’s final adoption vote.
D-6: Annex Building Renovation – Moving Funds from Misc. Grants to CIP Fund ($500,000 from
Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
In Budget Amendment #2, the Council added an item totaling $500,000 in grant funding to be used for Annex
Building Renovations. This amount was approved within the Miscellaneous Grants Fund. Since the associated
annex building renovation should be done through CIP, the budget needs to be moved.
D-7: State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan ($7 million from Debt Service Fund)
On December 6, 2021, the City and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) entered into a loan agreement
which will be used to finance a portion of a neighborhood parking structure between 400 West and 500 West and
600 South and 700 South. The loan is expected to be repaid with funds allocated to the City by H.B. 244 (2021). The
City has received funds for the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan. This amendment creates the revenue budget
for the receipt of loan proceeds and the expenditure budget to disburse the proceeds for the project.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant ($86,750 from CIP Fund)
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $86,750 for the Utah
Railroad Safety Grant 2021 (round 1) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Page | 11
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing
signals. The funding plan is to request an additional $260,250 in the Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2021 Round 2
competition to complete the funding package for the project. A Public hearing was held 7/5/21.
E-2: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant, Round 2 ($93,750 from CIP Fund)
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $93,750 for the Utah
Railroad Safety Grant 2021 (round 2) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing
signals. This grant has no match requirement. A public hearing was held 12/7/21.
E-3: Utah Department of Transportation, 600/700 N Frequent Transit Network Improvement Grant
($228,000 from CIP Fund)
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $93,750 for the Utah
Railroad Safety Grant 2021 (round 2) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing
signals. This grant has no match requirement. A public hearing was held 12/7/21 for the original grant application
for this award.
E-4: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail Grant
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands received $1,300,000 for the Foothills Natural Area & Bonneville
Shoreline Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements. The project proposes to construct five public access trailheads
along the stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail that runs through the Salt Lake City foothills between Emigration
Canyon and Davis County. Proposed trailhead locations are: 1) Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and
Utah State Capitol, 2) Emigration Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3) Popperton Park near the
University of Utah, 4) 18th Avenue in the upper Avenues neighborhood, and 5) Victory Road northwest of the Utah
State Capitol. This grant has a match requirement of $1,300,000. Parks & Public Lands has committed matching
funds is from parks impact fees adopted in FY 2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead
Development Phase II.
The $2.6 million total project funding will fully cover construction costs at all five locations based on current plans
and estimates. Note: This funding is not subject to the FY2022 annual budget adoption ordinance contingency on
all Foothill trails funding because this project is constructing trailhead infrastructure.
Policy Question:
Pausing Trail Construction and Building Trailhead Infrastructure – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how this relates to the pause in work relating to the Foothills Trails Plan.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3
G-1: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Distracted Driving Prevention Program Grant
($13,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a $13,000 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022
Distracted Driving Prevention Program. The grant funding is for overtime to conduct distracted driving
enforcement/education shifts. A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-2: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Grant
($9,690 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a $9,690 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022
Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program. This award is to fund crosswalk enforcement/education
overtime and Youth bicycle rodeo overtime. A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21.
G-3: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 De-Escalation
Training Solicitation Grant ($92,230 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a $92,320 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Page | 12
Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development De-Escalation Training Program.
The grant will fund the Apex Officer Interactive Crisis Intervention, De-Escalation and Force Options Virtual
Reality Training Simulator. It will also provide funding for up to 20 officers to attend an ICAT (Integrating
Communications, Assessment, and Tactics) de-escalation train-the-trainer course as well as training staff
overtime/supplies to implement the ICAT and virtual reality curriculums. The Apex Officer Virtual Reality Training
System is a comprehensive solution that is designed to allow trainers the ability to give presentations and classes,
conduct interactive testing and assessment, and provide immersive, hands-on scenario-based exercises with
detailed debriefing and after-action review. ICAT is a training program that provides first responding police officers
with the tools, skills, and options they need to successfully and safely defuse a range of critical incidents. The only
costs being funded are for per diem. Remaining travel costs will be covered by other funding sources. A Public
Hearing was held on 10/5/21.
G-4: U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 Law
Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Grant ($59,360 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a $59,360 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development Law Enforcement Mental Health
and Wellness Act. The grant will fund training for Employee Wellness and Peer Support Teams, Wellness Initiative,
chaplain uniforms, program education and marketing materials, supplies, program evaluation, instructor fees for
Family Wellness Workshops, and overtime. A Public Hearing was held on 9/7/21.
G-5: US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Grant ($340,246
from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a grant award from the U.S. Department of Justice under the 2021
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The total grant award is $340,246. Of that total
the City will subaward $57,055 to the Unified Police Department and $57,054 to Salt Lake County (Sheriff's Office).
The subaward amounts are determined by a federal funding allocation formula. The Police Department will use its
award to provide training for sworn and civilian personnel, to support directed community policing overtime, and
to purchase the following: a tactical robot, less lethal shotguns and ammo, tactical operation center throw phone
capability enhancements, a laptop for Crime Lab FARO software, vest carriers and plates for Crime Lab personnel,
LEAPS (Law Enforcement Automated Personnel Software), and camera systems for the Internal Affairs Unit and
the HOP physical training facility. No Match is required. A Public Hearing was held on 10/5/21.
G-6: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant
(SAFG) ($10,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for additional grant funding and was awarded $10,000 from the State
of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG)
program. The State is combining these new funds with the previously funded amount of $1,500. The funds will be
used for an overt pole camera kit, Narcan nasal spray, and drug prevention resource cards. A public hearing was
held 9/7/21.
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 4
G-1: Utah State Office of Education, Child and Adult Care Food Program - Youth After School
Programs Grant ($46,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Youth & Family Division of Public Services applied for and received a continuation grant offered annually by
the Utah State Office of Education, under the Child and Adult Care Food Program. These funds are available to
youth service providers as part of the At-Risk Snack Program to reimburse the costs of snacks served to children
participating in the after-school programs. Central City Rec. Center, Fairmont Park, Glendale Library, Liberty Park,
Northwest Rec. Center, Ottinger Hall, the Youth and Family Division Office, and Sorenson Campus will receive
reimbursement directly through the State Office of Education and will receive up to $46,000, based on qualified
snack expenses. SLC is reimbursed on a monthly basis and only qualified healthy snacks and meals served to
children participating in the after-school enrichment/education activities during the afterschool program hours are
eligible for reimbursement. A public hearing was held 10/5/21.
G-2: Marathon Petroleum Thriving Communities Grant Program, Marathon Petroleum Foundation
Grant ($100,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Division of Youth & Family Services applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Marathon
Petroleum Thriving Communities Program. The funding will be used to purchase two 14-passenger vans that will be
used by program staff to transport youth participants from neighborhood elementary schools to the YouthCity
Page | 13
Northwest Recreation center site for afterschool programming. No match is required. A public hearing was held
1/18/22.
G-3: Mental Health First Responders, Utah Department of Human Services Grant ($80,010 from
Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Human Resource Dept. applied for and received $80,010 in grant funding for the Mental Health First
Responders grant program from Utah Dept. of Human Services. The funding will be used to increase the capacity of
the City's existing EAP (Employee Assistance Program), targeting first responders. The two clinicians currently
under contract with ComPsych will increase their hours of availability to provide onsite, in person, telephone, and
virtual counselling particularly emergency services for individuals who may be in crisis. The total hours will
increase by 815 over the course of the pilot projecting. No match is required. A public hearing was held 1/18/22.
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: PLACEHOLDER: Additional Funding for Planning Division Mailings ($90,000 – General Fund
Balance)
The Planning Division needs additional funding to complete mailings for several projects between now and the end
of the fiscal year. The Council Chair has suggested using fund balance to supplement the cost of Planning Division
mailings as detailed below. The additional $3,980 would be flexible funding in case the number of land use
applications and/or the citywide mailing costs come in higher than expected.
-$78,120 for two citywide mailings
-$1,600 for land use application mailings
-$6,300 for Ballpark Station Area Plan and Downtown Building Height code amendments mailings
-$86,020 Total
ATTACHMENTS
1.Item A-3: Healthcare Innovation Branding Biohive
Response from Department of Economic Development to Council Staff’s Questions
ACRONYMS
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department
CCJJ – Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
COPS – Community Oriented Policing Services
COVID – Name for the disease caused by the 2019 Novel Coronavirus
ERAP – Emergency Rental Assistance Program
FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HOPWA – Housing Opportunities For People With Aids
HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department
JAG – Justice Assistance Grant
PPE – Personal Protective Equipment
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
SAFG – Utah State Asset Forfeiture Grant Program
SIB – State Infrastructure Bank
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
Page | 14
Attachment 1. Department of Economic Development’s "Response" to Council Staff
Questions about Item A-3, Healthcare Innovation Branding Biohive
Council Staff Questions:
The Council approved $50,000 in Budget Amendment #4 of FY21 for this same use and it was
identified as one-time. Could you please discuss why additional funding is needed and what
deliverables are expected?
Department of Economic Development Response:
In 2020, the Mayor convened stakeholders in the life science industry to help shape the City’s
economic development approach around health care innovation. The goal of this was to
harness the impact and growth of this industry and to connect companies and organizations to
workforce development, STEM education, and other programs and policies that will help
provide economic opportunity to underserved communities in the City. The partnerships
created between Salt Lake City, GoUtah, WTC Utah, BioUtah, EDC Utah, University of Utah, as
well as companies representing various sub-sectors of health care innovation are focused on
elevating the awareness of this industry with a focus on branding and marketing it through the
new entity known as Biohive.
This partnership is in alignment to not duplicate efforts, but to harness the collective goals of
key organizations and the City to retain and help grow this industry together for the benefit of
City residents. This will be accomplished through the following deliverables and activities:
i.Marketing and branding of the industry that has the City at the central hub of activity
to connect residents to an industry that creates high wage jobs (multiple entry points
for careers and jobs), pipeline of new talent through new technologies being created
at the University of Utah, and an already strong yet not well-known history of
diagnostic and medical device companies.
ii.Workforce development programing in partnership with the Salt Lake School District,
Salt Lake Community College, and higher education by providing new opportunities
for communities who have not participated before in the life science industry.
iii.Programming and activities to ensure the momentum of this industry continues to be
retention and growth.
iv.A report that updates on these fronts within Salt Lake City.
Attachment 1. Department of Economic Development’s "Response" to Council Staff
Questions about Item A-3, Healthcare Innovation Branding Biohive
Council Staff Questions:
The Council approved $50,000 in Budget Amendment #4 of FY21 for this same use and it was identified
as one-time. Could you please discuss why additional funding is needed and what deliverables are
expected?
Department of Economic Development Response:
In 2020, the Mayor convened stakeholders in the life science industry to help shape the City’s economic
development approach around health care innovation. The goal of this was to harness the impact and
growth of this industry and to connect companies and organizations to workforce development, STEM
education, and other programs and policies that will help provide economic opportunity to underserved
communities in the City. The partnerships created between Salt Lake City, GoUtah, WTC Utah, BioUtah,
EDC Utah, University of Utah, as well as companies representing various sub-sectors of health care
innovation are focused on elevating the awareness of this industry with a focus on branding and marketing
it through the new entity known as Biohive.
This partnership is in alignment to not duplicate efforts, but to harness the collective goals of key
organizations and the City to retain and help grow this industry together for the benefit of City residents.
This will be accomplished through the following deliverables and activities:
i.Marketing and branding of the industry that has the City at the central hub of activity to connect
residents to an industry that creates high wage jobs (multiple entry points for careers and jobs),
pipeline of new talent through new technologies being created at the University of Utah, and an
already strong yet not well-known history of diagnostic and medical device companies.
ii.Workforce development programing in partnership with the Salt Lake School District, Salt Lake
Community College, and higher education by providing new opportunities for communities who
have not participated before in the life science industry.
iii.Programming and activities to ensure the momentum of this industry continues to be retention
and growth.
iv.A report that updates on these fronts within Salt Lake City.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 14,2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #6
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 0.00 $ 2,701,648.00
FLEET FUND 1,482,576.00 1,482,576.00
IMS FUND 259,338.00 259,338.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 6,840,147.00 7,227652.00
HOUSING FUND 1,100,000.00 1,132,495.00
DEBT SERVICE FUND 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00
CIP FUND 3,658,298.75 3,658,298.75
TOTAL $ 20,340,359.75 $ 23,462,007.75
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 14, 2022 12:34 MST)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022.
Projections for fiscal year 2021 were better than expected, while projections for fiscal year 2022
continue to trend above budget. Sales tax for the first quarter was well above budget and the
prior year. Franchise tax is lagging below budget from a decrease in water franchise ($250,000)
and telephone ($150,000) franchise taxes.
Other notable increases are licenses are above budget driven by increases in airport parking taxes
and innkeepers tax. Permits remain very strong with increases in plan check fees and building
permits. Field reservations, land leases and building leases are leading to an increase in Charges,
Fees and Rentals.
Notable decreases include a decrease in moving violations and justice court fines and fire
reimbursement from the airport is also below budget.
FY21-22 Variance
Annual Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 112,726,044 112,726,044 -
Sales and Use Tax 89,556,472 93,436,473 3,880,001
Franchise Tax 12,102,129 11,700,054 (402,075)
PILOT Taxes 1,562,041 1,562,041 -
TOTAL TAXES 215,946,686 219,424,612 3,477,926
License and Permits 29,904,360 34,561,893 4,657,533
Intergovernmental 4,644,018 5,166,761 522,743
Interest Income 1,271,153 1,271,153 -
Fines & Forfeiture 3,474,455 3,425,328 (49,127)
Parking Meter Collection 2,693,555 2,693,555 -
Charges and Services 3,934,570 4,252,996 318,426
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,372,272 3,329,733 (42,539)
Interfund Reimbursement 22,032,892 21,523,465 (509,427)
Transfers 21,079,600 21,079,601 1
TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 308,353,561 316,729,097 8,375,536
Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 35,600,001 38,000,000 2,399,999
Sales and Use Tax - County Option - - -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 343,953,562 354,729,097 10,775,535
With the completion of the CAFR fund balance would be projected as follows for FY2021 and FY2022:
With the use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance is projected to be at 21.29%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 12,114,190 104,171,780 116,285,970
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (2,879,483) (15,335,334) (18,214,817)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 7,355,053 78,576,657 85,931,710
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.51%23.16%22.13%18.22%24.71%23.98%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) - (7,535,897) (7,535,897)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 7,355,053 71,040,760 78,395,813
Final Fund Balance Percent 14.51%21.24%20.44%18.22%22.34%21.88%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (1,000,000) (15,858,313) (16,858,313)
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - 5,138,235 5,138,235
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - 490,847 490,847
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - (986,298) (986,298)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - 1,508,044 1,508,044
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - (4,242,779) (4,242,779)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - 400,000 400,000
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - - (400,000) (400,000)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - - (1,997,761) (1,997,761)
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - -
Change in Revenue 7,298,201 10,388,598 17,686,799 - - -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 12,114,190 57,495,073 69,609,263 6,355,053 69,951,048 76,306,101
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 30.21%19.40%20.69%15.75%22.00%21.29%
Projected Revenue 40,095,707 296,422,894 336,518,601 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736
2021 Projection 2022 Projection
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $20,340,359.75 of revenue and
expense of $23,462,007.75. The amendment proposes changes in seven funds, including the
addition of 16 new FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $2,701,648.00 from the
General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes 35 initiatives for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2022
Sixth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
2
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2022.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Senior City Attorney
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Suazo Membership GF - 25,000.00 - - Ongoing -
2 Move Grants Manager from ARPA to GF
Funding
GF - 66,000.00 - - Ongoing 1.00
2 Move Grants Manager from ARPA to GF
Funding
Misc Grants - (80,000.00) - - Ongoing (1.00)
3 Healthcare Innovation - Biohive GF - 50,000.00 - - One-time -
4 Fix the Bricks Grant - Transfer Grant
Funded PCN
GF - - - - Ongoing -
5 Additional Sergeant for Special Victims
Unit
GF - 81,671.00 - - Ongoing 1.00
5 Additional Sergeant for Special Victims
Unit
GF - 54,300.00 - - One-time -
5 Additional Sergeant for Special Victims
Unit
Fleet 49,500.00 49,500.00 - - One-time -
5 Additional Sergeant for Special Victims
Unit
IMS 4,800.00 4,800.00 - - One-time -
6 Police Access Control Upgrade and Support GF - 214,538.00 - - One-time -
6 Police Access Control Upgrade and Support IMS 214,538.00 214,538.00 - - One-time -
7 Fireworks Budget GF - 25,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
GF - 364,030.00 - - Ongoing 10.00
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
GF - 282,430.00 - - Ongoing -
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
GF - 535,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
Fleet 495,000.00 495,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
IMS 40,000.00 40,000.00 - - One-time -
9 Arts Council Staff GF - 175,000.00 - - Ongoing 3.00
10 Allen Part Plan CIP [Project Rescope]CIP - - One-time -
11 Executive Assistant in Mayors Office GF - 39,792.00 Ongoing 1.00
12 Citywide Equity Study GF - 90,000.00 One-time -
13 Fuel Cost Increases GF - 498,887.00 Ongoing -
13 Fuel Cost Increases Fleet 938,076.00 938,076.00 Ongoing -
14 COVID PPE GF - 200,000.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 ARPA HOME Admin and Planning Funds Misc Grants 176,660.00 176,660.00 - - One-time -
1 Interest Income on Bonding CIP 64,139.78 64,139.78 - - One-time -
1 Interest Income on Bonding CIP 80,976.97 80,976.97 - - One-time -
2 Housing Program Construction Costs Housing 1,100,000.00 1,100,000.00 - - One-time -
3 Reimburse Misc Grants for Unreimbursed
HUD HOPWA Funds
Misc Grants 32,495.00 - - - One-time -
3 Reimburse Misc Grants for Unreimbursed
HUD HOPWA Funds
Housing - 32,495.00 - - One-time -
4 Treasury ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - - One-time -
5 Treasury ERAP 2 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants 2,880,366.00 2,880,366.00 - - One-time
6 Annex Building Renovation - Moving Funds
from Misc Grants to CIP
Misc Grants - 500,000.00 - - One-time -
6 Annex Building Renovation - Moving Funds
from Misc Grants to CIP
CIP 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - One-time -
7 State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan Debt Service 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 - - One-time -
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 UDOT Railroad Safety Grant CIP 86,750.00 86,750.00 - - One-time -
2 UDOT Railroad Safety Grant, Round 2 CIP 93,750.00 93,750.00 - - One-time -
3 Utah Dept. of Transportation, 600/700 N
FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK IMP
CIP 228,000.00 228,000.00 - - One-time -
3 Utah Dept. of Transportation, 600/700 N
FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK IMP
CIP (152,000.00) (152,000.00) - - One-time -
3 Utah Dept. of Transportation, 600/700 N
FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK IMP
CIP 152,000.00 152,000.00 - - One-time -
4 State of Utah, Governor's Office of
Economic Opportunity, Bonneville
Shoreline Trail
CIP 1,300,000.00 1,300,000.00 - - One-time -
4 State of Utah, Governor's Office of
Economic Opportunity, Bonneville
Shoreline Trail
CIP 1,304,682.00 1,304,682.00 - - One-time -
-
Council Approved
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Administration Proposed
2
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Consent Agenda #3
1 State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety
Office, Distracted Driving Prevention
Program
Misc Grants 13,000.00 13,000.00 - - One-time -
2 State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety
Office, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Program
Misc Grants 9,690.00 9,690.00 - - One-time -
3 US Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 De-
Escalation Training Solicitation
Misc Grants 92,320.00 92,320.00 - - One-time -
4 US Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21
Law Enforcement Mental Health and
Wellness
Misc Grants 59,360.00 59,360.00 - - One-time -
5 US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Misc Grants 340,246.00 340,246.00 - - One-time -
6 Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
Justice (CCJJ) , State Asset Forfeiture
Grant (SAFG)
Misc Grants 10,000.00 10,000.00 - - One-time -
1 Utah State Office of Education, Child and
Adult Care Food Program - Youth After
School Programs
Misc Grants 46,000.00 46,000.00 - - One-time -
2 Marathon Petroleum Thriving
Communities Grant Program, Marathon
Petroleum Foundation
Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - One-time -
3 Mental Health First Responders, Utah
Department of Human
Services
Misc Grants 80,010.00 80,010.00 - - One-time -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 20,340,359.75 23,462,007.75 - - 15.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Consent Agenda #4
3
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #6:
General Fund GF - 2,701,648.00 - - 16.00
Fleet Fund Fleet 1,482,576.00 1,482,576.00 - - -
IMS Fund IMS 259,338.00 259,338.00 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 6,840,147.00 7,227,652.00 - - (1.00)
Housing Fund Housing 1,100,000.00 1,132,495.00 - - -
Debt Service Fund Debt Service 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 - - -
CIP Fund CIP 3,658,298.75 3,658,298.75 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 20,340,359.75 23,462,007.75 - - 15.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
4
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 4,242,779.00 400,000.00 370,072,912.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 18,118.00 127,844,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 7,941.00 268,443,563.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 2,278.00 19,222,996.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 39,790.00 708,183,239.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 4,109.00 24,754,152.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,802,257.00 11,608,072.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 423,258.00 28,645,479.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 135,492.00 24,657,172.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
5,307,142 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 11,151,215.48 3,447,000.00 45,233,127.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 16,121,000.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 212,897.00 53,172,091.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 67,605,134.48 3,847,000.00 1,838,709,860.24
5
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^ BA #6 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#6^^
General Fund (FC 10)370,072,912.00 2,701,648.00 372,774,560.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000.00 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573.00 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000.00 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,706,761.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,844,389.00 127,844,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,443,563.00 268,443,563.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,222,996.00 19,222,996.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)708,183,239.00 708,183,239.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,754,152.00 24,754,152.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)11,608,072.00 11,608,072.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856.00 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,645,479.00 1,482,576.00 30,128,055.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,657,172.00 259,338.00 24,916,510.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for 5,307,142.00 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332.00 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)45,233,127.24 7,227,652.00 52,460,779.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797.00 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565.00 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000.00 1,132,495.00 17,253,495.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)58,015,423.00 7,000,000.00 65,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)52,752,463.00 3,658,298.75 56,410,761.75
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,958,756.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)53,172,091.00 53,172,091.00
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,838,709,860.24 23,462,007.75 - - - - 1,862,171,867.99
BA#4 and BA#5 remain open with the City Council.
