04/12/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
April 12,2022 Tuesday 4:00 PM
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
4:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
7 p.m.limited formal meeting or immediately following the work session
Please note:A general public comment period will not be held this day.
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance,the meeting may be held electronically.After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City &
County Building through the main east entrance.
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:10:42:57
The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach.The hybrid meeting enables
people joining remotely or in-person to listen to the Council meeting and participate
during public comment items.
Public Comments:The public can give comments to the Council during the
meetings online through Webex or in-person in Room 326 of the City and County
Building.In-person attendees can fill out a comment card and online participants will
register through Webex in order to be added to the comment queue.
Agenda &Registration Information:For more information,including Webex
connection information,please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.(A phone
line will also be available for people whose only option is to call in.)
Public Health Information:Masks are no longer required in City Facilities,but are
welcome for any attendees who prefer to continue using them.We will continue to
monitor the situation take any reasonable precautions for the public and staff.
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~4:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in
progress.Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed),services and resources
related to people experiencing homelessness,active public engagement efforts,and projects or
staffing updates from City Departments,or other items as appropriate.
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:Update on Fleet Block Status and Disposition Strategy ~4:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update on the status and disposition strategy for the city-owned
property known as the Fleet Block,located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and
900 South.Until 2010,this property was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet.After
the Fleet function was moved to a facility farther to the west,the City has conducted due
diligence and various studies to prepare the property for redevelopment.The goal of these
efforts is to turn this city owned property into a community asset that will contribute to the
economic,social,and environmental betterment of the city.The Council will also discuss next
steps for the public engagement process and zoning amendments for the block.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
3.Informational:Second Administration Response to Legislative Intents ~5:00 p.m.
20 min
The Council will receive a briefing on the Administration’s response to the Council’s
Legislative Intents from Fiscal Year 2022 and previous years.Legislative Intents are formal
requests the Council makes of the Administration that are adopted along with the annual
budget.This briefing will consist of a progress update on the Legislative Intents to help clarify
any pending questions before the annual budget discussions.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
4.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Proposed Budget:Department of Airports ~5:20 p.m.
30 min
The Council will be briefed about the Mayor’s recommended budget relating to the
Department of Airports for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 17,2022 and June 7,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
5.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Proposed Budget:Department of Public Utilities ~5:50 p.m.
30 min
The Council will be briefed about the Mayor’s recommended budget for the Department of
Public Utilities for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 17,2022 and June 7,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
6.Dinner Break ~6:20 p.m.
30 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
7.Informational:Redistricting Update ~6:50 p.m.
45 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;Tuesday,February 8,2022;Tuesday,February 15,2022;
and Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 5,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,April 19,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
8.Ordinance:Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund The Current
Exchange,1159 South Richard Street ~7:35 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will consider approving a $100,000 loan from the City’s Economic Development
Loan Fund (EDLF)for a business called The Current Exchange,at 1159 S.Richard Street.This
retail business restores and modifies “high-quality desirable classic automobiles,”replacing the
internal combustion engines with modern,pre-engineered electric motors.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 19,2022
9.Ordinance:Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund Mindful Living
Wellness Center,1592 South 1100 East ~7:45 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will consider approving a $100,000 loan from the City’s Economic Development
Loan Fund (EDLF)for a business called Mindful Living Wellness Center,at 1592 South 1100 East.
This is a professional services business that provides float therapy,sound therapy,yoga,life
coaching,meditation centers,infrared light therapy,massages,facials,and overall mindfulness.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 19,2022
10.Informational:Update on the Gentrification and Displacement Plan,
Thriving In Place ~7:55 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a briefing from the Community and Neighborhoods Department
(CAN)about the City’s anti-gentrification and anti-displacement plan,known as Thriving in
Place.This will include new Utah Legislative requirements that are applicable to housing loss
mitigation,as well as a review of the City’s existing housing loss mitigation ordinance.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
11.Board Appointment:Human Rights Commission –Everett Bacon ~8:25 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Everett Bacon prior to considering appointment to the Human
Rights Commission for a term ending December 30,2026.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 19,2022
12.Board Appointments:Accessibility and Disability Commission
Interviews ~8:30 p.m.
10 min
The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to
the Accessibility and Disability Commission for a term ending December 28,2026;
•Everett Bacon
•Jeffery Kenyon
•Margo Thurman
•Nate Crippes
•Scott Browning
•Stephen Persinger
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 19,2022
13.Informational:Funding for Community Engagement TENTATIVE
20 min.
The Council will discuss the Fiscal Year 2023 Council office budget options,including
community outreach resources.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Standing Items
14.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
15.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.
16.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of
an individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,including
any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;
or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible
terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water
right or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves
the sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and
g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of
the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City
Recorder,does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice
Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt
Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have
indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not
limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of
options discussed.
The City &County Building is an accessible facility.People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids
and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please
contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711.
Administrative
updates
April 12, 2022
Last week
This week
National
Wastewater
Surveillance
System
(NWSS)
CDC’s NWSS works with local health
departments to track SARS -CoV-2 levels in
wastewater so communities can act quickly to
prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Wastewater sampling is considered an accurate
early leading indicator of whether COVID-19 is
spreading in a community, especially when
testing is not timely or publicly recorded.
Find local data at deq.utah.gov/water-quality
COVID 19
update
Current
status
New wastewater data shows increases at 6 sites in the
state: Central Valley, South Valley, Tooele, Price River,
Ashley Valley, and St. George.
SLC levels show a slight uptick but not a trend at this
point. This week shows 31 MCG while on 3/29 we were
at 24 MCG.
These are still very low.Peaks have been above 4,400.
The BA.2 variant is now 76.4% of all Utah's cases.
We are seeing surges in other parts of the country, like
Philadelphia, which has re -instituted a mask requirement
after a 50% increase in cases over 