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
6
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Suazo Membership GF $25,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar, Randy Hillier
This funding would continue to allow Salt Lake City to be represented on the Suazo Board. According to the organization’s
website, “The Suazo Business Center is a business Resource committed to the development and empowerment of the
Latino/Hispanic and other underserved communities. We provide assistance to help existing and potential minority
entrepreneurs succeed and build wealth.” The Administration stated Economic Development would identify a staff person
to serve on the Board.
A-2: Move Grants Manager from ARPA to GF Funding GF $66,000.00
Misc Grants -$80,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson , John Vuyk
The position associated with this move will be managing all grants, including ARPA. Since ARPA funds need to be
specifically dedicated, this position doesn’t qualify for ARPA funding and will need to be moved to and funded by the
General Fund.
A-3: Healthcare Innovation - Biohive GF $50,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar, Randy Hillier
Salt Lake City has focused a substantial amount of economic recovery efforts on the healthcare innovation industry as a
part of the Tech Lake City initiative. This industry has a strong presence in the City and has high growth potential. This
industry is particularly strategic for the City as these jobs are anchor ed with research and development and have high
potential for upward mobility. This funding will go towards a collaborative effort alongside industry partners to brand the
industry, highlight opportunities within it for underserved communities, and elevate apprenticeships, internships, and
upward career mobility.
A-4: Fix the Bricks Grant – Transfer Grant Funded
PCN GF $0.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For Questions Please Include: Clint Rasmussen, Randy Hillier
Emergency Management recently integrated into the Fire Department. Its existing programs have improved, and new
projects are in the works. Emergency Management has several federal grants that it manages including "Fix the Bricks".
Part of this specific grant funds the salary/benefits of one FTE to help administer the program. It was determined that the
'Fix the Bricks' grant would be more appropriately administered in the Department of Community and Neighborhood's
Housing Stability.
This budget amendment would amend the staffing document to reflect the move of 1 PCN/FTE from Fire to Community
and Neighborhoods. As the FTE is funded through the grant, no transfer of budget needs to occur.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
A-5: Additional Sergeant for Special Victims Unit GF $81,671.00
GF $54,300.00
Fleet $49,500.00
IMS $4,800.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith, Sandee Moore
Currently, the SVU Sergeant is supervising 12 detectives which is not manageable. SVU caseloads have continued to
increase and additional detectives have been assigned to the squad over the past few years in an effort to manage the
caseload. Also, over 700 Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) kits were submitted a few years ago and the state lab has been
making good progress, now returning Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) hits at an increasingly rapid rate. Due to the
response of the State lab, we currently have over 400 CODIS hits from the SAKI kits producing cold case leads. These cases
need follow up and investigation in a timely manner which we cannot facilitate without additional resources.
The benefit of an additional Sergeant, outside rectifying the immense span of control currently handled by a single
Sergeant, is the ability to focus efforts on the SAKI and cold case queue. Separating the functions of the squad, overseen by
a second Sergeant, to investigate sex crimes committed against adults and children from cold cases, SAK cases, and lesser,
but still serious sex crimes (voyeurism, sexual battery, gross lewdness, etc.) would reduce individual caseloads and allow
for better case investigation of these crimes as well as increase our ability to make progress on the SAKI cases with CODIS
hits.
This request for an additional Sgt includes funding for fleet and IMS.
This request facilitates an immediate need and future budget requests may be considered for two additional SAKI cold case
detectives, overtime, or other resources to facilitate investigation of these cases in a timely manner.
A-6: Police Access Control Upgrade and Support GF $214,538.00
IMS $214,538.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich, Captain Teerlink
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Captain Teerlink, Sandee Moore, Aaron Bentley
Budget request for an update of the security access control system at PSB and ancillary PD facilities. The current system
needs to be replaced to prevent a critical failure of building security required for state compliance. PD has worked with
facilities to identify a state contracted vendor that will provide the hardware, software and support for access control. The
server that is specified in this system has capacity to add other city access control systems as the city system expands.
Ongoing cost for support is $45,000 per year and is included in the initial cost for the first yea r.
The Police Department has coordinated on this request with Facilities IMS and public works to ensure functionality for all
departments as the system is expanded throughout the city. This request is for the first phase of the implementation that
covers the police department system.
A-7: Fireworks Budget GF $25,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Gregg Evans, Kristin Riker, John Vuyk
The Public Lands Department Community Events group is requesting $25,000 from General Funds to cover the annual
July firework shows that would occur during calendar year 2022. Due to the severe drought, we experienced this past
summer the City Council cut the firework funding "one -time" from the FY22 budget. Due to the firework show contract
requirements the FY22 show was already prepaid in March of FY21 to reserve the fireworks show in July of FY22. Cutting
the funding in FY22 actually impacts the FY23 firework shows.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
This budget amendment request would reinstate those funds and provide spending authority to purchase the firework
display in advance for the following fiscal year.
A-8: Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City Match GF $364,030.00
GF $282,430.00
GF $535,000.00
Fleet $495,000.00
IMS $40,000.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith, Sandee Moore
The COPS Hiring Grant was funded by DOJ in 2019 and accepted by the City and approved by City Council. A condition o f
the grant is that the 3-year project must be completed within a 5-year project period as extensions allow. This will require
hiring in January or February of 2022 to facilitate the 3-year project period within the 5 years allowed. The requested
budget would be the city portion of the hiring costs for FY 22. Funding would also be required in FY 23 and FY 24 . In FY
25, 6 months of funding would be the city portion and then the city would take on full budget for these 10 positions. The
total grant funding is $1,250,000 which will equate to approximately 25% of the cost over 3 years. The 10 officer positions
were identified to create a squad dedicated to addressing Violent Crime in the community. These positions, in conjunction
with the cooperative Project Safe Neighborhoods program, will have a major impact on the ability to proactively work to
reduce violent crime in the city by enforcement and prosecution.
A-9: Arts Council Staff GF $175,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar, Lorena Riffo Jensen, Jolynn Walz, Randy Hillier
The Arts Council is in need of additional staffing support to accommodate duties shifted from the Mayor’s Advisor on Arts
& Culture role. In addition, challenges remain to keep up with current workload, fundraising needs due to ZAP loss of
qualifying expenditures, and new initiatives requested of the Arts Council. Attrition has been a challenge at the Arts
Council due to workload. The request is for 3.0 FTEs which is approximately $350,000 in ongoing expenses and
approximately $175,000 in FY22 if funded mid-year. The Arts Council currently has 6.5 FTE to run the full operations of a
non-profit, the City’s growing public art program (including maintenance), the city’s arts grants program, programming
such as Living Traditions and the Twilight Concert Series and serve as an ombudsman to the arts community.
A-10: Allen Park Plan CIP Project Rescope CIP $0.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Kristin Riker, Lewis Kogan, Katherine Maus, Gregg Evans
Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to revise the scope of submitted CIP application for FY 2021 -2022. The
original scope for Historic Structure Renovation and Activation at Allen Park included funding for structural and
occupancy analysis of historic structures; drawings, plans and cost estimates for reconstruction of the George Allen Home,
the "Rooster House," septic system removal, sewer line construction, water infrastructure, stabilization of exterior art
pieces, and pedestrian stairway connections; and reconstruction of lighting and driveways. The current scope also lists
reconstruction of the George Allen Home and "Rooster House" to serve as a small cafe with dining opportunities. Due to
initial public engagement and feedback, Public Lands is requesting a scope change to engage in robust community and
stakeholder engagement to create an Adaptive Reuse and Activation Plan for Allen Park which will determine the future
use of the structures. In order to preserve the strong community investment in the site, Public Lands believes it would be
necessary to engage in extensive public engagement to inform a plan that will guide future management decisions and
capital improvement projects in the Park. Public Lands is currently engaging with a consultant to complete a Cultural
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
Landscape Report, which will also influence the Adaptive Reuse and Activation Plan and be completed in a timely manner,
in conjunction with public engagement for the plan.
Funding for an Adaptive Reuse and Activation Plan for Allen Park was awarded in 2020 with reallocated emergency bond
funding. However, it was ultimately discovered that it was not legally permit ted for bond funding to be utilized for a non-
capital expense. Public Lands is currently utilizing the emergency bond funding for emergency repairs to minimize damage
to the structures and the property, including but not limited to roof repair, restoring e xternal power to select structures,
investigation and construction documentation for sewer and water line installation, failing appliance removal, septic
infrastructure removal, etc.
Project tasks within the new scope may include but are not limited to:
- Robust community engagement with key stakeholders, the Sugarhouse community, and the broader public
- Development of an Adaptive Reuse and Activation Plan, informed by the Cultural Landscape Report and public
engagement, to guide future management of the site including over-arching goals, specific projects, objectives and
prioritization
- Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures
- Development of conceptual and construction documents, and cost estimates for adaptive reuse and activation
projects listed in the Plan
- Investigation into the feasibility of Allen Park becoming a Historic Landmark Site
A-11: Executive Assistant in the Mayor’s Office GF $39,792.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Dawn Valente, John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The budget proposes to increase staffing in the Mayor’s Office by one additional executive assistant. The budget is for five
month’s salary and costs for computers and other supplies.
A-12: Citywide Equity Study GF $90,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Kaletta Lynch, Mary Beth Thompson, John
Vuyk
The City has been working with Keen Independent Research to review equity practices in the City. The Administration is
seeking funding to continue to work with Keen in developing plans to bring equity to Salt Lake City. Funding will allow the
City to work with the vendor through this fiscal year to complete the plans.
A-13: Fuel Cost Increases GF $498,887.00
Fleet $938,076.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente, John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente, Nancy Bean, Denise Sorensen, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
The City has seen an increase in fuel cost. The budget will provide Fleet funding to purchase the required fuel for the
remainder of the fiscal year. The budget also proposes to transfer funding from personnel within the Police [$300,000]
and CAN [$12,622] Department to cover fuel increases. The budget also proposes additional funding from Non-
Departmental to cover the costs not covered by general fund department budgets.
The fuel increase has also impacted the Public Utilities, Sustainability, and Golf funds.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
A-14: COVID PPE GF $200,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Lorna Vogt
The City’s supply of masks and other PPE to combat COVID is depleting. This request is for an additional $200,000 to
purchase additional supplies to keep citizens, visitors and employees safe in City owned buildings.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
B-1: ARPA HOME Admin and Planning Funds Misc Grants $176,660.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Melyn Osmond
HUD has authorized the City to access 5% ($176,659.75) of admin and planning funds of the City's 2021 HUD HOME -
ARPA award (total award, $3,533.195). HOME-ARPA funds are designated for housing opportunities for individuals
experiencing homelessness. These admin and planning funds will facilitate admin for existing City staff and expenses
related to the HUD-required HOME-ARPA Community Assessment. The Community Assessment will identify needs and
opportunities to help direct the HOME-ARPA funds. Please see attached funding agreement.
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Interest Income on Bonding CIP $64,139.78
CIP $80,976.97
Department: Finance Prepared By: Jared Jenkins
For Questions Please Include: Jared Jenkins, Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson
The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in October 2019 for the purpose of funding the reconstruction of
City streets. The total par amount of the bonds issued were $17,540,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds
were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, the unspent bond proceeds have been earning interest. This amendment will
adjust the budget to reflect the actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from October 2020 through
August 2021.
The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020, were issued in September 2020 for the purpose of funding the reconstruction
of City streets. The total par amount of the bonds issued were $17,745,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds
were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, the unspent bond proceeds have been earning interest. This amendment will
adjust the budget to reflect the actual proceeds available including accumulat ed interest from February 2021 through
August 2021.
D-2: Housing Program Construction Costs Housing $1,100,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Suzanne Swanson
Recognize $1,100,000 in unbudgeted revenue for the purpose of offsetting increases in constructions costs for three
affordable single-family homes currently in development. This revenue was not included in the initial budget due to the
timing of other home sales in the Housing Program that generated the revenue.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
D-3: Reimburse Misc Grants for Unreimbursed HUD
HOPWA Funds Misc Grants $0.00
Housing $32,495.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Suzanne Swanson
Finance discovered that $32,494.55 was paid out to a subgrantee in 2017, but never reimbursed from HUD for HOPWA
Cost Center 7261611. The HUD reimbursement deadline of three years has passed for these funds. Housing Stability has
identified unrestricted funds from 7800404 Bank Pool Clearing to make the City whole. This budget amendment will
facilitate the transfer of funds from a 78 Fund Class to a 72 Fund Class.
D-4: Treasury ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants $3,000,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Suzanne Swanson
The Treasury has reallocated unspent Emergency Rent Assistance Program (ERAP) 1 funds set -aside for the State of Utah
by low-performing cities and made these funds available to apply for by high-performing cities, such as Salt Lake City.
These reallocated funds are for direct client assistance only.
To administer Salt Lake City’s initial ERAP 1 award, the City contracted with the State of Utah, Department of Workforce
Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent Relief application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/.
Coordinating with DWS, Housing Stability staff have determined that Salt Lake City could apply for $3,000,000 in
reallocated ERAP 1. These funds will further assist Salt Lake City residents with deposit, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and
utility arrears, again utilizing the Utah Rent Relief application portal.
Note: This new request is separate from, and does not affect, the City’s other Treasury ERAP 1 ($6,067,033) and ERAP 2
($4,800,559.40) awards.
See attached funding agreement.
(Note: 7262150-Treasury ERA Direct Financial Assistance, is the current Cost Center for ERAP 1 Direct Client Assistance)
D-5: Treasury ERAP 2 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants $2,880,366.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Suzanne Swanson
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's second allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act, Treasury Emergency
Rent Assistance (ERAP) 2 funds, in the amount of $2,880,335.64, for the purpose of addressing housing stability for Salt
Lake City residents. See attached funding agreement. The City approved the first allocatio n of the ERAP 2 funds in BA1 of
FY 21-22, in the amount of $1,920,233.76. The City's total ERAP 2 award is $4,800,599.40.
BA1 included the following budget items for those funds: Direct Client Assistance $1,632,199, and Community Partner
Admin $288,034.76.
To administer Salt Lake City’s first and second allocations of ERAP 2, the City will contract with the State of Utah,
Department of Workforce Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent Relief application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/. The
City has previously and successfully contracted with DWS for the City’s ERAP 1 funds.
This budget amendment aligns with Treasury guidance on eligible activities and allowable percentage amounts for ERPA 2.
In addition to further supporting Direct Client Assistance (deposits, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and utility arrears), an d the
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
associated Community Partner Admin to facilitate the prop er distribution of these funds, Housing Stability is requesting
City Admin to support one (1) FTE, and funds to support Housing Stability services.
Re: the one (1) FTE: Currently, the City’s ERAP 1 and 2 funds are being administered by 1 PTE. This positio n is necessary
to facilitate the City administration, coordination, and compliance monitoring. This position was pervious approved by
Council with ERAP 1 funding. Since then, the administration of these funds has demonstrated that a FTE is required. This
one (1) requested position would be Grade 26, Community Development Grant Specialist, fully loaded for 39 months.
(April 2022 - Jun 2025, at $34.50 an hour [$215,280], plus benefits [$53,820].Total $269,100.) This position would be
fully funded by ERAP funding and would sunset when funding expires.
Re: Housing Stability services: According to the Treasury, eligible “Housing Stability” services include: Case management,
Eviction prevention, Eviction diversion programs, Mediation between landlords and tenants , Housing counseling, Fair
housing counseling, Housing navigators or promotors that help households access ERA programs or find housing,
Housing-related services for survivors of domestic abuse or human trafficking, Legal services or attorney’s fees related to
eviction proceedings and maintaining housing stability, Specialized services for individuals with disabilities or seniors tha t
support their ability to access or maintain housing. A public competitive process would receive applications from providers
for eligible Housing Stability services.
D-6: Annex Building Renovation – Moving Funds
from Misc Grants to CIP Misc Grants $500,000.00
CIP $500,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier
For Questions Please Include: Teresa Beckstrand, John Vuyk, Randy Hillier
In Budget Amendment #2, the Council added an item totaling $500,000 in grant funding to be used for Annex Building
Renovations. This amount was approved within the Miscellaneous Grants Fund. Since the associated annex building
renovation should be done through CIP, the budget needs to be moved.
D-7: State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan Debt Service $7,000,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley
For Questions Please Include: Marina Scott, Brandon Bagley, Jared Jenkins, Mary Beth Thompson
On December 6, 2021, the City and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) entered into a loan agreement which
will be used to finance a portion of a neighborhood parking structure between 400 West and 500 West and 600 South and
700 South. The loan is expected to be repaid with funds allocated to the City by H.B. 244 (2021). The City has received
funds for the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of loan
proceeds and the expenditure budget to disburse the proceeds for the project.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant CIP $86,750.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Mary Beth Thompson, Jon Larsen, Orion Goff
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $86,750 for the Utah Railroad
Safety Grant 2021 (round 1) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing signals .
The funding plan is to request an additional $260,250 in the Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2021 Round 2 competition to
complete the funding package for the project.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
This grant has no match requirement. A public hearing was held 4/6/21 for the original grant application for this award.
E-2: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant, Round 2 CIP $93,750.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Mary Beth Thompson, Jon Larsen, Orion Goff
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $93,750 for the Utah Railroad
Safety Grant 2021 (round 2) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing signals.
This grant has no match requirement. A public hearing was held 12/7/21 for the original grant application for this award.
E-3: Utah Department of Transportation, 600/700 N
Frequent Transit Network Improvement CIP $228,000.00
CIP -$152,000.00
CIP $152,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Mary Beth Thompson, Jon Larsen, Orion Goff
Salt Lake City Division of Transportation nominated 600/700 North Frequent Transit Network Improvements (Near
Term) for $228,000 from the TTIF: Transit Projects funding.
The project installs approximately 20 new Level III transit shelters along 600/700 North from 2200 West to 300 West.
This grant has a match requirement of $152,000 coming from the Funding Our Futures sales tax transit funding. A public
hearing was held 4/7/20 for the original grant application for this award.
E-4: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic
Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail CIP $1,300,000.00
Impact Fee $1,304,682.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Mary Beth Thompson, Kristin Riker
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands received $1,300,000 for the Foothills Natural Area & Bonneville Shoreline
Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements.
The project proposes to construct five public access trailheads along the stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail that runs
through the Salt Lake City foothills between Emigration Canyon and Davis County.
Proposed trailhead locations are: 1) Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and U tah State Capitol, 2) Emigration
Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3) Popperton Park near the University of Utah, 4) 18th Avenue in the upper
Avenues neighborhood, and 5) Victory Road northwest of the Utah State Capitol.
This grant has a match requirement of $1,300,000. Parks & Public Lands has committed matching funds is from parks
impact fees adopted in FY 2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead Development Phase II.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
9
A public hearing was held on 12/7/21 on the grant appl ication for this award.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #3
G-1: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Distracted Driving
Prevention Program
Misc.
Grants $13,000.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a $13,000 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022
Distracted Driving Prevention Program.
The grant funding for overtime to conduct distracted driving enforcement/education shifts.
A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-2: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Bicycle and
Pedestrian Safety Program
Misc.
Grants $9,690.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/ Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a $9,690 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022 Salt
Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program.
This award is to fund Crosswalk enforcement/education overtime and Youth bicycle rodeo overtime.
A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-3: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS), FY21 De-Escalation Training Solicitation
Misc.
Grants $92,320.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a $92,320 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development De-Escalation Training Program.
The grant will fund the Apex Officer Interactive Crisis Intervention, De-Escalation and Force Options Virtual Reality
Training Simulator. It will also provide funding for up to 20 officers to attend an ICAT (Integrating Communications,
Assessment, and Tactics) de-escalation train-the-trainer course as well as training staff overtime/supplies to implement
the ICAT and virtual reality curriculums.
The Apex Officer Virtual Reality Training System is a comprehensive solution that is designed to allow trainers the ability
to give presentations and classes, conduct interactive testing and assessment, and provide immersive, hands -on scenario-
based exercises with detailed debriefing and after-action review.
ICAT is a training program that provides first responding police officers with the tools, skills, and options they need to
successfully and safely defuse a range of critical incidents. The only costs b eing funded are for per diem, remaining travel
costs will be covered by other funding sources.
A Public Hearing was held on 10/5/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-4: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS), FY21 Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness
Misc.
Grants $59,360.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/ Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a $59,360 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development Law Enforcement Mental Health and
Wellness Act.
The grant will fund: Training for Employee Wellness and Peer Support Teams, Wellness Initiative and Chaplain Program
Uniforms, Program Education and Marketing Materials, Class Supplies, Program Evaluation, Instructor Fees for Family
Wellness Workshops, and Overtime.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
10
A Public Hearing was held on 9/7/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-5: US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG)
Misc.
Grants $340,246.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a grant award from the U.S. Department of Justice under the 2021 Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The total grant award is $340,246. Of that total the City will
subaward $57,054.50 to the Unified Police Department and $57,054.50 to Salt Lake County (Sheriff's Office). The
subaward amounts are determined by a federal funding allocation formula.
The Police Department will use its award to provide training for sworn and civilian personnel, to support directed
community policing overtime, and to purchase the following: a tactical robot, less lethal shotguns and ammo, tactical
operation center throw phone capability enhancements, a laptop for Crime Lab FARO software, vest carriers and plates for
Crime Lab personnel, LEAPS (Law Enforcement Automated Personnel Software), and camera systems for the Internal
Affairs Unit and the HOP physical training facility.
No Match is required.
A Public Hearing was held on 10/5/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-6: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State
Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG)
Misc.
Grants $10,000.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for additional grant funding and was awarded $10,000 from the State of
Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The
State is combining these new funds with the previously funded amount of $1,500.
The funds will be used for an overt pole camera kit, Narcan nasal spray, and drug prevention/resource cards
A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
Consent Agenda #4
G-1: Utah State Office of Education, Child and Adult Care Food
Program - Youth After School Programs
Misc
Grants $46,000.00
Department: CAN (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas / Melyn Osmond
The Youth & Family Division of Public Services applied for and received a continuation grant offered annually by the Utah
State Office of Education, under the Child and Adult Care Food Program. These funds are available to youth service
providers as part of the At-Risk Snack Program to reimburse for the costs of snacks served to children participating in the
after-school programs. Central City Rec. Center, Fairmont Park, Glendale Library, Liberty Park, Northwest Rec. Center,
Ottinger Hall, the Youth and Family Division Office, and Sorenson Campus will receive reimbursement directly through
the State Office of Education and will receive up to $46,000, based on qualified snack expenses. SLC is reimbursed on a
monthly basis and only qualified healthy snacks and meals served to children participating in the after-school
enrichment/education activities during the afterschool program hours are eligible for reimbursement. A public hearing will
be held for the grant application.
G-2: Marathon Petroleum Thriving Communities Grant Program,
Marathon Petroleum Foundation
Misc
Grants $100,000.00
Department: CAN (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Ken Perko / Melyn Osmond
The Division of Youth & Family Services applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Marathon Petroleum
Thriving Communities Program. The funding will be used to purchase two 14 -passenger vans that will be used by program
staff to transport youth participants from a variety of neighborhood elementary schools to the YouthCity Northwest
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
11
Recreation center site for afterschool programming. No match is required. A public hearing will be held for this grant
application.
G-3: Mental Health First Responders, Utah Department of Human
Services
Misc
Grants $80,010.00
Department: Human Resources Prepared By: Trent Steele / Melyn Osmond
The Human Resource Dept. applied for and received $80,010 in grant funding for the Mental Health First Responders
grant program from Utah Dept. of Human Services. The funding will be used to increase the capacity of the City's existing
EAP (Employee Assistance Program), targeting first responders. The two clinicians currently under contract with
ComPsych will increase their hours of availability to provide onsite, in person, telephone, and virtual counselling
particularly emergency services for individuals who may be in crisis. The total hours will increase by 815 over the course of
the pilot projecting. No match is required. A public hearing will be held for this grant application.
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 12/13/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 471,211$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,644,113$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 11,709,246$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,585,173$ D
20,409,744$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
FY 2023Calendar
Month
FY 2022FY 2024
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 12/13/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures
Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD
Sum of Police Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$ A
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Police Refunds 8418013 -$ -$ (3,588)$ 3,588.33$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 68,100$ 270,348$
Grand Total 2,526,385$ 285,875$ 1,966,574$ 273,937$
Fire Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Fire Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD E
Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,830.52$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,083$ 6,083$ -$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 44,612$ -$ -$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568.09$
Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ B
Grand Total 212,331$ 9,200$ 1,862$ 201,268$
Parks Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD
Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ 7,500$ -$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 12,155$ 37,597$ -$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 1,038,968$ 59,796$ -$
FY Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 146$ -$ -$ 146$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 188,467$ 34,134$ 1,646$ C
9line park 8416005 21,958$ 19,702$ -$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ -$ 7,763$ 7,798$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796.28$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ -$ 1,905$ 56,109$
Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381.06
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 571,809$ 3,343$ 147,769$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 32,650$ -$ 162,395$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 284,846$ 11,297$ 227,746$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 59,106$ 64,495$ 264,877$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ -$ 425,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 64,333$ -$ 425,355$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ -$ -$ 510,000$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 8,302$ 25,921$ 1,060,208$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 107,850$ 121,172$ 3,114,882$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ 21,800$ -$ 3,178,200$
Grand Total 16,694,447$ 2,471,367$ 403,507$ 13,819,573$
Streets Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD
Sum of Street Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 20,953$ 73,999$ 700$ D
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ -$ 44,400$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 12,484$ 187,516$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ -$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 290,460$ 1,216,451$ 743,309$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 213,483$ 8,205$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ 87,063$ -$ 787,937$
Grand Total 5,967,404$ 1,155,677$ 1,416,728$ 3,394,999$
Total 25,400,567$ 3,922,119$ 3,788,672$ 17,689,776$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
8484001
471,211$
$1,644,113
20,409,744$
8484002
8484003
8484005
11,709,246$
6,585,173$
HOME-ARP
FundingFebruary 1, 2022
Through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) the City received a
supplemental allocation of HUD, HOME Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME-ARP) funds in the amount of $3,533,195.
For the purpose of non-congregate shelter, affordable housing, and related
services to benefit homeless individuals and other specified qualifying
populations.
HOME-ARP
HOME-ARP
Funding
Homeless,
or at risk of
becoming
homeless
Individuals or
households
Populations
with a high
risk of
housing
instability
Veterans
who are
homeless,
or at risk of
becoming
homeless
Households
Fleeing
Domestic
Violence
Qualifying Populations
HOME-ARP
Funding
Development of Affordable
Housing
Tenant-Based Rent
Assistance
Non-Congregant Shelter
that will be converted into
Permanat Housing
Support Services, i.e.Housing Counseling,
Homeless Prevention
Eligible Uses
HOME-ARP
Funding
Nonprofit Operating &
Capacity Building
HUD is requiring all allocation recipients to undertake an in-depth
Community Assessment, including surveying community partners and
conducting an inventory and gap analysis, prior to the development and
submission of an Allocation Plan for approval.
HUD has authorized access to, and use of 5% ($176,660) of a recipient’s
total award for up-front administrative and planning costs.
Community Assessment
HOME-ARP
Funding
Timeline
Apr 2021 HOME-ARP allocation
May-Aug 2021 Conversations with local homeless services providers and planning orgs
Sept-Dec 2021 Review released HUD guidance Re: Assessment and Allocation Plan
Jan-Mar 2022 Surveys, housing and homeless data, and draft Assessment and Plan
Apr-May 2022 Transmit to Council Assessment and Plan for review and recommendation
Sept 2030 All funds must be spent
HOME-ARP
Funding
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:February 1, 2022
RE: Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments for Former Fire Station #3 Properties at
Approximately 1085, 1095, and 1097 East Simpson Avenue, and 1104 East Sugarmont Drive
PLNPCM2021-00914 & PLNPCM2021-01007
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend zoning of Redevelopment Agency (RDA)
properties at approximately 1085, 1095, and 1097 East Simpson Avenue from the current PL (Public
Lands) zoning designation to CHSBD1 (Sugar House Central Business District 1) as shown in the image
below. The proposal would also amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map
for the properties from “Public Lands and Institutional” to “Business District Mixed Use Town Center
Scale.”
It is anticipated the subject properties will be consolidated with adjacent property to the east for future
development, but no development proposal is being considered at this point. Planning staff noted a future
project would likely be a mixed-use development including housing and commercial uses. If approved by
the Council, the subject properties’ zoning designation would match that of property to the east, which is
also owned by the RDA. Properties to the north and south are privately owned and are also zoned CSHBD1.
Fairmont Park and Aquatic Center are to the west and zoned OS (Open Space).
Two buildings are on the subject properties. The first is the former fire station #3 which served the Sugar
House neighborhood. A new station was built at 2425 South 900 East which serves the Sugar House
community, and the former station is no longer being used. The second is a Sugar House Business District
maintenance building used by crews that maintain the area’s public spaces. If the properties are used for
future development a new location would need to be found for the maintenance building.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive
recommendation to the City Council on the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 1, 2022
Set Date: February 1, 2022
Public Hearing: February 15, 2022
Potential Action: March 1, 2022
Page | 2
Area zoning map with subject properties shaded blue inside circle
Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the
Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on plans to solicit development on
this property, including whether a long-term lease is the preferred approach. The Council may also
wish to further consider/discuss community input about future uses.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if a space has been identified for maintenance
needs in the business district, and if any funding is needed to secure that location?
3. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the potential future extension of the S-Line
streetcar to the east would impact redevelopment of this property or if it should be coordinated?
4. Is the Council supportive of the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
CSHBD1 Zoning Summary (21A.26.060 Salt Lake City Code)
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community
with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour
population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with
incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and
function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District.
The tables below include standards for the CSHBD1 zoning designation.
CSHBD1 Lot and Yard Standards
Page | 3
Lot
Width
Lot Area Front/Corner
Side Yard
Interior Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
Building
Coverage
Buffer yard
(Not applicable
in this instance)
None
required
None
required
None required
Max setback of 15
feet
None
required
None
required
No
maximum
Next to any residential zone:
7-foot landscaped yard.
Next to single family: one
additional foot setback for
every 3 feet in height over 30
feet.
SCHBD1 Building Height Standards
Lot Width Minimum
Height
Maximum Height Design Review
Residential
Uses
No minimum 105 feet When over 50 feet in height or if building
is over 20,000 square feet in size.
Non-
residential
Uses
No minimum 30 feet;
75 feet if equal amount of non-residential
and residential square footage;
105 feet if 90% of parking is structured
and residential uses are provided off-site.
When over 50 feet in height or if building
is over 20,000 square feet in size.
CSHBD1 Ground Floor Use Requirements
Must be residential, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses,
restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities.
MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
The subject parcels are within the area covered by the Sugar House Community Plan, adopted in 2005.
The Plan’s future land use map designates the subject parcels as “Institutional and Public Lands,” which
aligned with the previous use. As noted above, a new fire station was constructed at 2425 South 900 East.
The Plan also recommends expanding the Sugar House Business District to include the subject parcels. It is
Planning staff’s opinion the Plan supports changing the future land use map and zoning map to align with
the recommended Business District expansion.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment C (pages 10-11) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found the
proposed amendment does not conflict with applicable standards.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• September 27, 2021-Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Sugar House
Community Council.
• September 28, 2021-Notice mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the
subject properties. Digital open house notice posted to the Planning Division website and emailed
to Planning’s list serve.
• October 11, 2021-Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee presentation and
discussion on the proposal.
Page | 4
• November 1, 2021-Sugar House Community Council sent a letter expressing support for the
proposed master plan and zoning map amendments.
• November 24, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing notice sent to Planning Division list
serve, posted on City and Utah Public Meeting websites. Public hearing notice posted on property.
• December 8, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. One person spoke at the hearing
expressing support for the proposal. The Commission closed the hearing and voted unanimously
to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• The Sugar House Community Council forwarded a few comments received on the proposal. Most
are generally supportive, with suggestions on what the land could be used for. These include a
community-oriented project rather than luxury apartments; a senior center; or extension of the
Fairmont Aquatic Center adding a recreation center. One commenter suggested retaining the
property as open space, a public plaza or other public amenity. The Sugar House Community
Council letter to Planning and public comments are found on pages 13-15 of the Planning
Commission 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 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Nick Norris Planning Director
Date: December 1, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2021-01007 Sugar House Community Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment and
PLNPCM2021-00914 Zoning Map Amendment
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1085 Simpson (2 parcels with the same address), 1095 Simpson, 1097
Simpson and 1104 Sugarmont Drive.
PARCEL ID: 16-20-252-001; 16-20-252-002; 16-20-252-005; 16-20-252-003; 16-20-252-004
MASTER PLAN: Sugar House Community Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: Current zoning designation is PL Public Lands, proposed zoning designation
is CSHBD1 Sugar House Central Business District
MEETING DATE: December 8, 2021
REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated an amendment to the Sugar House
Community Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Zoning Map for properties located at 1085
Simpson (2 parcels with the same address), 1095 Simpson, and 1104 Sugarmont Drive. The
proposal would modify the future land use designation in the Sugar House Community Plan
from "Public Lands and Institutional" to " Business District Mixed Use Town Center Scale" and
the zoning map from PL Public Lands to CSHBD-1 Central Sugar House Business District 1. The
purpose of the proposal is to facilitate the future development of the site. No development
proposals are being considered at this time. The property is in City Council District 7,
represented by Amy Fowler.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for
zoning map, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Existing Conditions
C. Analysis of Standards
D. Public Process and Comments
E. Dept. Comments
furnishings, lighting, and landscaping or a delineated and developed open
space system of the same character. The street level businesses are commercial
and retail in nature, while the upper levels can be either residential or office
depending on compatibility of the adjacent uses. Town Center Scale Mixed Use
occurs primarily in the core area of the Business District surrounded by the
Neighborhood Scale Mixed Use.
The Sugar House Community Plan also includes a section about the expansion of the Sugar House
Business District. The expansion area recommended in the plan includes the subject property (the
map below can be found on Page 16 of the plan). The subject property is within the red circle on the
map. Based on this, the plan supports the proposal to officially change the designation on the future
land use map and the zoning map to align with the recommendations in the Sugar House Community
Plan. The future land use map in the Sugar House Community Plan is proposed to be updated so that
it matches the surrounding property and reflects the zoning. Furthermore, the update helps
implement the plan by matching the proposed expansion of the Sugar House Business District.
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
The purpose of the zoning map amendment is to match the zoning of the property directly to the east,
which is also owned by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. The intent is to combine the
properties and then develop the site.
A proposal to amend the zoning map of the city is subject to the factors found in 21A.50 of the Zoning
Code. It is important to note that the factors are not standards and that the proposal does not need
to comply with each factor listed. This is considered a legislative action and the Planning Commission
is legally required to make a recommendation to the City Council. The standards from 21A.50.050
that apply to zoning map amendments are found in Attachment C.
The subject property (indicated in the red circle) is proposed to change from PL to CSHBD1
PUBLIC INPUT
This proposal is subject to the 45-day engagement process outlined in City Code. Notice was provided
to the surrounding property owners and the Sugar House Community Council on September 27,
2021. The 45-day public input period ended on November 12, 2021. The proposal was presented to
the Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee on October 11, 2021. The Sugar House
Community Council provided a letter outlining their position that can be found in attachment D.
Several other comments were submitted to the Sugar House Committee Council that can also be
found in attachment D. The comments are summarized below:
• Sugar House Community Council: The community council stated, “We believe this change
is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City through the Sugar
House master plan.” The letter does not identify any issues to consider with the proposal.
• Other Public Comments received:
o it makes sense to rezone the property to match the zoning of the parcel to the East.
o the rezoning should be approved, but nor for more luxury apartments and would
prefer a truly community-oriented project for everyone.
o Would love the site to be a senior center.
o Would prefer to see the site be retained as public lands and used for open space, a
public plaza, or some other public amenity that can service the growth in the
neighborhood.
o Should be an extension of the Fairmont Aquatic Center, Sugar House needs a rec
center.
Response to Public Input: The proposal does not include any development proposals at this time, but
it is highly likely that a future project would be a mixed-use development that includes housing and
commercial uses. It is highly likely that the site will be used as open space given the proximity to
Fairmont Park and the S Line, but the opportunity for some public space on the site and the site to the
east would be possible with the proposed zoning change. Those details will be determined by the Salt
Lake City Redevelopment Agency. The RDA Board ultimately determines what sort of community
benefits and uses are included in an RDA project. The RDA Board holds public hearings and receives
public input on these proposals. Those that are interested in providing input on the future
development are encouraged to visit the RDA website to learn more about RDA projects and for ways
to be involved: https://slcrda.com/
The proposal has not been modified based on the public comment received as of November 29, 2021
and there are no proposed modifications being recommended by the Planning Division.
IMPACTS:
The proposal is not anticipated to have significant impacts to the area. No existing residents or
businesses will be displaced by this proposal. The existing Sugar House Business District facility will
have to be relocated or included in the future development of the site. That is an issue that can be
resolved by the RDA and the Public Services Department and does not require any specific action or
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
NEXT STEPS:
The City Council is the final decision maker regarding zoning map amendments and will consider the
proposal regardless of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If approved by the City Council,
the RDA would likely start the process of seeking out a development partner to come up with a
development plan for the property. Any future development would have to comply with the zoning
approved by the City Council and any conditions or agreements decided by the City Council. It is
typical that developments using RDA land and/or resources to include requirements that align with
city goals. Common examples of requirements include affordable housing units, public space, energy
efficiency, and other benefits that are determined as part of the solicitation for development. These
are just examples and no decisions have been made regarding what may be required in any
development proposal.
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP
Subject property outlined in red
ATTACHMENT B: Existing Conditions
Current Zoning: PL Public Lands
Proposed Zoning: CSHBD Sugar House Business District 1
CSHBD1 Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to
promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can
support a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential,
commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use
in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan
and the Sugar House Business District.
Allowed Uses: a mix of uses typically found in an urban neighborhood such as this. Dense
residential buildings, ground floor commercial uses on primary streets, a mix of retail and
restaurants, office buildings, retail service, and public uses are found in the business district.
Building Height varies based on the use. Residential buildings can potentially be as tall as
105 feet. Nonresidential uses are limited to 30 feet. Mixed use buildings that contain
residential can go up to 105 feet in some instances.
Setbacks: There are no minimum setbacks in the zoning district. There is a maximum
setback of 15 feet, which means no building can be more than 15 feet from a front property
line.
Public Review Processes:
• Conditional Uses: some uses are required to obtain conditional use approval and are
subject to a 45-day early engagement period.
• Design Review if buildings are over a certain height or over a certain square footage the
45-day engagement period applies. Minor modifications to a building design standard
are not subject to the 45-day engagement period.
Surrounding Properties
Future Land Use Current Zoning Current Use
East Business District Mixed
Use Town Center Scale
CSHBD1 Commercial
(vacant
building)
South Business District Mixed
Use Town Center Scale
CSHBD1 Commercial
West Open Space Open Space Fairmont Park
and Fairmont
Aquatic Center
North Business District Mixed
Use Town Center Scale
CSHBD1 Apartments,
Commercial
CSHBD1 Zoning Summary
21A.26.060
ATTACHMENT D: Public Process and Comments
The proposal was sent to the Sugar House Community Council on September 27, 2021 with a 45-day
comment period that expired on November 12, 2021. The Sugar House Community Council Land
Use Committee met on October 11, 2021 to discuss the proposal. The Sugar House Community
Council provided a letter of support for the proposal and included comments received related to the
proposal. Those comments follow.
Norris, Nick
From:Judi Short <judi.short@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 10:36 AM
To:Norris, Nick
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: Rezone the Old SH Fire Station to CSHBD2
Here is an additional comment about the fire station rezone. Judi
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Heather Hendrikse
Date: Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:39 PM
Subject: Rezone the Old SH Fire Station to CSHBD2
To:
From: Heather Hendriksen
Subject:Rezone the Old SH Fire Station to CSHBD2
The former fire house and Deseret Industries should be turned into an extension of Fairmont Aquatic center making it an
actual rec center similar to the county facilities throughout the county. Sugar House needs a county rec center. Ideas
could include a basketball court with an indoor track, racquetball courts, fitness and weight equipment. I wonder if you
could even close the road behind the aquatic center and build a little bigger since there’s a road next to the apartments
being built where Granite Furniture used to be.
‐‐
This email was sent from a contact form on Sugar House Community Council (https://www.sugarhousecouncil.org )
‐‐
Judi Short
ATTACHMENT E: Deparment Comments
The proposal was routed to the following Departments. The comments that follow are what was
provided.
• Building Services (Heather Gilcrease): No comments provided
• Economic Development (Lorena Riffo Jenson) Business Development supports the zoning
change to “Business District Mixed Use Town Center Scale,” and encourages that the zoning
changes promotes commercial space and especially small-scale retail.
• Engineering (Scott Weiler): Engineering has no objections to this.
• Transportation (Kevin Young) No comments provided
• Public Utilities (Jason Draper): No utility objections to the proposed master plan and zoning
map amendment. Redevelopment of this property may require relocation of storm drain
facilities and may require utility improvements for water and sewer service.
• Police Department (Lamar Ewell): no comments provided
• Sustainability (Debbie Lyons) No comments provided
• Parks and Public Lands (Kristen Riker) No comments provided
• Public Services (Lorna Vogt): Inquired about how the zoning change impacts the existing
maintenance building for the Sugar House Business Improvement District. The use is
considered a conditional use in the proposed zone and if relocated to another site in the
zoning district would need a new conditional use. If incorporated into a new development it
may require a new conditional use.
• Redevelopment Agency (Danny Walz); no direct comments provided; however, the RDA
owns the property and requested the zoning change.
SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY PLAN AND ZONING MAP CHANGES FORMER SUGAR HOUSE FIRE STATION
PLNPCM2021-01007 and PLNPCM2021-00914
•Sugar House Community Plan:
•Public Lands and Institutional to Business District Mixed Use
Town Center Scale
•Zoning Map
•From Pl Public Lands to CSHBD1 Central Sugar House Business
District
Recommendation: Forwarding a positive recommendation to the
City Council.
PROJECT REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY PLAN
Subject Properties
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY PLAN
Plan supports expanding the
Sugar House Business District
(Pg 16 of Sugar House Community Plan)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CURRENT ZONING MAP
RECOMMENDATIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
The Planning Commission and the Planning Division recommend
approval of this proposal.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
RECOMMENDATION
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:
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2021-01007 Sugar House Community Plan Future Land Use Map and
PLNPCM2021-00914 Zoning Map Amendment for the former Fire Station #3
property
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris Planning Director, nick.norris@slcgov.com or 801-535-6173
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed amendments as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposal would change the future land use map found
in the Sugar House Community Master Plan from “Public Lands and Institutional” to Business
District Mixed Use Town Center Scale” and change the zoning map from PL Public Lands to
CSHBD1 Sugar House Central Business District 1. The purpose for the proposal is to
consolidate the subject properties with the property to the east for future development. Both
properties are owned by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. There is no development
proposal associated with this request.
The subject properties include four parcels of land. All four parcels are included in the proposal.
The total land area included in this proposal is approximately 0.75 acres.
January 14, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 14, 2022 11:29 MST)
01/14/2022
01/14/2022
The property currently contains two
buildings: one was the former fire
station for the Sugar House
neighborhood, and one contains a
maintenance building for the business
improvement district that maintains
public spaces in the area.
The subject properties are in an area
that the Sugar House Community
Plan identifies as an expansion of the
Sugar House central business district.
Updating the future land use map and
the zoning map are consistent with
the goals and policies recommended
in the Sugar House Community Plan.
PUBLIC PROCESS: The Sugar
House Community Council was
notified of the proposal on September
27, 2021, starting the 45-day public
comment period. The Sugar House
Community Council Land Use
Committee discussed the item at their
October 11, 2021 meeting. Property
owners and tenants within 300 feet of
the subject property were also notified of the 45-day public comment period. Information was
posted on the Planning Division website and the notices provided a link to the online
information.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 8, 2022. The public hearing was
noticed by a direct mailing to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject
properties, posted on the City and Statue of Utah Public Notice website, emailed to the Planning
Division list serve, and signs were posted on the property advertising the meeting.
After he public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City
Council adopt the proposal. More detailed information on public input can be found in the
Planning Commission staff report.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of December 8, 2021 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of December 8, 2021 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of December 8, 2021 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3) Original Petition
4) Mailing List
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2021
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1085 East Simpson Avenue, 1095
East Simpson Avenue, 1097 East Simpson Avenue, and 1104 East Sugarmont Drive to rezone
those properties from PL Public Lands District to CSHBD1 Sugar House Business District) and
amending the Sugar House Community Plan Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1085 East
Simpson Avenue, 1095 East Simpson Avenue, 1097 East Simpson Avenue and 1104 East
Sugarmont Drive to rezone those properties from PL Public Lands District to CSHBD 1 Sugar
House Business District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00914 and amending the
Sugar House Community Future Land Use Map pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-
01007.
WHEREAS, Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a petition to rezone properties located at
1085 East Simpson Avenue, 1095 East Simpson Avenue, 1097 East Simpson Avenue and 1104
East Sugarmont Drive to rezone those properties from PL Public Lands District to CSHBD1
Sugar House Business District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00914 and amending
the Sugar House Community Future Land Use Map with respect to the property from Public
Lands and Institutional to Business District Mixed Use Town Center Scale pursuant to petition
number PLNPCM2021-01007; and
WHEREAS, at its December 8, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt
Lake City Council on said applications; and
WHEREAS, after holding 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 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 properties located at 1085 East Simpson Avenue, 1095 East
Simpson Avenue, 1097 East Simpson Avenue and 1104 East Sugarmont Drive (Tax ID Nos. 16-
20-252-001; 16-20-252-002; 21-20-252-003 and 16-20-252-005), which are more particularly
described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from PL Public Lands District to
CSHBD1 Sugar House Business District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The Future Land
Use Map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change
the future land use designation of the properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Public Lands and
Institutional to Business District Mixed Use Town Center Scale.
SECTION 3. 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 ____________, 2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
3
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
December 20, 2021
4
Exhibit “A”
Legal descriptions of the properties to be rezoned:
Parcel 16-20-252-001
COM AT NW COR LOT 4 BLK 3 GRANITE SUB PLAT A S 0^14’48” W 151.61 FT N
46^19’51” W 60.28 FT NW’LY ALG CURVE TO LEFT 202.5 FT S 89^45’15” E 211.65 FT S
0^14’48” W 1.31 FT TO BEG0.32 AC BEING IN LOT 11 BLK 45 10 AC A.
Parcel 16-20-252-002
COM NW COR LOT 4, BLK 3, GRANITE SUB PLAT “A”, SE’LY ALG CURVE TO RIGHT
105.05 FT; S 43^40’09” W 119.64 FT; N 0^14’48” E 151.61 FT TO BEG.
Parcel 16-20-252-003
COM N 0^14’48” E 47 FT FR SW COR LOT 4, BLK 3, GRANITE SUB PLAT A; S 46^19’51”
E 68.15 FT; S 89^56’ E 53.396 FT; N 0^14’48” E 109.306 FT; NW’LY ALG CURVE TO L
31.88 FT; S 43^40’09” W 119.641 FT TO BEG.
Parcel 16-20-252-005
COM AT NW COR LOT 4, BLK 3, GRANITE SUB PLAT A, SE’LY ALG CURVE TO R
136.933 FT; N 0^14’48” E 46.093 FT; NW’LY ALG CURVE TO L 64.526 FT; N 89^45’15” W
54.792 FT TO BEG.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. MAILING LIST
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2021-00914 and PLNPCM20221-01007
August 23, 2021 The mayor initiated a petition to update the community master plan and
zoning of the property where the former Sugar House Fire Station was
located.
September 27, 2021 Petition assigned to Nick Norris, Planning Director, for staff analysis and
processing.
September 28, 2021 Petition routed to each City Department and Division for review and
comment.
September 28, 2021 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. Notice also
sent to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the proposal.
September 28, 2021 Public information posted to the Planning Division website explaining the
proposal and containing proposed text of code changes.
September 28, 2021 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.
October 11, 2021 Presentation to the Sugar House Land Use Committee.
November 24, 2021 Public notice for December 20, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing
sent to Division list serve, posted on city website, and posted on Utah
Public Meeting website. Property posted with sign advertising publich
earing.
December 8, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and conducted a public
hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that
the City Council adopt the proposal.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition P:NPCM2021-00914 and PLNPCM2021-01007 – A
petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan and the
Salt Lake City Zoning Map for properties located at approximately 1085 Simpson (2 parcels with the
same address), 1095 Simpson, 1097 Simpson and 1104 Sugarmont Drive. The proposal would modify the
future land use designation in the Sugar House Community Plan from "Public Lands and Institutional" to
" Business District Mixed Use Town Center Scale" and the zoning map from PL Public Lands to
CSHBD-1 Central Sugar House Business District 1. The purpose of the proposal is to facility the future
development of the site. No development proposals are being considered at this time. The City Council
may consider other future land use designations or zoning districts as part of this proposal.
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter.
This meeting will be held via electronic means, while potentially also providing for an in-
person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building,
located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. If you are interested in
participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, please visit the website
www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings/ or call 801-535-7654 to obtain connection
information.
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 801-535-6173 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.
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 669 WEST 200 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
SUGARHOUSE VETERINARY HOSPITAL BUILDING PTRN 2206 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK PO BOX 54288 LEXINGTON KY 40555
SUGARMONT LLC 2121 S MCCLELLAND ST #303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 S STATE ST # 425 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
SUGARHOUSE DIXON, LLC 11 SPANISH BAY DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
SALT LAKE CITY CORP.PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
Unknown PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE CITY UT UT 84114
YORK FAMILY 2257, LLC 2257 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF SALT LAKE CITY UTAH 425 PIKE ST # BRO79 SEATTLE WA 98101
CMRK LLC; RLR INVESTMENTS #1 LLC 2280 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEE'S SUGARHOUSE INVESTMENTS LLC 777 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 975 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2200 S HIGHLAND DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2220 S HIGHLAND DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2191 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1055 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1044 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1040 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1085 E SIMPSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1095 E SIMPSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1097 E SIMPSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1104 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1116 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2234 S HIGHLAND DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2262 S HIGHLAND DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2274 S HIGHLAND DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2227 S HIGHLAND DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2201 S HIGHLAND DR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Nick Norris c/o Planning Division PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84111
PLNPCM2021-00709 1 October 27, 2021
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Amanda Roman, Principal Planner
Amanda.Roman@slcgov.com or 385-386-2765 (Cell) / 801-535-7660 (Voicemail)
Date: October 27, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2021-00709 – Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Map Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1193 W California Avenue
PARCEL SIZE: Total of .28 acres (Approx. 12,200 square feet)
PARCEL ID: 15-14-104-001-0000
MASTER PLAN: Westside Master Plan (2014)
ZONING DISTRICT: R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential
REQUEST: Salt Lake City has received a request from Kesaia Young, property owner, requesting that the City
amend the zoning map designation for the property at 1193 W California Avenue. The proposal would rezone
the property from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential). The rezone
would allow the property to be subdivided into two lots that each meet the minimum lot area for a single-family
dwelling. A specific development proposal was not submitted with the Zoning Map Amendment, but if
approved, the property owner intends to redevelop the site by replacing the existing single-family home with
two new single-family homes, each on their own parcel.
The Planning Commission’s role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council, who
will make the final decision on the requested zoning map amendment.
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 proposed zoning map
amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Current Zoning Map & Future Land Use Map
B. Applicant Information
C. Site and Vicinity Photos
D. Analysis of Amendment Standards
E. Public Process and Comments
F. Department Comments
PLNPCM2021-00709 2 October 27, 2021
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property owner is requesting to change the zoning map designation of the property at 1193 W California
Avenue from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) with the intent
to subdivide the parcel into two lots to build two new single-family homes and potentially two attached ADUs.
The lots would remain under the same ownership and the dwelling units would be occupied by additional
family members. A specific site development proposal has not been submitted, but the existing single-family
home that was built in 1946 would be replaced.
The subject property is approximately 12,200 square feet. The current R-1/7,000 zoning district requires a
minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling. Under the existing R-1/7,000 zoning, the
subject property does not have the minimum 14,000 square feet to subdivide the property and build two single
family dwellings. The proposed request to amend the zoning map from R-1/7,000 to R-1/5,000 would allow
for the property to be subdivided into two separate lots that each meet the minimum lot size requirements of
5,000 square feet with the intent of building a single-family dwelling on each parcel.
The property is located in the South Salt Lake Subdivision, recorded in 1890. The original lots were narrow and
deep, measuring between 4,092 and 4,224 square feet. The residential development pattern largely remains
intact, but most of the properties were consolidated to create larger lots and the north-south alleyway between
the properties was vacated. The neighborhood consists of single-and two-family homes, institutional uses, as
well as some interspersed commercial. The Jordan River Parkway Trail is less than 600 feet to the east and two
“Community Nodes”, as identified in the Westside Master Plan, are less than 600 feet to the west, at
approximately California Avenue and between 1300 W and Concord Street.
The Westside Master Plan is not being changed and the proposed zoning is supported by the neighborhood
and housing visions identified in the plan which states, “All new infill development, whether single-, two- or
multi-family residential, should adhere to the prevailing development pattern in the immediate area.” The
prevailing development pattern in the neighborhood, and on the westside, is single-family residential. The
proposed rezone would not change the character of the existing single-family neighborhood but would allow
for the subject property to be subdivided, resulting in two lots that could be developed with single-family
dwellings. The applicant provided a project narrative explaining the rationale for the zoning map amendment
request that can be found in Attachment B of this report.
PLNPCM2021-00709 3 October 27, 2021
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
The key considerations associated with this proposal are:
1. Compliance with Master Plan Policies
2. Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
3. R-1/5,000 and R-1/7,000 Zoning District Comparison
Consideration 1: Compliance with Master Plan Policies
Westside Master Plan (2014)
Through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure and increased community investment, the
Westside Master Plan envisions redevelopment that maintains the character of existing stable
neighborhoods, while diversifying commercial centers and growing recreational assets. The plan supports
higher density residential growth where appropriate and encourages the reinvestment in and protect of
existing low density residential neighborhoods. The master plan anticipates that the overall level of change
within single-family neighborhoods will be low, but they are viewed as areas of opportunity for incremental
growth and redevelopment. As stated in the master plan, “The established and stable neighborhoods of the
Westside will remain the core of the community, retaining traditional development patterns while also
providing new housing opportunities.”
The Westside Community is comprised of the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods, both of which have
designated neighborhood, community and regional nodes where future growth is to be accommodated. The
subject property is located within the Glendale neighborhood and adjacent to a “Community Node” located
at California Avenue and Concord Street, where the Glendale City Library and a Baptist and LDS church are
located. A “Community Node” is defined as “an intersection consisting of at least one major road where there
is potential for changes in land use and the development pattern.” Community nodes support adding
residential density in low-density neighborhoods in the form of infill development and appropriately scaled
multi-family units and ADUs. Community nodes are also areas where smaller commercial and institutional
uses should be established as anchoring businesses within residential areas.
The proposed zoning map amendment is compatible with the traditional development pattern of the
neighborhood and the increase in allowable density is supported by the property’s location near a community
node.
Plan Salt Lake (2015)
The proposed zoning map amendment adheres to the initiatives within Plan Salt Lake, a citywide plan that
outlines the City’s overall vision for sustainable growth and development. This includes the development of a
diverse mix of uses and housing options, which are essential to accommodate the growing population in a
responsible manner. The compatibility of new development and how it fits into the scale and character of
existing neighborhoods is also an important consideration. Applicable growth and housing initiatives that the
proposed zoning map amendment would help implement are below.
Growth:
• Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and
transportation corridors.
• Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
• Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population.
• Provide access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle (including parks, trails, recreation, and
healthy food).
PLNPCM2021-00709 4 October 27, 2021
Housing:
• Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
• Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
• Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
• Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
Guiding Principles outlined in Plan Salt Lake that would relate to the proposed change include the following:
• Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and
services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
• Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they
live, and how they get around.
• Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city, providing
the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
The proposed zoning map amendment is aligned with the vision and guiding principles outlined in Plan Salt
Lake relating to growth and housing opportunities. Additionally, the subject property is located on a major
transit corridor and nearby recreation and outdoor amenities, which can support the increase in density.
Consideration 2: Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
The subject property is located on the south-east corner of California Avenue and 1200 West. California
Avenue is one of the largest east-west roads in the area and is surrounded by primarily residential
development. Surrounding uses include churches, public libraries, and the Jordan River Parkway Trail.
The residential zoning designation on the south side of California Avenue is R-1/7,000 Single-Family
Residential. While it is a single-family zoning designation, there are existing duplexes in the neighborhood,
including one directly east of the subject property. There are three nearby corners that are designated as
Community Nodes and zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which are intended to support small scale
commercial development. The properties on the north side of California Avenue are primarily zoned R-
1/5,000 Single-Family Residential with one north-south block face that is zoned R-2 Single- and Two-Family
Residential.
CALIFORNIA AVE 1200 EMERY ST. CONCORD ST.
PLNPCM2021-00709 5 October 27, 2021
While the proposed rezone would create the only R-1/5,000 property on the south side of California Avenue,
the existing development pattern is more compatible with the R-1/5,000 zoning standards than the R-1/7,000
zoning standards. As discussed above, the recorded South Salt Lake Subdivision plat consisted of narrow lots
just over 4,000 square feet in size. The built development pattern differs from the original subdivision as most
of the lots have been consolidated and the north-south alleyway was vacated.
For comparison, staff reviewed the average lot sizes of the lots between California Avenue and Utahna Drive
and between 1200 W and Emery Street. The 1890 South Salt Lake Subdivision plat has 72 lots, which have
since been consolidated into 42 total lots. Of the 42 lots, only three, including the subject property, exceed
7,000 square feet. The other 39 lots are approximately 6,500 square feet and therefore, do not meet the
current R-1/7,000 zoning standards, even after being consolidated. The change in zoning would reflect the
original and current residential development pattern and provide a compatible infill housing opportunity.
Consideration 3: R-1/5,000 and R-1/7,000 Zoning District Comparison
A comparison of the R-1/5,000 and R-1/7,000 zoning standards is below. In addition to the difference in
minimum lot square footage, the R-1/5,000 zone also has reduced rear and side yard building setbacks. The
permitted building height, lot width, lot coverage, front yard setback, and parking requirements are the same
in both zones. The permitted and conditional land uses are also identical in both zones. Staff does not
anticipate any significant impacts to the surrounding property owners or occupants if the rezone is approved
and the lot is subsequently subdivided and developed under the R-1/5,000 zoning standards.
ZONING STANDARDS
MIN. LOT
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
MAX.
BUILDING
HEIGHT
MIN.
LOT
WIDTH
MAX. LOT
COVERAGE
FRONT
YARD
REAR
YARD
CORNER
SIDE YARD
INTERIOR
SIDE YARD
R-1/5,000 5,000 SF 28 feet for
pitched roofs
20 feet for flat
roofs
50 feet 40% Average of
front yards for
existing
buildings on
block face.
Where none,
20 feet
minimum
25% of lot
depth or 20
feet,
whichever is
less
Corner: 10 feet
Interior: 4 feet on
corner lots
4 feet on one side
and 10 feet on the
other for interior
lots
R-1/7,000 7,000 SF 28 feet for
pitched roofs
20 feet for flat
roofs
50 feet 40% Average of
front yards for
existing
buildings on
block face.
Where none,
20 feet
minimum
25 feet Corner: Equal
to the average
of the existing
buildings on
the block face.
Where none,
20 feet
Interior: 6 feet on
corner lots
6 feet on one side
and 10 feet on the
other for interior
lots
PLNPCM2021-00709 6 October 27, 2021
DISCUSSION
The proposed rezone is compatible with the platted subdivision and reflects the existing development pattern,
which consists of single- and two-family dwellings on lots less than 7,000 square feet in size. The proposed
change would allow for the subdivision of the property but is not expected to change the character of the
neighborhood or have adverse impacts on future growth.
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map meets the vision of the Westside Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake
housing and growth initiatives. Furthermore, rezoning the property to R-1/5,000 meets the intent of the
zoning district which is to, “provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods on lots not less
than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in
the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and
intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable
places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the
existing character of the neighborhood”.
The subject property is also near transit, parks, and other amenities which are intended to support housing in
the city. The proposed rezone is compatible with the neighborhood and supports the Westside community’s
vision for neighborhood growth as outlined in the Westside Master Plan.
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as
part of the final decision on this petition. If the zoning map amendment is approved, the applicant may
proceed with subdividing and developing the property under the applicable R-1/5,000 zoning standards.
PLNPCM2021-00709 7 October 27, 2021
ATTACHMENT A:
Current Zoning Map
PLNPCM2021-00709 8 October 27, 2021
Future Land Use Map in the Westside Master Plan
Subject Property
PLNPCM2021-00709 9 October 27, 2021
ATTACHMENT B: Applicant Information
PLNPCM2021-00709 10 October 27, 2021
PLNPCM2021-00709 11 October 27, 2021
ATTACHMENT C: Site and Vicinity Photos
Subject Property – east façade and driveway 2 on California Ave
Subject Property –north façade fronting California Ave Subject Property – west façade and driveway 1 on 1200 West
Subject Property – rear facade
PLNPCM2021-00709 12 October 27, 2021
North: LDS church
East: duplex and 7-11
South: single-family home
West: single-family home
PLNPCM2021-00709 13 October 27, 2021
ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
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:
Factor Finding Rationale
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;
Complies with
Master Plan
policy statements
and Future Land
Use Map
The proposed Zoning Map Amendment meets the purpose and
vision of the Westside Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake.
Based on the existing land uses, development pattern and the
adopted master plans, rezoning the parcel to the R-1/5,000 zoning
district is appropriate for the following reasons:
• The proposed change in zoning is consistent with the future
land use map in the Master Plan which identifies this as a
neighborhood use near Community Nodes.
• The proposed change is in compliance with the future vision for
the area.
• The proposed zoning map amendment is aligned with the vision
and guiding principles contained in Plan Salt Lake.
2. Whether a proposed map
amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements
of the zoning ordinance.
Complies The proposed rezone is from single-family residential to single-
family residential. The purpose of residential zoning districts is:
“The residential districts are intended to provide a range of
housing choices to meet the needs of Salt Lake City’s citizens, to
offer a balance of housing types and densities, to preserve and
maintain the City’s neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to
live, to promote the harmonious development of residential
communities, to ensure compatible infill development, and to help
implement adopted plans.”
Other than the difference in the required minimum lot size, the purpose
statement of both the R-1/5,000 and R-1/7,000 Zoning Districts is to
provide for single-family neighborhoods with uses that are compatible
with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood.
The proposed rezone from R-1/7,000 to R-1/5,000 would support the
purpose statements within the zoning ordinance and is compatible
with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood.
3. The extent to which a
proposed map amendment
will affect adjacent
properties;
Complies As discussed in Consideration 2, while the surrounding properties are
zoned R-1/7,000, the existing development pattern more closely reflects
the R-1/5,000 zone. The lots in the platted 1890 subdivision were just
over 4,000 SF in size. Since being subdivided, most of the lots have been
consolidated with others, but even so, the majority of them are less than
the prescribed minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet.
If the zone change is approved and the subject property is subdivided
into two lots, the two lots would be compatible in size to the existing lots
PLNPCM2021-00709 14 October 27, 2021
and could be developed in a similar manner. The zone change would
reduce the lot size and setback requirements but would not change the
standards related to building height, lot width, lot coverage, or parking.
Staff does not anticipate there being adverse impacts related to the
change in zone from single-family to single-family.
4. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent
with the purposes and
provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts
which may impose additional
standards
Complies The subject property does not fall within an overlay zoning district.
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.
Complies The petition was reviewed by the necessary city departments and
there were no concerns regarding the rezone. The applicant also
went to a DRT meeting to discuss subdividing the property if the
rezone is approved. The DRT comments are included in Attachment
F.
The property is located within an established residential
development where public facilities, roadways, and services are
existing. If the rezone is approved, any future subdivision or
development would be required to comply with the applicable R-
1/5,000 standards.
PLNPCM2021-00709 15 October 27, 2021
ATTACHMENT E: Public Process and Comments
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the
proposed project:
• Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Glendale Community
Council on July 27, 2021.
• Staff sent an early notification announcement of the proposal to all residents and property owners located
within 300 feet of the subject property on July 28, 2021.
• The petition information was posted to the Online Open House webpage to solicit public comments on
the proposal. The Online Open House period started on July 30, 2021 and will be open until after the
Planning Commission meeting.
• The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired on September 10, 2021. The Glendale
Community Council did not provide comments.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
• Public hearing notice mailed: October 15, 2021
• Public hearing notice signs posted on property: October 15, 2021
• Public notice posted on City & State websites and Planning Division list serves: October 15, 2021
Public Input:
No comments in favor or opposition of the petition were submitted by members of the public. If any comments
are submitted after the publication of the staff report they will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and
included in the public record.
PLNPCM2021-00709 16 October 27, 2021
ATTACHMENT F: Department Comments
Planning staff routed the proposed rezone to Building, Engineering, Transportation, Public Utilities, Fire, and
Sustainability. There were no concerns regarding the rezone from any of the departments. Staff asked the applicant to
attend a DRT meeting prior to moving forward with the petition to make sure there were no upfront issues with
subdividing the property if the rezone were to be approved. The DRT group did not have any concerns regarding
subdividing the property under the R-1/5,000 zoning standards, but a formal review of a preliminary and final plat will
be completed if rezone is approved by the City Council. As of October 2021, internal ADUs are permitted uses and would
not be reviewed by Planning staff or approved by the Planning Commission.
City Council // February 1, 2022
1193 W CALIFORNIA AVENUE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
PLNPCM2021-00709
•One parcel –total of approx. 12,200 SF (.28 acres)
•Requested zone change from R-1/7,000 to R-1/5,000
•The property owner intends to redevelop the site by
replacing the existing single-family home with two new
single-family homes (and potentially two attached ADUs),
each on their own parcel
•No specific site development plan has been submitted
PROJECT REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Subject
Property
R-1/5,000
R-1/7,000
CN
R-2
1.Compliance with Master Plan Policies
2.Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
3.R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000 Zoning District Comparison
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CONSIDERATIONS & STAFF ANALYSIS
Subject
Property
City Council // February 1, 2022
1193 W CALIFORNIA AVENUE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
PLNPCM2021-00709
•One parcel –total of approx. 12,200 SF (.28 acres)
•Requested zone change from R-1/7,000 to R-1/5,000
•The property owner intends to redevelop the site by
replacing the existing single-family home with two new
single-family homes (and potentially two attached ADUs),
each on their own parcel
•No specific site development plan has been submitted
PROJECT REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Subject
Property
R-1/5,000
R-1/7,000
CN
R-2
1.Compliance with Master Plan Policies
2.Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
3.R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000 Zoning District Comparison
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CONSIDERATIONS & STAFF ANALYSIS
Subject
Property
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2021-00709
1193 W California Avenue Zoning Map Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Amanda Roman, Principal Planner
amanda.roman@slcgov.com or (801) 535-7660
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve the proposed Zoning Map amendment.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Kesaia Young, the property owner of 1193 W California
Avenue, initiated a petition to amend the Zoning Map in July of 2021. The request is to rezone the
property from R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential) to R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential). On
October 27, 2021, the Planning Commission heard the petition and forwarded a positive
recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Map. If approved, the property owner
intends to subdivide the property and build two new single family homes that will potentially
include two attached ADUs. The property owner anticipates retaining ownership of both
properties.
The proposed rezone is compatible with the platted South Salt Lake subdivision and reflects the
existing development pattern, which consists of single- and two-family dwellings on lots less than
7,000 square feet in size. The permitted and conditional land uses are identical in both the R-
1/7,000 and R-1/5,000 zones.
January 14, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 14, 2022 11:28 MST)
01/14/2022
01/14/2022
In addition to the difference in minimum lot square footage, the R-1/5,000 zone also has reduced
rear and side yard building setbacks. The proposed change would allow for the subdivision of the
property but is not expected to change the character of the neighborhood or have adverse impacts
on future growth.
If the zoning map amendment is approved, the property owner would be allowed to redevelop the
site in accordance with the R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning district standards and
permitted land uses.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
•Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Glendale Community
Council on July 27, 2021.
o The Glendale Community Council did not provide formal comments.
•The surrounding property owners within 300’ received an early notification by mail on
July 28, 2021.
•Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed October 15, 2021 to
all neighbors within 300’ of the Zoning Map amendment site.
•The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2021. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously (8-0) to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council regarding the proposed zoning map amendment.
o There were no public comments received prior to or during the Planning
Commission meeting.
California Avenue 1200 West Emery St. Concord St. Subject
Property
PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS of OCTOBER 27, 2021:
Planning Commission Agenda
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Report
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Original Petition
4. Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Amending the zoning of property located at approximately
1193 West California Avenue from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District
to R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located approximately
1193 West California Avenue from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000
Single Family Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00709.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October
27, 2021 on an application submitted by Kesaia Young (“Applicant”), property owner, to rezone
property located at 1193 West California Avenue (Tax ID No. 15-14-104-001) (the “Property”)
from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential
District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00709; and
WHEREAS, at its October 27, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and
WHEREAS, following 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:
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 shall be
and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000 Single
Family Residential District.
SECTION 2. 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 ______________,
2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance rezoning 1193 W California Avenue
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
January 3, 2022
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned:
1193 W California Avenue
Tax ID No. 15-14-104-001
0702 BEG S 7.5 FT FR NW COR LOT 1, BLK 2, SOUTH SALT LAKE SUB; S 92.4 FT; E 128.8
FT; N 94.63 FT; W'LY 129.8 FT TO BEG 4902-1099 5426-1472 5460-3011 6238-1762
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3. Original Petition
4. Mailing List
1. Project Chronology
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PETITION:
July 12, 2021
July 20, 2021
July 27, 2021
July 28, 2021
July 30, 2021
September 10, 2021
October 15, 2021
October 15, 2021
October 27, 2021
PLNPCM2021-00709 - 1193 W California Avenue Zoning Map
Amendment
Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake
City Planning Division
Petition assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, for staff
analysis and processing.
Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Glendale
Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start
the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period.
Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all
residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project
site providing information about the proposal and how to give public
input on the project.
Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on
the proposal. The Online Open House period started on July 30,
2021 and ended on September 10, 2021.
The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations
ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by the
recognized organizations to date related to this proposal.
Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the
Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of October
27, 2021. Public hearing notice mailed.
Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the
Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the
property.
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on October 27,
2021. By a unanimous vote of 8-0, the Planning
Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City
Council for the proposed zoning map change.
2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00709 1193 W California
Avenue Zoning Map Amendment – Salt Lake City received a request from Kesaia Young,
the property owner, to amend the zoning map for a property located at approximately 1193 W
California Avenue. The proposal would rezone the entire property from R-1/7,000 (Single
Family Residential) to R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential). The amendment would allow the
property to be subdivided into two lots that each meet the minimum lot area for a single-family
dwelling. The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is located within Council
District 2, represented by Dennis Faris. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or
amanda.roman@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: 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
Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at amanda.roman@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. Original Petition
Linda Mitchell Accepted - July 12, 2021 PLNPCM2021-00709
Zoning Amendment Questionnaire
Parcel Number: 15141040010000
1.A statement declaring the purpose of the zoning amendment: The proposed Master Plan
zoning amendment change from the R-1-7000 designation to a R-1-5000 designation supports the
Westside Master Plan and 5YP for community growth through the subdivision of a large,
underutilized lot. This Master Plan zoning amendment will enable the parcel to support more
housing by subdividing the lot to build single-family homes with ADUs on each lot. The Growing
SLC: Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 (“5YP”) acknowledges that “such options would also help
restore the ‘missing middle’ housing types…restoring choices for a wider variety of household
sizes, from seniors to young families” (5YP pg. 19). The proposed development would allow for
two single family homes with ADUs on the large, underutilized lot while blending into the existing
neighborhood and provide housing solutions for diverse demographics (students, seniors, young
families, multi-generational families). The development can further materialize the objectives stated
in the Five Year Housing Plan. The first Goal expounded in the Five Year Plan recognizes the need
to “increase housing options…by seeking policy reforms that can enhance the flexibility of the
land-use code and create an efficient and predictable development process for community
growth” (5YP pg. 17).
2.A description of the proposed zoning amendment: The property is currently zoned as R-1-7000
Glendale Residential Neighborhood in the Westside Community. The purpose of the R-1-7000
Glendale residential neighborhood is to promote lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square
feet in size, suitable for parts of Glendale locations. The proposed zoning designation for the
property is R-1-5000; a zoning designation that allows for a majority of single family homes, up to
twenty eight eight feet (28’) in height measured to the ridge of the roof. The master plan zoning
amendment would continue to allow lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size
as envisioned in the Glendale residential neighborhood zoning, and would further provide the
flexibility to enhance housing type diversity in the neighborhood.
3.List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area: The current
zone does not accurately reflect much of the existing housing stock adjacent to the subject
property. In fact, the surrounding land uses, with the exception of the southern boundary and
across the street along the western boundary, are much more dense than what could be built on
the subject property under the current zone. Adjoining this property to the east is duplex on a lot
less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size, as well as a single-family residential home on a
lot less than five thousand (5,000) square fees in size. One block to the east is a two story, stacked
condominium complex zoned RMF-35, arguably the most dense zoning island of property in the
area. Across California Avenue to the north are single family homes in the R-1-5000 Glendale zone,
and duplex multi-family homes in the R-2 Glendale zone, which is the reasoning behind the
proposed change of zoning that would be consistent with the majority of adjoining homes and
neighborhood directly across California Avenue.
Glendale is a unique and historic neighborhood including single-family and two-family dwellings
with a variety of yards, lot sizes, and bulk characteristics. The RMF-35 zone is really the outlier in
an area that is mostly surrounded by single-family and duplex housing types. Rezoning the
property to R-1-5000 will provide the ability to add additional housing that blends well with
neighboring community. At the same time the rezoning of the property will allow for the
“underutilized parcel to allow for small lot single-family residential…with ADU…in fill
development…that will meet size and design standards to ensure community compatibility,” which
is envisioned in Salt Lake City’s The Westside Master Plan (WMP pg. 33).
4.Is the request amending the zoning map? The request is amending the Zoning Map. The parcel
number to be changed is 15141040010000.
5.Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? there is no request to amend the
text.
4. Mailing List
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP
STEFAN JULIUS NIEDERAUER; MARK QUINN NIEDERAUER; GABRIELE NIEDERA 1305 S CONCORD ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
V & K INVESTMENTS, LLC PO BOX 25512 SALT LAKE UT 84125
CYNTHIA GROW 1300 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
STEVE R SR MCCOY; STEVE R JR MCCOY (JT)1208 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
N.P.M.C., INC.20 W CENTURY PARK WY SOUTH SAL UT 84115
CONCORD, LLC 1947 E STAG HILL CIR DRAPER UT 84020
CORP OF PRES BISHOP OF CH OF JC OF LDS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE # FL-22 SALT LAKE UT 84150
MARGARETA B DIAZ 1316 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
AUSTIN BLACK; TRISTANA YEGGE (JT)1320 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
LIEM T NGUYEN; TUYET DAO THI LE (JT)963 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
JUAN GONZALEZ GARCIA; MAYRA PRADO (JT)1308 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
RONALD BARRETT; RODOLFO G REVELES (JT)1285 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
LTD SHARED EQUITIES A 1373 E SKYLINE DR BOUNTIFU UT 84010
SALT LAKE BAPTIST ASSOCIATION PO BOX 18894 SALT LAKE UT 84118
FAITH M SAVAGE; JAMES DENZIL SAVAGE (JT)1352 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
MOSIANA L MAU 1366 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
UTAH LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE UT 84114
MICHAEL R WEIS; LUCIA R WEIS (JT)12235 S 4000 W RIVERTON UT 84096
SIONE T TONGAMANA; DUSTIN PAUL BISHOP 1207 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
YONI MENDOZA (JT)1344 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
AVALISI LAPUAHO; ANA LAPUAHO (JT)1193 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
ERIC NESS 1345 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
PERLITA N RAMIREZ; JULIO A RAMIREZ (TC)1361 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
ANNETTE S JENSEN 1367 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
JOSE JESUS RIOS 1373 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
MARIANNE WILLIAMS 1379 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
GORDON G WATKINS; CLARINDA S WATKINS (JT)1338 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
RAUL M FIGUEROA; CANDELARIA FIGUEROA (JT)1344 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
RONALD L JOHNSON; VICKI JO JOHNSON (JT)1350 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
GHB TR 1356 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
CIPRIANO OROZCO 1362 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
VICTORIA RICCARDI RICHARDS; JANETTE RICCARDI (JT)1368 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
NAGENDRA DEV 1374 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE UT 84104
EUSEBIO REYES-RODRIGUEZ; IGNACIO REYES-RODRIGUEZ (TC)1353 S 1200 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
ROBERT KELLER (JT)1788 E 5600 S HOLLADAY UT 84121
SOUTHLAND CORPORATION PO BOX 711 DALLAS TX 75221
KYLE J HAMMOND; JAMIE B HAMMOND (JT)459 COUNTRY CLUB STANSBURY UT 84074
GERALD D BURT; CHRISTOPHER S BURT (TC)3045 E LOUISE AVE SALT LAKE UT 84109
Current Occupant 1226 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1306 S 1200 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1281 S CONCORD ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1301 S 1200 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1172 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1315 S 1200 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1291 S EMERY ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1235 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1365 S CONCORD ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1372 S 1200 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1177 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1165 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1363 S EMERY ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1369 S EMERY ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1157 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1353 S UTAHNA DR Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1357 S UTAHNA DR Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner, (385) 214-9714 or Kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com
Date: August 25, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2021-00575 2200 West Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Map Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2060 North 2200 West
PARCEL ID: 08-21-226-001-0000
MASTER PLAN: North Point Small Area Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: AG-2 (Agricultural District)
REQUEST: Chad Salmon, property owner, has submitted a zoning map amendment to amend the
existing AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The amendment is to implement
the master plan zoning and to accommodate future commercial land uses. The subject property is
located at 2060 North 2200 West. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this
time.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings in the staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the
zoning of the subject property located at 2060 N. 2200 W. be amended from AG-2 (Agricultural
District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district. Based on the information in this staff report
and the factors to consider for zoning map amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this
proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
a. Northpoint Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map
B. Additional Applicant Information
C. AG-2 and M-1 Allowed Uses Comparison
D. Existing Conditions
E. Photos of Subject Property
F. Analysis of Standards
G. Public Process and Comments
H. City Department Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request by a private land owner to amend the existing AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) zoning district. The property owner is seeking to amend the subject property to implement the
future land use designations noted in the applicable master plan and to increase the economic viability of the
subject property. M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district aligns with the future anticipated use of the subject
property. Additionally, the properties located to the south along 2200 West were rezoned from BP (Business
Park) zoning district to M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district in 2017. The horseshoe property surrounding
the subject parcel was rezoned from AG-2 to M-1 with final approval from the City Council in May 2021
(PLNPCM2018-00657).
Agricultural District (AG-2) VS. Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning
The following are the purpose statements of the AG-2 (existing zoning) and M-1 (proposed zoning) districts:
The purpose of the AG-2 Agricultural District is to preserve and protect agricultural uses in suitable
portions of Salt Lake City on lots not less than two (2) acres. These regulations are also designed to
minimized conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. This district is appropriate in areas
of the City where the applicable Master Plans support this type of land use.
The purpose of the M-1 Light Manufacturing District is to provide an environment for light
industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties, that desire a clean attractive
industrial setting, and that protects nearby sensitive lands and waterways. This zone is appropriate in
locations that are supported by the applicable Master Plan policies adopted by the City. This district is
intended to provide areas in the City that generate employment opportunities and to promote economic
development. The uses include other types of land uses that support and provide service to
manufacturing and industrial uses. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access to
businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary and to be provided in an equal
way. Certain land uses are prohibited in order to preserve land for manufacturing uses and to promote
the importance of nearby environmentally sensitive lands.
The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate future commercial land uses along the 2200 West corridor and to
provide a contiguous district along 2200 West. The remaining AG-2 (Agricultural District) will be appropriately
buffered with the adopted amendments that were incorporated into the M-1 Zoning District regulations.
KEY ISSUES:
The key issues listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and community
input and department review comments.
1. Mater Plan Recommendations
2. Inland Port Overlay
Issue 1: Master Plan Recommendations
The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in 2000 and includes the subject property. The plan shows the
future land use of this area as Business Park which was consistent with the zoning put in place during the
Citywide zoning amendment project in 1995. While the Northpoint Small Area Plan identifies the area as a
Business Park, it also states that the Business Park zone should be amended to allow retail and service type
businesses that would support the employee base in the area. The Business Park zoning district allows retail
and restaurant uses only if they are approved as part of an overall business park planned development. They
are not allowed as single uses on a property, which limits the feasibility of these uses occurring in the area.
In addition to the Business Park land use designation, the Northpoint Small Area Plan also states that future
business park development should be buffered from the existing agricultural properties. The buffer includes a
100 foot building setback, a 50 foot parking lot setback, and landscaping with a five foot tall berm.
Although the proposed Light Manufacturing zoning district is not strictly consistent with the future land use
designation as stated in the Northpoint Small Area Plan, it is Staff’s opinion that the zoning amendment is
consistent with the intent of the plan for the following reasons:
1. The plan highlights the need for retail and service uses to serve the future employee s of the area.
The Light Manufacturing district allows single-tenant retail and service uses, which would serve
the employees of the area.
2. The uses allowed in the Light Manufacturing District are required to be environmentally clean,
light industrial. Heavy manufacturing is not allowed in the Light Manufacturing zoning district.
Of note, the Northpoint Small Area Plan is in the beginning stages of a rewrite and update. That said, a privately
initiated petition must still be processed regardless of the update process. The request is subject to review
comparing the existing Northpoint Small Area Plan.
In addition to the Northpoint Small Area Plan, the proposal is also supported by Plan Salt Lake’s Economy
Principal and Initiatives. The plan discusses initiatives to support the growth of industrial areas of the City
(Initiative 9), as well as recruiting headquarters and large scale businesses.
Issue 2: Inland Port Overlay
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Inland Port Overlay District (IP Overlay). The IP
Overlay was adopted in December 2018. One impact of the IP Overlay is that it allows for all properties in the
IP Overlay to follow the uses allowed in the M-1 Light Manufacturing Zoning District regardless of their
underlying or base zoning designation. Where uses are allowed in the M-1 district but not allowed in the
underlying base zone, the use is allowed through the Conditional Use process. As such, the full range of uses
allowed in the M-1 district would already be allowed on the AG-2 zoned subject properties via the IP Overlay
rules but some uses would have to go through the Conditional Use process since they are not allowed under
the AG-2 base zoning designation. The change in zoning designation therefore has negligible impact on what
could eventually be developed on the property and only impacts the approval process that must be followed
for approval depending upon the proposed use.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal complies with the standards for zoning map amendments, see Attachment D. After analyzing the
proposal and the applicable standards, Planning Staff is of the opinion that a positive recommendation should be
forwarded to the City Council for this request.
NEXT STEPS:
The City Council has the final authority to make changes to the zoning map. The recommendation of the Planning
commission for this request will be forwarded to the City Council for their review and decision.
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP
Note: The AG-2 property surrounding the subject property was rezoned to M-1 in May 2021. The
City’s GIS layer has not been updated as of publishing of this report.
Neighboring parcel
rezoned to M-1
Subject Property
Subject
Property
Northpoint Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map
Subject
Property
ATTACHMENT B: ADDITIONAL APPLICANT
INFORMATION
ATTACHMENT C: AG-2 AND M-1 ALLOWED USES
COMPARISON
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES – AG-2 & M-1 DISTRICTS COMBINED LIST
Uses AG-2 M-1
Accessory use, except those that are otherwise
specifically regulated elsewhere in this title
P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C
Agricultural use P P
Alcohol:
Bar establishment C6,10
Brewpub P6,10
Distillery P
Tavern C6,10
Winery P
Ambulance services (indoor and/or outdoor) P
Animal:
Cremation service P
Kennel P8 P13
Pet cemetery P4 P2
Pound P12,13
Raising of furbearing animals C
Stockyard C12
Stable (private) P
Stable (Public) P
Veterinary office P
Antenna, communication tower P P
Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the
maximum building height
P C
Artisan food production P
Bakery, commercial P
Blacksmith shop P
Bottling plant P
Brewery P
Building materials distribution P
Bus line station/terminal P
Bus line yard and repair facility P12
Check cashing/payday loan business P9
Chemical manufacturing and/or storage
Commercial food preparation P
Community correctional facility, large C8,16
Community correctional facility, small C8,16
Community garden P P
Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing C12,13
Contractor’s yard/office P
Crematorium P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P
Daycare center, adult P
Daycare center, child P
Drop forge industry
Dwelling, living quarters for caretaker or security
guard, limited to uses on lots 1 acre in size or larger
and is accessory to principal use allowed by the
zoning district
P
Dwelling:
Assisted living facility (large)
Assisted living facility (limited capacity)
Assisted living facility (small)
Group home (large)
Group home (small) P
Living quarters for caretaker or security guard
Manufactured home P
Mobile home
Multi-family
Residential support (large)
Residential support (small)
Rooming (boarding) house
Single-family (attached)
Single-family (detached) P
Twin home and two-family
Eleemosynary facilities
Exhibition hall
Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) P
Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) P
Explosive manufacturing and storage
Farm stand, seasonal P
Financial institution with or without drive-through
facility
P11
Flammable liquids or gases, heating fuel distribution
and storage
Food processing P
Gas station P
Government facility P
Government facility requiring special design features
for security purposes
P
Grain elevator P12
Greenhouse P
Heavy manufacturing P15
Home occupation P
Hotel/motel P
Impound lot P12
Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste
Industrial assembly P
Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P
Laboratory, testing P
Large wind energy system C P13,14
Laundry, commercial P
Light manufacturing P
Limousine service P
Mobile food business (operation in the public right-
of-way)
P
Mobile food business (operation on private property) P
Mobile food court P
Office P
Office, publishing company P
Open space P P
Package delivery facility P
Paint manufacturing
Parking:
Commercial P
Off site P
Park and ride lot P
Park and ride lot shared with existing use P
Photo finishing lab P
Poultry farm or processing plant
Printing plant P
Radio television station P
Railroad, freight terminal facility C4
Railroad, repair shop P
Recreation (indoor) P
Recreation (outdoor) P
Recycling:
Collection station P
Processing center (indoor) P
Processing center (outdoor) C12,13,14
Refinery, petroleum products
Restaurant with or without drive-through facilities P
Retail goods establishment with or without drive-
through facility
P
Retail service establishment:
Electronic repair shop P
Furniture repair shop P
Upholstery shop P
Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution C
School:
Profession and vocational (with outdoor activities) P
Professional and vocational (without outdoor activities) P
Seminary and religious institute P
Seasonal farm stand P
Sexually oriented business P5
Sign painting/fabrication P
Slaughterhouse
Small brewery P
Solar array P
Storage and display (outdoor) P
Storage, public (outdoor) P
Store, convenience P
Studio, motion picture P
Taxicab facility P
Tire distribution retail/wholesale P
Truck freight terminal P12
Urban farm P P
Utility:
Building or structure P1 P
Electric generation facility C3,12
Sewage treatment plant C
Solid waste transfer station C12
Transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1
Vehicle:
Auction P
Automobile and truck repair P
Automobile and truck sales and rental (including large
truck)
P
Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) P
Automobile salvage recycling (outdoor) C12,13,14
Recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service P
Truck repair (large) P
Vending cart, private property P
Warehouse P
Welding shop P P
Wholesale distribution P P
Wireless telecommunications facility
Woodworking mill P
QUALIFYING PROVISIONS (COMBINED FROM AG-2 AND M-1)
1. See subjection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
2. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval.
3. Electric generating facilities shall be located within 2,640 feet of an existing 138kV or larger electric power
transmission line.
4. No railroad freight terminal facility shall be located within 1 mile of a residential zoning district.
5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in section 21A.36.140 of this title.
6. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the
place worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval.
7. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s
footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building construction
are subject to a conditional building and site design review.
8. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within an airport
noise overlay zone is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the
applicable airport overlay zone within chapter 21A.34 of this title.
9. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than ½ mile of other check cashing/payday loan
businesses.
10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300 “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title.
11. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations.
12. Prohibited within 1,000feet of a single- or two-family zoning district.
13. Prohibited within the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District.
14. Prohibited within the Development Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District.
15. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section
21A.36.030 of this title.
16. Prohibited within ½ mile of any residential zoning district boundary and subject to section 21A.36.110 of this title.
17. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of cultural Resources.
18. When located on an arterial street.
19. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval.
20. In conjunction with, and within the boundaries of, a cemetery for human remains.
21. Radio station equipment and antennas shall be required to go through the site plan review process to ensure that
the color, design and location of all proposed equipment and antennas are screened or integrated into the
architecture of the project and are compatible with surrounding uses.
22. When approved as part of a business park planned development pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of
this title.
23. Kennels, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall not be permitted within 200 feet
of an existing single-family dwelling on an adjacent lot.
24. Trails and trailheads without parking lots and without directional and informational signage specific to trail usage
shall be permitted.
25. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use.
26. Maximum of 1 monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety
purposes.
27. If located on a collector or arterial street according to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan – major street
plan: roadway functional classification map.
28. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district.
29. Occupancy shall be limited to 25 persons.
30. No large group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home.
31. No small group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home.
32. No large residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support.
33. No small residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support.
34. No eleemosynary facility shall be located within 800 feet of another eleemosynary, group home or residential
support.
35. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section
21A.36.130 of this title.
36. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section
21A.36.030 of this title.
37. Must contain retail component for on-site foot sales.
38. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the
Northwest Quadrant Overlay, consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain
recommendations on siting and equipment types for all solar arrays on a particular property to mitigate impacts
to wildlife.
ATTACHMENT D: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Uses in the Immediate Vicinity of the Property
Surrounding the property and to the east of the subject property is zoned M-1. To the south of the
subject property, except for 1998, 2004 and 1980 North 2200 West, all of the properties are zoned
M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The properties noted above are zoned AG-2 (Agricultural District).
AG-2 Agricultural District: The purpose of the AG-2 Agricultural District is to preserve and
protect agricultural uses in suitable portions of Salt Lake City on lots not less than two (2) acres.
These regulations are also designed to minimize conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural
uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable Master Plans support this
type of land use.
AG-2 Agricultural District Development Standards (21A.32.052)
Maximum
Building
Height
Front
Yard
Corner
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
Side
Yard
Lot
Coverage
Landscape
Yards
Buildable
Area for
Principal
Dwelling
Restrictions
on
Agricultural
Uses
Single-
Family
Dwellings:
Thirty feet
(30’)
Thirty
feet
(30’)
Thirty
feet
(30’)
None Thirty
five
feet
(35’)
The
surface
coverage
of the
principal
dwelling
shall not
exceed
eighty
percent
(80%) of
the
buildable
area for
residential
uses of the
lot.
All front and
corner side
yards shall
be
maintained
as landscape
yards in
conformance
with the
requirements
of chapter
21A.48 of
this title.
A
residential
structure
shall not
be located
farther
than two
hundred
feet (200’)
from the
front
property
line.
In addition to
the applicable
foregoing
regulations,
agricultural
uses shall
comply with
the following
requirements:
No feeding,
grazing, or
sheltering of
livestock and
poultry,
whether
within
penned
enclosures or
within
enclosed
buildings,
shall be
permitted
within fifty
feet (50’) of
an existing
single-family
dwelling on
an adjacent
lot.
Small
Group
Homes:
Thirty feet
(30’)
Thirty
feet
(30’)
Thirty
feet
(30’)
None Thirty
five
feet
(35’)
The
surface
coverage
of the
principal
dwelling
shall not
exceed
eighty
percent
(80%) of
the
buildable
area for
residential
uses of the
lot.
All front and
corner side
yards shall
be
maintained
as landscape
yards in
conformance
with the
requirements
of chapter
21A.48 of
this title.
A
residential
structure
shall not
be located
farther
than two
hundred
feet (200’)
from the
front
property
line.
Agricultural
Uses: Forty
five feet
(45’)
Thirty
feet
(30’)
Thirty
feet
(30’)
None Thirty
five
feet
(35’)
The
surface
coverage
of the
principal
dwelling
shall not
exceed
eighty
percent
(80%) of
the
buildable
area for
residential
uses of the
lot.
All front and
corner side
yards shall
be
maintained
as landscape
yards in
conformance
with the
requirements
of chapter
21A.48 of
this title.
A
residential
structure
shall not
be located
farther
than two
hundred
feet (200’)
from the
front
property
line.
Conditional
Uses: Forty
five feet
(45’)
Thirty
feet
(30’)
Thirty
feet
(30’)
None Thirty
five
feet
(35’)
The
surface
coverage
of the
principal
dwelling
shall not
exceed
eighty
percent
(80%) of
the
buildable
All front and
corner side
yards shall
be
maintained
as landscape
yards in
conformance
with the
requirements
of chapter
A
residential
structure
shall not
be located
farther
than two
hundred
feet (200’)
from the
front
area for
residential
uses of the
lot.
21A.48 of
this title.
property
line.
M-1 Light Manufacturing District: The purpose of the M-1 Light Manufacturing District is to
provide an environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent
properties, that desire a clean attractive industrial setting, and that protects nearby sensitive lands
and waterways. This zone is appropriate in locations that are supported by the applicable Master Plan
policies adopted by the City. This district is intended to provide areas in the City that generate
employment opportunities and to promote economic development. The uses include other types of
land uses that support and provide service to manufacturing and industrial uses. Safe, convenient
and inviting connections that provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and
streets are necessary and to be provided in an equal way. Certain land uses are prohibited in order to
preserve land for manufacturing uses and to promote the importance of nearby environmentally
sensitive lands.
M-1 Light Manufacturing District Development Standards (21A.28.020)
Minimum
Lot Size
Front
Yard
Corner
Side
Yard
Interior
Side Yard
Rear
Yard
Additional
Setback
Landscape
Yards
Maximum
Height
Minimum
Lot Area:
ten
thousand
(10,000)
square feet.
Minimum
Lot Width:
Eighty feet
(80’).
Existing
Lots: Lots
legally
existing as
of April 12,
1995, shall
be
considered
legal
conforming
lots.
Fifteen
feet
(15’)
Fifteen
feet
(15’)
None
Required.
None
Required.
When
adjacent to
a lot in the
AG-2 or
AG-5
Zoning
District,
buildings
or portions
of
buildings,
shall be set
back one
foot (1’)
beyond the
required
landscape
buffer as
required in
section
21A.48.080
of this title
for every
one foot (1’)
of building
height
above
Front and
Corner Side
Yards: All
required
front and
corner side
yards shall be
maintained
as landscape
yards in
conformance
with the
requirements
of chapter
21A.48 of this
title.
Buffer Yards:
All lots
abutting a lot
in a
residential
district shall
conform to
the buffer
yard
requirements
Distillation
Column
Structures;
Development in
AFPP Overlay
District: No
building shall
exceed sixty five
feet (65’) except
that emission
free distillation
column
structures,
necessary for
manufacture
processing
purposes, shall be
permitted up to
the most
restrictive
Federal Aviation
Administration
imposed minimal
approach surface
elevations, or one
hundred twenty
feet (120’)
thirty feet
(30’)
of chapter
21A.48 of this
title.
Northwest
Quadrant
Overlay
District:
Properties
located
within the
Northwest
Quadrant
Overlay
District are
subject to
special
landscape
requirements
as outlined in
subsection
21A.34.140B2
of this title.
maximum,
whichever is less.
Said approach
surface elevation
will be
determined by
the Salt Lake City
Department of
Airports at the
proposed
locations of the
distillation
column structure.
Any proposed
development in
the Airport Flight
Path Protection
(AFPP) Overlay
District, as
outlined in
section
21A.34.040 of
this title, will
require approval
of the
Department of
Airports prior to
issuance of a
building permit.
All proposed
development
within the AFPP
Overlay District
which exceeds
fifty feet (50’)
may also require
site specific
approval from
the Federal
Aviation
Administration.
Location
Exception: In the
M-1 Zoning
Districts located
west of the Sale
City International
Airport and north
of Interstate 80
(I-80), buildings
may exceed sixty
five feet (65’) in
height subject to
the conditional
building and site
design review
standards and
procedures of
chapter 21A.59 of
this title. In no
case shall any
building exceed
eighty five feet
(85’).
Railroad
Offloading
Structures:
Cranes, lifts, and
other similar
offloading
structures related
to the operation
of a railroad
terminal are
allowed up to
eighty five feet
(85’) in height
and are also
subject to the
Airport Flight
Path Protection
(AFPP) Overlay
District and
Federal Aviation
Administration
(FAA)
requirements.
ATTACHMENT E: PHOTOS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Photo of Subject Property Looking East
Photo of Subject Property Looking East
Photo of 2200 West Looking South
Photo of Adjacent Property Looking West
Photo of 2200 West Looking North
ATTACHMENT F: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
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:
Factor Finding Rationale
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;
Complies As stated in the Key Issues section of this
report, changing the zoning of the subject
property to M-1 is consistent with the
Northpoint Small Area Master Plan and
Plan Salt Lake.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is
consistent with the intent of this master
plan. The regulations of the M-1 zoning
district were amended in 2017.
2. Whether a proposed map
amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance.
Complies Section 21A.02.030 of the Salt Lake city
Code provides the Purpose and Intent of
the Zoning Ordinance and states:
“The purpose of this title is to promote
the health, safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of a
present and future inhabitants of Salt
Lake City, to implement the adopted
plans of the city, and to carry out the
purposes of the municipal land use
development and management act, title
10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code
Annotated or its successor, and other
relevant statutes.”
The purpose and intent statement then
provides eight additional points
describing the intent of the zoning code,
two of which are applicable to the rezone
proposal:
• Protect the tax base
• Foster the city’s industrial,
business and residential
development.
The purpose of amending the zoning of the
subject property is to maximize the
development potential by allowing more
land uses than allowed in the current zone
and expanding the development area of the
lots. This is consistent with the overall
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance in that it
promotes the “prosperity” of the “future
inhabitants of Salt Lake City.” It is also
consistent with the purpose and intent
points stated above.
3. The extent to which a proposed
map amendment will affect adjacent
properties;
Complies The surrounding property was rezoned to
M-1 in 2021, therefore, the affect is
considered to be minimal since the
proposal is for the same zone. Since the
property is located within the boundaries
of the Inland Port Overlay, the full range
of uses allowed in the M-1 zoning district
are allowed on the property under the
current AG-2 zoning designation
although they must follow the
Conditional Use process if the use is not
allowed in the underlying AG-2 zone.
The change in zoning designation
therefore only impacts the approval
process that must be followed depending
on the proposed use and has negligible
impact on what could be developed on
the subject property.
Staff finds the proposed map amendment
to M-1 will have a negligible impact on
surrounding properties given that M-1
uses are allowed on the property due to
the Inland Port Overlay.
4. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent with the
purposes and provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts
which may impose additional
standards
Complies The project area is partially located in the
Airport Flight Path Protection Zone A
and B. These overlay districts provides
special regulations that pertain to
building height and land use. In the event
that there is a conflict on a particular
property, the regulations in the overlay
district would prevail.
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, storm water drainage
systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse
collection.
Complies The proposal was reviewed by other city
division and no concerns were raised
regarding ability to service the subject
property under the M-1 development
capacity. All requests for a new use would
be reviewed to ensure compliance with
City codes and policies.
ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
A letter was mailed to residents and property owners within 300 of the subject property on June 23,
2021. The letter provided early notification of the proposed zoning map amendment. Additionally,
early notification was emailed the Westpointe Community Council on June 23, 2021. The early
engagement period expired on August 9th.
The Westpointe Community Council requested attendance from city staff at a community event on
August 3, 2021. Staff attended the event and did not receive any comments regarding the proposal.
As of publishing of this report, staff has not received a letter indicating a position from the
Westpointe Community Council.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
• Public hearing notice mailed on: August 12, 2021
• Public hearing notice sign posted on property: August 12, 2021
• Public notice posted on City and State websites and Pl anning Division list serve: August 12, 2021
ATTACHMENT I: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
The proposed zoning amendment was sent to the following City Departments/Divisions for review:
• Building Services;
• Engineering;
• Public Utilities;
• Transportation;
• and Sustainability.
There were no objections raised by any of the City Departments.
Additionally, notice was mailed to UDOT.
City Council // February 1, 2022
2060 N 2200 W MAPAMENDMENT
PLNPCM2021-00575
•One parcel –total of approx. .64 acres
•Requested change from AG-2 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light
Manufacturing)
•Wants to accommodate future development of the
property.
•No specific site development plan has been submitted
PROJECT REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Subject
Property
2100 N
2200 W
1.Nature of the general area
2.Master Plan recommendations
3.Inland Port overlay regulations
4.Compatibility with adjacent properties
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CONSIDERATIONS & STAFF ANALYSIS
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2060 North 2200 W, Petition
PLNPCM2021-00575
STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner, Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com, 385-
535-7780
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to change the zoning map to M-1 (Light Manufacturing) from the current designation
of AG-2 (Agricultural) for one parcel.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Chad Salmon, property owner, has submitted a zoning map amendment to amend the existing
zoning of AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The subject property is
located at 2060 North 2200 West and is surrounded by M-1 zoning. The amendment is to
implement the master plan zoning and to accommodate future commercial land uses. No specific
site development proposal has been submitted at this time. For specific information regarding the
proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report.
One parcel is part of this request and contains a single-family dwelling and related agricultural
accessory structures. The property is located within the boundaries of the Inland Port (IP) Overlay
District. The IP Overlay permits uses not currently allowed in the AG-2 zoning by allowing all M-
1 uses through the City’s conditional use process. The change in zoning designation only impacts
the approval process that must be followed for a proposed use and has negligible impact on what
could ultimately be developed on the property.
January 14, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 14, 2022 11:16 MST)
01/14/2022
01/14/2022
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Information about this petition and a request for comments was sent to the Chair of the
Westpointe Community Council on June 23, 2021.
• Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property
owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and
information on how to give public input on the project on June 23, 2021.
• The Westpointe Community Council requested attendance from city staff at a community
event on August 3, 2021. Staff attended the event and did not receive any comments
regarding the proposal at that time.
• At the Public Hearing of August 25, 2021, written comments were submitted via email
from the Chair of the Westpointe CC for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Those
comments were not reflected in the staff report. A copy of the submitted letter is included
in Attachment 4 of this transmittal - Written Comments Submitted to Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
PC Agenda for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access)
PC Minutes of August 25, 2021 (Click to Access)
PC Staff Report for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access Staff Report)
EXHIBITS
1. Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Petition Application
4. Written Comments Submitted to Planning Commission 2200 W 2100 N
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to one parcel of property located at
2060 North 2200 West Street to rezone the property
from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to one parcel of property located at
2060 North 2200 West Street to rezone the property from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1
Light Manufacturing District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00575.
WHEREAS, Chad Salmon submitted an application on behalf of the property owner,
Salmon Investments, LLC, to rezone property located at 2060 North 2200 West Street (Tax ID
No. 08-21-226-001-0000) from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District
pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00575; and
WHEREAS, at its August 25, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt
Lake City Council on said application; 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:
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 parcel located at 2060 North 2200 West Street (Tax ID No.
08-21-226-001-0000), and as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall
be and hereby is rezoned from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District.
SECTION 2. 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 ______________,
2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
December 17, 2021
Exhibit “A”
Legal Descriptions of the four to be rezoned to M-1 Light Manufacturing District
Parcel located at 2060 North 2200 West Street:
Parcel No. 08-21-226-001-0000
0106 COM 1309 FT W & 153 FT S FR NE COR SEC 21 T 1N R 1W SL MER S 140 FT E 200
FT N 140 FT W 200 FT TO BEG 0.64 AC 6150-2588 7490-2237 9980-8541
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2021-00575
June 3, 2021 Salmon Investments, LLC submitted an application for a Zoning
Map Amendment.
June 15, 2021 Petition PLNPCM2021-00575 was assigned to Krissy Gilmore,
Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
June 23, 2021 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations informing
them of the petition. Early notification of the project was also sent
to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal.
August 3, 2021 The proposal was presented at the Westpointe Night Out
community event. Planning staff was in attendance to answer
questions about the proposal.
August 11, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested
parties and residents/property owners who requested notice.
Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State
of Utah Public Notice webpage.
August 19, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report posted.
August 25, 2021 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a positive
recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed text
amendment.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00535 – Chad Salmon,
property owner, has submitted a zoning map amendment to amend the existing AG-2
(Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The amendment is to implement the master
plan zoning and to accommodate future commercial land uses. The subject property is located at
2060 North 2200 West. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time.
Information on this proposal can be found in the staff report prepared for the Planning
Commission accessible from this link -
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/08.August/00575.2200WRezo
ne.StaffReport.pdf
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
Krissy Gilmore at 385-535-7780 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at Kristina.gilmore@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.
3) PETITION APPLICATION
4) WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO
PLANNING
COMMISSION
From:
To:Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rebollo, Joshua; Amy@treeutah.org; DennisFaris@gmail.com; Rogers, James; Norris, Nick; Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments for Aug 25 Planning Commission mtg regarding PLNPCM2021-00575 (agenda item #5)
Date:Tuesday, August 24, 2021 12:24:49 PM
Importance:High
Salt Lake City under Mayor Mendenhall has been very active in promoting the planting of trees on
the westside in order to mitigate air pollution and improve the area. Additionally Ivory Homes has
augmenting the City’s efforts with their own 30,000 tree planting initiative. It is therefore more
than frustrating that the Planning Commission is now considering a re-zoning request which would
unnecessarily destroy a mature tree canopy on 2200 West. (See attached photos). Therefore,
members of the local Community Council, are submitting an objection to the AG-2 to M-1 rezoning
at 2060 N. 2200 West. Consideration of such rezoning should be delayed until the updated North
Point Master Plan is completed. Such planning will allow the City, in concert with residents,
professional planners, and other stakeholders to determine whether it is in the City’s best interest to
allow the numerous mature trees located on this parcel to be cut-down as part of an effort to
construct a Maverick gas station on the site.
The summary in the Aug 25th planning commission agenda (item #5) states the purpose of the
change is “to implement the master plan zoning…” This is not just misleading but incorrect. The
2060 N 2200 West property lies within the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan whose stated goal is
to “eliminate potential land use conflicts with the Salt Lake International Airport while preserving
and enhancing the existing agricultural lifestyle.” This master plan, adopted in 2000, does NOT
contain any M-1 zoning. Instead, the plan’s zoning map consists of parcels zoned BP (Business Park
), AG-2 and AG-5. Whether area properties should include M-1 zoning is one of the reasons both
developers and residents agree on the need to update the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. The
community’s experience with Ivory Development in developing a BP zoning overlay for the area
illustrated the need and ability to update the master plan with strategies that resolve existing
problems. Not long afterward (Jan 2019) , the City Council agreed to fund such an update.
Currently Salt Lake City has entered a $100,000 contract with Logan Simpson to update this
master plan. Members of the consulting team have already attended community council meetings,
manned booths at community events, and started discussions with a diverse steering committee of
area stakeholders. This planning process needs to be supported rather than undermined. Such
efforts should not be “undercut” by adopting premature re-zoning proposals.
It is ironic that the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan came about as a result of circumstances
similar to what we face today. According to the Plan’s historical Introduction when Salt Lake City
took steps to rezone Northpoint for development residents pushed back. The City Council
responded in 1999 by adopting “a six-month moratorium to allow the creation of a small area plan
for Northpoint.” More than twenty years later, the residents of this unique area again ask the
City to adopt a moratorium to ensure the update master planning process is successfully
implemented.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Dorothy P. Owen, chair Westpointe Community Council
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Sylvia Richards
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE: February 1, 2022
RE: Continued Use of Art Barn for Arts Council and Arts Council Foundation
Public Benefits Analysis – Below-Market Rate Lease Agreement Resolution
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has submitted a transmittal, including a public benefits analysis, regarding City-owned
property known as the Art Barn, located at 54 Finch Lane. Currently the Art Barn functions as the administrative
office for the Arts Council, the Arts Council Foundation, as well as an art gallery, community arts education
facility, and active art studio. The Administration recommends that the Arts Council continue to use and inhabit
the property as its administrative office including 6.5 Arts Council FTE’s, as well as part-time and seasonal
employees. A public hearing is required for public benefits analysis, and the Administration recommends that
the Council consider approving the below-market rate lease agreement with the Salt Lake City Arts Council
Foundation allowing the continued use of the Art Barn.
While the Arts Council has used the Art Barn for decades, a public benefits analysis has never been completed as
required by code. The Administration tasked the Arts Council with formalizing an operating agreement between
the Arts Council Foundation and Salt Lake City. In addition, as part of this process, the Arts Council revised the
Foundation bylaws, and created a human resources policy and procedures manual. With the completion of the
new operating agreement, the Attorney’s Office suggested a public benefits analysis be completed to satisfy code
requirements.
PUBLIC BENEFITS
The Administration has identified the public benefits the City receives from allowing the continued use of the Art
Barn for the Arts Council Division and the Arts Council Foundation as follows:
“On average the Arts Council’s programs have reached approximately 100,000 individual audience
members and over 1,000 artists per year. These programs are intended to serve residents along the
Wasatch Front, with a focus on the Salt Lake County area. However, events such as the Living
Set Date: Feb. 1, 2022
Briefing: Feb. 1, 2022
Public Hearing: Mar. 1, 2022
Potential Action: Mar. 22, 2022
Page | 2
Traditions Festival attract attendees from across Utah and throughout the region. Programs are
thoughtfully curated each year with the intention of supporting artists and arts organizations and
making Salt Lake City a more vibrant, equitable, and engaging place to live.”
Arts Council Programs
a) Finch Lane Art Gallery (Includes year-round visual art exhibits and flash projects)
b) Living Traditions Presents (Features traditional art forms of Salt Lake’s native, immigrant and
ethnically diverse communities)
c) Twilight Concert Series (Music concert series presented each summer featuring nationally recognized
and upcoming musicians from across the country and around the world held at the Gallivan Center.)
d) Outreach and Engagement (Provides professional development and activation opportunities to local
performing artists to engage with audiences through the Brown Bag Concert Series and Busker
Festival)
e) Salt Lake City’s Public Art Program (Provides opportunities for artists to create site-specific artwork
that enhances or is integrated into public buildings and spaces)
f) City Arts Grants Program (Supports artists, arts organizations, nonprofits and elementary schools
conducting programming across Salt Lake City through five grant categories.
g) Technical Assistance, Services and Research (Arts Council staff members have expertise in various
artistic disciplines, and provide assistance to artists, organizations and community members through
communication efforts (newsletters, blog posts, social media).
Additional Benefits:
Streamline City art initiatives and improve structure and funding of the Arts Councils (Mayor’s Plan
2021).
Ability to fundraise in support of programming and staff which creates a direct benefit to residents by
leveraging City funding.
National and local funding support which increases accountability to community and the public.
Arts Council mission is to fill niche gaps, incubate, and fulfill community needs.
Constant presence of staff and public at Reservoir Park.
Increase overall participation in arts and cultural activities.
BUDGET AND POLICY QUESTIONS
Is there a time limit to the Operating Agreement? In other words, does the agreement go forward in
perpetuity?
Have seismic improvements been made to the Art Barn?
What is the current condition of the Art Barn from a structural standpoint? The 2020 Facilities
Condition Index indicates there are $46,780 in Capital Asset Renewal Needs. The Council may wish to
ask for additional details.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration to identify any structural issues or any anticipated
repairs needed in the next five years and the associated cost estimates.
The Administration indicates that while a public benefits analysis study is not required under Utah Code 10-8-2
before the City can enter an agreement for a below-market value lease, according to the transmittal, it’s helpful
to study whether such an agreement will meet the public benefit requirements of the code.
Because Salt Lake City Arts Council is a non-profit entity, the City may waive the consideration it would
ordinarily collect in exchange for the conveyance of the City property so long as the municipal legislative body
holds a public hearing and authorizes the waiver. (The City leases the property to the Arts Council for $1 per
year.)
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Finance Director
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
____________________________________________ ____________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 21, 2022
Dan Dugan
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Katie Lewis, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Sustained occupation and usage of Salt Lake City Corporation property located at
54 Finch Lane, also known as the “Art Barn,” to Salt Lake City Arts Council Foundation, a Utah
nonprofit corporation: Public Benefit Analysis under Utah Code Section 10-8-2.
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Randy Hillier, Policy and Budget Analyst (801) 535-6606,
Felicia Baca, Executive Director, Salt Lake City Arts Council, Taylor
Knuth, Deputy Director, Salt Lake City Arts Council or Sara Montoya,
City Attorney (801) 535-7685
DOCUMENT TYPE: Public Benefits Analysis and Recommendation (Revised to correct
typographical error)
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that a public hearing be held on the
matter of the Public Benefits Analysis and to consider adopting a resolution allowing the
sustained occupation and usage of the Salt Lake City Corporation property located at 54 Finch
Lane, also known as the “Art Barn” to the Salt Lake City Arts Council Foundation.
BUDGET IMPACT: NA
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Salt Lake City Arts Council Foundation & Arts Division is requesting to continue utilizing
54 Finch Lane, or the “Art Barn” as the administrative headquarters, housing 6.5 Arts Council
FTEs and multiple seasonal and part-time employees, as well as to provide a home for the Finch
Lane Art Gallery and its numerous exhibitions.
Katherine Lewis (Jan 21, 2022 12:35 MST)
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 28, 2022 15:54 MST)
Over the past 18+months, the Arts Council was tasked with formalizing an Operating Agreement
between the Arts Council Foundation and Salt Lake City. As part of this work, the Arts Council
completed drafts of the Operating Agreement, revised the Foundation Bylaws, and completed a
comprehensive Human Resource policies and procedures manual for the Salt Lake Arts Council
Foundation.
Although the Arts Council has utilized the Art Barn for decades, a Public Benefits Analysis, as
per Utah Code 10-8-2, has never been completed. With the completion of the newly formalized
operating agreement, the Attorney’s Office thought it would be appropriate to complete a Public
Benefits Analysis to satisfy the requirements of this code.
Utah Code 10-8-2 (1) (a) (v) states that after first holding a public hearing, a municipal
legislative body may authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be
provided to or waive fees required to be paid by a nonprofit entity, whether or not the
municipality receives consideration in return.
While a study is not required under Utah Code 10-8-2 before the City can enter an agreement for
a below market value lease, it is beneficial to consider whether such an agreement will meet the
public benefit requirements under Utah Code 10-8-2.
The attached memo to Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff, outlines the public benefits identified
by the Administration that the City will realize from allowing the continued usage of the City-
owned 54 Finch Lane “Art Barn” as the primary administrative headquarters of the Salt Lake
City Foundation & Arts Division.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lisa Shaffer
Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Felicia Baca
Executive Director
Salt Lake City Arts Council
DATE: January 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Sustained occupation and usage of Salt Lake City Corporation property located at
54 Finch Lane, also known as the “Art Barn,” to Salt Lake City Arts Council Foundation, a Utah
nonprofit corporation: Public Benefit Analysis under Utah Code Section 10 -8-2.
____________________________________________________________________________________
In continuation of longstanding support from Salt Lake City since 1979, the Salt Lake Arts Council
Foundation & Arts Division respectfully requests the continued usage of the Art Barn in Salt Lake City as
both the administrative headquarters of 6.5 Salt Lake City Government staff and multiple seasonal and
part time employees of the Arts Council foundation. Additionally, maximizing efficient usage, this site
serves the community and local artists as the Finch Lane Art Gallery, home to exhibitio ns of diverse
emerging and established Utah artists since 1931. The Salt Lake City Arts Council has served as an
integral component of Salt Lake City as a governmental non-profit under Utah Code 11-13a-101.
Over the past 18+months, the Arts Council was tasked with formalizing an Operating Agreement between
the Arts Council Foundation and Salt Lake City, As part of this work, the Arts Council completed drafts of
the Operating Agreement, revised the Foundation Bylaws, and completed a comprehensive Human
Resource policies and procedures manual for the Salt Lake Arts Council Foundation.
Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or
other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality
receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because Salt Lake City Arts Council is a
nonprofit entity, the City may waive the consideration it would ordinarily collect in exchange for
conveyance of the City Property so long as the municipal legislative body holds a public hearing and
authorizes the waiver.
Though a formal study is not required under Utah Code section 10-8-2(3)(e) for services or assistance
provided to a nonprofit entity after public hearing, an informal analysis considering the same factors as a
formal study is set forth below to assist the Salt Lake City Council in their consideration of the costs and
benefits of the requested waiver. Utah Code § 10-8-2(2)(a). Those factors are:
(1) The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for
the arrangement;
(2) The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety,
health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the
residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and
(3) Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable
goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation,
affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the
preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose.
See Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e).
Background:
The Salt Lake Arts Council Foundation is a nonprofit organization that was established in November of
1979, under the direction of Mayor Ted Wilson, with objectives to promote and support artistic programs;
to ascertain community cultural needs; to facilitate community efforts in developing cultural and artistic
programs to reach the public in new ways in Salt Lake City; to act as the advisory body to the City in
relation to the arts; and to bridge communication between the cultural community and City government.
These objectives are related in City Ordinance Chapter 2.32, which connects the City to the nonprofit via
the appointment of board members by the Mayor and confirmation by the City Council, by defining the
responsibilities of the Executive Director, and by providing staff support to the Salt Lake City Arts Council.
The affairs of the Foundation are managed by a Board of Trustees who are also the officers of the Salt
Lake City Arts Council Board.
While the goals of the Arts Council have grown over the last forty-three years, these elements remain at
the core of the organization. City employees of the Arts Division manage the day-to-day operations of
programs and Division initiatives, with oversight and direction from both City Administration and
leadership of the Department of Economic Development. The Foundation is c onsidered a component unit
of the City by the IRS, which means that the Foundation’s annual financial audit is considered as a part of
the City’s annual financial audit. The City funds the Arts Council by providing funds in a City department
cost center, mainly consisting of salary and benefits, as well as through a non-departmental funding
contract with the Foundation for grantmaking and programming. The Foundation raises additional funding
from private donors/sponsors, other government entities, and through earned income.
Collaboratively, over the past 18+ months the City, and Foundation Board’s Executive and Governance
committees revisited the subject of this Operating Agreement. Board members and the Arts Council’s
Executive Director worked with Bruce White, an attorney at Parsons Behle & Latimer specializing in
nonprofit organizations and governmental non-profits to develop an updated draft of the Operating
Agreement in order to articulate this long standing relationship between the two entities. This draft was
presented to the City Attorney Megan DePaulis for review and comment in March 2020 (see in
References). The Bylaws for the Foundation (last updated in the 90’s) were also re-drafted to comply with
City ordinance and current best practice. In addition to this, a comprehensive Human Resources
handbook was contracted for the Foundation employees regarding policies and procedures specific to the
non-profit who employs non-City employees. The Operating Agreement and Bylaws revision are major
steppingstones in a mutually beneficial relationship.
On average, the Arts Council’s programs have reached approximately 100,000 individual audience
members and over 1,000 artists per year. These programs are intended to serve residents along the
Wasatch Front, with a focus on the Salt Lake County area. However, events such as the Living Traditions
Festival attract attendees from across Utah and throughout the region. Programs are thoughtfully curated
each year with the intention of supporting artists and arts organizations and making Salt Lake City a more
vibrant, equitable, and engaging place to live.
The Arts Council’s programs:
Finch Lane Gallery hosts year-round visual art exhibitions in three gallery spaces at the historic Art Barn
in Reservoir Park. The gallery gives local artists an opportunity to exhibit a current body of work, explore
exhibition themes or media relevant to the community and field of arts at large, and foster the
development of curatorial skills through exhibition production and collaboration. T hrough a new initiative,
Flash Projects, the Gallery opened its spaces for short-term, interdisciplinary, community-oriented, and/or
experimental projects in 2020. In response to COVID-19, the Gallery is currently hosting exhibitions
online, virtual experiences, as well as limited in-person gallery visits by appointment only.
Living Traditions Presents features the traditional artforms of Salt Lake’s native, immigrant, and
ethnically diverse communities. Over the years, program offerings have been expanded in an effort to
reach more geographically diverse communities in typical programming years, this includes a three-day
festival; Mondays in the Park, a concert series throughout the summer at the Chase Home in Liberty
Park; hands-on workshops with traditional folk artists at libraries and community centers throughout Salt
Lake; and a summer end Garden Party which is a smaller festival event at Jordan Park. We hope that
future years will allow us to continue this series of events. We have budgeted for these events in 2020-
2021 in the event social distancing changes are made, but for now these events have been postponed or
modified.
Twilight Concert Series is a music concert series presented each summer featuring nationally
recognized and upcoming musicians from across the country and around the world. The series is held at
the Gallivan Center and produced through a more sustainable private partnership that ensures continued
access to residents and enables the Arts Council to focus on more diversity in its gene ral programming.
Musical acts are prioritized on the basis of diversity through both musical genres and those that
represent, speak to, and serve as role models to multiple communities including underrepresented
demographics. For almost 35 years the Twilight Concert Series has brought communities together to
share this experience, creating a vibrant and relevant downtown atmosphere, and promoting Salt Lake
City through the arts. The 2020 series was cancelled due to COVID -19, but our new and modified efforts
are expanded on in the description below.
Outreach and Engagement is a priority for our organization. The Salt Lake Arts Council provides
additional professional development and activation opportunities to local performing artists to engage with
audiences through such programs as the Brown Bag Concert Series and Busker Festival, among others.
These programs contribute to the cultural vibrancy of public parks, plazas and businesses by creating
temporary placemaking. Modified presentations in 2020 included the Cultural Caravan, which was a
traveling pop-up version of the Busker Festival and presented with social distancing measures in place in
all seven City Council Districts. Additionally, the Art Barn serves as a facility that can be rented by the
community and that other City agencies can utilize for meetings and events. A variety of venue rentals
and partnerships facilitate long standing Literary Arts programs in the community. In 2020 in response to
the pandemic, the Arts Council partnered with Emergency Management and the Salt Lake City School
district to act as a food distribution center for families in need. Recent partnerships and programs related
to exhibition at Finch Lane have facilitated tree plantings in Reservoir Park, and trainings related to
exhibitions on Suicide Prevention and Domestic Abuse Survivor Training.
Salt Lake City’s Public Art Program provides opportunities for artists to create site-specific artwork that
enhances or is integrated into public buildings and spaces. Approximately four new projects are
commissioned each year with 2019 resulting in the installation of the State’s largest dollar art commission
in history. The Arts Council recognizes that art in public spaces reflects the history, culture, and pride of
our people and civic spaces.
City Arts Grants Program supports the arts activities of artists, arts organizations, nonprofits, and
elementary schools conducting programming across Salt Lake City through five grant categories. The
City Arts Grant program allows the Arts Council to reach more geographically diverse areas, support
multiple artistic disciplines, and fill gaps that may exist in education and programming for residents.
Technical Assistance, Services, & Research Arts Council staff members have expertise in various
artistic disciplines and provide assistance to artists, organizations, and community members through
communication efforts (such as a monthly newsletter, website blog posts, and a strong social-media
presence), technical assistance (by providing on-site support to performing arts partners, artist
consultation, and by serving on committees and boards), and through referrals. Additionally, the
organization participates in national studies such as the Americans for the Arts & Economic Prosperity® V
study and conducts local-level research for the benefit of the arts and creative industries.
The City Property:
The City Property in question consists of approximately 7,000 leasable square feet on .34 acres with a
fair market lease value (based upon an average price per square foot formula comparing approximately
nine similar facilities in the area) of approximately $194,250 averaged at market rate provided by Real
Estate Services at $27.75 per square foot See highlighted parcel on diagram below.
A Brief History of the Art Barn:
The Art Barn was built during the Great Depression with assistance from the City of Salt Lake, the federal
Works Projects Administration, private contributors, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Alta Rawlins Jensen was one of the visionaries who worked toward the building of a community arts
center that was described in the Salt Lake Telegram as “A Greenwich Village for Salt Lake.” Ms. Jensen
believed that despite desperate economic times, an art center could help to lift the spirit and rekindle the
dreams of the community.
In March of 1931, the Salt Lake City Commission gave the Art Barn founding group permission to build in
Reservoir Park. Designed by architect Taylor Woolley, a former associate of Frank Lloyd Wright, the Art
Barn’s projected construction cost was $10,000. The groundbreaking took place in October 1931, and the
cornerstone was laid in December of the same year. Difficulties in raising the funds necessary to
complete construction delayed the official opening until June 11, 1933. Governor Henry H. Blood and
Mayor Louis Marcus addressed the crowd that filled the building and the lawn surrounding it. The Art Barn
has been a significant community center for arts activities since that time.
The road that runs through Reservoir Park in front of the Art Barn, at the insistence of the founders, was
named Finch Lane to honor the Commissioner of City Parks, Harry L. Finch. Commissioner Finch had
been instrumental in securing the property from the City at a lease rate of $1 per year, and in obtaining
the Federal funds to hire unemployed laborers for this public building project.
In its 90th anniversary year, this space has touched thousands of people, serving artists of all disciplines
and those who experienced their work. Not only has the physical facility survived, with occasional
renovations and additions, but it is still serving the public as its founders intended.
Benefits to Salt Lake City:
All Arts Council programs and services are provided at no charge or at an affordable, low cost to the
public (Twilight Concert Series). Annually, the Arts Council obtains operating and programming funding
from numerous resources, including federal, state, county, and private funding with Salt Lake City
providing on average 65% of our total support. In late 2018 Union Creative Agency analyzed the
operating model of the organization reporting, “The hybrid model has potential to be a premier and
innovative model for Local Arts Agencies. While this model may require more work and development than
simpler models, it has the capacity to deliver unprecedented impact.” This hybrid model of operations,
recently also adopted by the State’s Utah Department of Heritage and Arts as an innovative model,
benefits the City and residents in myriad ways:
● Ability to fundraise a significant portion of the funds that support programming and
staff, creating a direct benefit to residents through leveraging City dollars.
● Wide community buy-in from other government and private funders both national
and local. Increases accountability to community and public when funding sources are
diverse.
● Procurement and commissioning procedures that are effective for best practices in
the field, resulting in responsiveness, efficiency, and effective partner collaboration -in
particular when it comes to executing on issues of equity and inclusion.
● Ability to engage in Citywide issues relevant to the community through Mayor, City
Departments, etc. Effective collaboration, access to information, and resources.
● Mission as an Arts Council to fill niche gaps, incubate, and fulfill comm unity needs.
● Staff and public presence at the facility maintain a constant presence and
awareness in Reservoir Park, as many parks in Salt Lake City see usage by unsheltered
populations, as well as an active University of Utah Student population nea rby.
Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals:
The Salt Lake City Arts Council recently completed a 5-year strategic plan in concert with the Salt Lake
City Arts Council Board, Mayor, Department of Economic Development, and multi-year stakeholder
engagement process involving residents, stakeholders and City Departments. Additionally, the Executive
Director is tasked with implementation of the goals of PLAN SLC, the Mayor’s Current Plans, and guiding
strategic plans and policies of the Department of Economic Development. The Board of the Salt Lake City
Arts Council acts as an advisory body to the City in all matters pertaining to the arts and cultural
development of the City.
● Streamline City art initiatives and improve the structure and funding of the Arts Council (Mayor’s
Plan 2021)
● Ensure access to, and support for, a diversity of cultural facilities citywide.(Plan SLC)
● Increase Overall Participation in arts and cultural activities (Plan SLC)
● Strengthen Organization Health and Development (Salt Lake City Arts Council Strategic Plan)
Below is a breakdown of funding sources from the previous three years.
FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2020-2021
ACTUAL ACTUAL APPROVED
BUDGET
APPROVED
AMENDED
BUDGET
CITY REVENUE 1,149,148.00 1,063,941.00 1,223,801.00 1,411,437.00
CONTRIBUTIONS 107,514.24 8,188.10 110,000.00 139,645.00
EARNED INCOME 136,288.76 106,823.98 46,250.00 18,500.00
GOVERNMENT GRANTS 409,054.45 345,980.00 304,552.00 505,647.00
OTHER REVENUE 10,622.36 4,013.65 2,505.00 5,160.00
TOTAL REVENUE $ 1,812,627.81 $ 1,528,946.73 $ 1,687,108.00 $ 2,080,389.00
The Arts Council receives funding from Salt Lake City’s Non-departmental each year to help with the
expenses of managing the Art Barn facility. In FY19 and FY20 support was given at $7,500 and in FY21
support was at $10,000. The Arts Council Foundation uses this funding to pay for the building utilities.
The Arts Council Foundation also incurs the cost of monthly building cleaning, building security, and
purchases building supplies such as cleaning products, bathroom paper supplies, and PPE.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, we would like to take this opportunity to thank both the City Administration and the City
Council for this opportunity to present our Public Benefits Analysis for the Salt Lake City Arts Council. We
have demonstrated in this document that the Salt Lake City Arts Council and Salt Lake City Arts Council
Foundation provide a clear, direct, and substantial benefit to not only Salt Lake City Residents and
Visitors, but to the Greater Salt Lake City Area. Additionally, we believe that our hybrid st ructure as both a
division of Salt Lake City Government and as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization provides an excellent
example of; (1) robust and healthy public-nonprofit partnerships to our industry at large,(2) remarkable
stewardship of public funds, (3) innovative and solutions focused business practices, and (4) sustainable
and inclusive organizational structure. In closing, we invite any member of the Administration or Council,
as well as members of the general public, to request additional information to clarify any remaining
questions you might have regarding our Public Benefits Analysis. Thank you!
References:
Draft Operating Agreement
Draft Salt Lake Arts Council Foundation Bylaws
Articles of Incorporation and supporting City documents establishing the agency
Salt Lake City Arts Council Board Chapter 2.32 (City Ordinance)
Salt Lake Arts Council Foundation Bylaws (current)
City Commission Minutes 1976 Establishment of Arts Council
RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2021
A Resolution Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees for the Use of the Art Barn by the Salt Lake
City Arts Council Foundation
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”) desires to execute a below-market rate
lease agreement (the “Nonmonetary Assistance”) with the Salt Lake City Arts Council
Foundation, a Utah nonprofit corporation (“Foundation”) for use of the Art Barn located at 54
Finch Lane (“Art Barn”); and
WHEREAS, the Foundation utilizes the Art Barn as its administrative headquarters,
which allows the Foundation to operate in furtherance of its objectives in promoting and
supporting the arts in the community as outlined under Salt Lake City Code 2.32; and
WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(v) allows a municipal corporation to provide
nonmonetary assistance to and waive fees for nonprofit entities, such as the Foundation, after first
holding a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, although Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such
nonmonetary assistance to a nonprofit entity, the City has voluntarily performed an informal
analysis setting forth the benefits afforded to Salt Lake City residents and how the Nonmonetary
Assistance for the Foundation’s use of the Art Barn facilitate provision of such benefits and the
achievement of the Salt Lake City Arts Council’s goals outlined under City Code 2.32
(“Analysis”), which Analysis was included in the transmittal to the City Council and made publicly
available before the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis and has fully considered all
comments made during the public hearing.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and
hereby finds and determines that, for the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Nonmonetary
Assistance is appropriate.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By: ______________________
CHAIRPERSON
2
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
______________________________
Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney
Date: ______________________ November 23, 2021
Presentation by James Wood
Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow
Salt Lake City Council
February 1, 2022
Does Utah Have a Housing Shortage?
Comparison of Additional Housing Units to Additional
Households
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
9,07931,79724,46024,312Dwelling Units Households
Other Market Indicators of Utah’s
Housing Shortage: Points of Entry
(1)Rental market –vacancy rates remain low
overall. Some submarkets softening.
(2)New home market –high rates building
and demand.
(3)Existing home market –prices increases,
sales, and days on market indicate
shortage.
Building Permits Issued for
Apartments and All Residential Units,
SL County
6,000
10,600
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Apartments Total Residential
Apartment Units as Percent of All
Residential Units
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%2000200220042006200820102012201420162018202021.9%20.2%13.6%14.7%9.4%16.7%5.4%19.7%42.7%54.1%24.5%20.2%30.6%31.3%50.8%43.9%53.3%31.3%36.2%57.7%50.4%56.6%
Permits Issued for Apartment Units
in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County
3,400
6,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021 ProjSalt Lake City Salt Lake County
Apartment Units Receiving Permits by City,
2010 to 2021
Source: Gardner Policy Institute.
City Units % Share
Salt Lake City 16,200 46.90%
Sandy 3,319 9.60%
West Jordan 2,106 6.10%
Murray 2,076 6.00%
South Jordan 1,992 5.80%
West Valley City 1,869 5.40%
Draper 1,650 4.80%
Otther 29,212 15.50%
Total 34,544 100.00%
Pipeline: Units Under Construction
and Proposed
Location Units Share
Under Construction Units
Suburban Salt Lake County 3,873 39.9%
Salt Lake City 5,825 60.1%
Downtown 3,643 37.6%
Total 9,698 100.0%
Proposed Units
Suburban Salt Lake County 3,416 37.4%
Salt Lake City 5,706 62.6%
Downtown 4,521 49.6%
Total 9,122 100.0%
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Apartment Projects Under
Construction
Apartment Projects Proposed
Rent Comparison: Downtown Salt Lake City to Salt
Lake County
Source: Cushman & Wakefield..
Downtown
Salt Lake
County
Downtown Rents
Compared to
County
Studio $1,345 $980 37.2%
1X1 $1,659 $1,190 39.4%
2X1 $2,000 $1,157 72.9%
2X2 $2,185 $1,471 48.5%
3X2 $2,862 $1,628 75.8%
Overall $1,810 $1,301 39.1%
Housing Price Increases by Metropolitan
Area
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Salt Lake
Metropolitan Area
Percent
Change
Rank
100 Metro
Areas
US
Change
1991 to 2021 3Q 601.9%
2nd to
Austin 246.9%
Last 5 years 84.6%
2nd to
Boise 51.9%
3Q 2020 to 3Q
2021 28.1%6th 18.5%
Impact for Potential Homebuyers
Mortgage Payment for Median Priced Home in Salt
Lake County, 2015 ($280,000) and 2021 ($550,000)
Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute $1,287$163$226$67$1,743$2,211$321$445$67$3,043$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
P&I Taxes PMI Insurance Mortgage
Pmt
2015 2021Income required (DTI = 36%)
2015 = $58,100
2021 = $101,400
Apartment Market Critical
Component of Housing Supply
(1)Provides some measure of affordability,
particularly tax credit projects.
(2)Relieves doubling-up.
(3)Strong presence of apartment market needed
to counter conditions in ownership market.
(4)Forecast of vacancy rate (2024)
Suburban market 3.7%, downtown market
8.0%.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 1/10/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 1/10/2022
TO: DATE: 1/10/2022
FROM:
Salt Lake City Council
Dan Dugan, Chair
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Richard Taylor as a member of
the Arts Council Board.
/
( )
,,,,,,,11111 ,,.,,,'
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
January 10, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Arts Council Board.
Richard Taylor - to be appointed for a three year term ending starting from the date of City Council
advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
.. Ji. ..
'•
/ ;\
trfj
\ .. l
,,,,, u111 ,v·'
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 1/10/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 1/10/2022
TO: DATE: 1/10/2022
FROM:
Salt Lake City Council
Dan Dugan, Chair
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Ayanna Allen as a member of
the Arts Council Board.
/
( )
,,,,,,,11111 ,,.,,,'
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
January 10, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Arts Council Board.
Ayanna Allen - to be appointed for a three year term ending starting from the date of City Council
advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
.. Ji. ..
'•
/ ;\
trfj
\ .. l
,,,,, u111 ,v·'
City Council Announcements
February 1, 2022
Information Needed by Council Staff
A. Reminder - The Council and School Board Leadership Meeting
The Council and School Board leadership meeting is scheduled for this
Friday, February 4 from 9 am to 10:30 am to discuss legislative issues.
Attached is a list of Council legislative issues that will be shared with School
Board leadership for this meeting.
Please let Council staff know if you have other topics you wish to add
to the agenda for this leadership meeting.
Council leadership includes: Council Chair Dan Dugan; Council Vice
Chair Darin Mano; and RDA Chair Ana Valdemoros.
School Board leadership includes: School Board President Melissa Ford;
School Board Vice President Nate Salazar, and School Board Member
Kristi Swett.
1. Priorities
Homelessness and Mental Health
o Guaranteed homeless mitigation funding for SLC
o Support funds for deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing
Affordable Housing
o Support the Governor’s proposed budget for affordable housing
o Support funds for deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing
o Support changes that would incentivize other cities to provide more
affordable housing options in their jurisdictions.
Water Conservation and the Great Salt Lake
o Great Salt Lake
o Watershed Protection
o Utah Lake Authority
o Conservation efforts
Air Quality and Clean Energy
o AQ funding
Land Use and Planning
o Advocate for local control
Transportation
o Advocate for more funding
o Inclusion of affordable housing in projects near transit
Public Safety / Law Enforcement
o Recruitment/Retention
o Training, Discipline issues
o Street racing penalties
Inland Port
o Appropriations, keep SLC representatives on the board.
2. Lobbyist Group
City has a lead lobbyist who works closely with Mayor and Council and coordinates
with other lobbyist.
Other lobbyists have focus in particular areas, many are assigned to track the issues
related to our priorities
3. Work with other Organizations
ULCT LPC meetings weekly – hear about bills, the group of elected officials and City
staff vote to ratify positions
SLC has 3 seats now:
o Mayor (on Board), Rachel, Amy, Chris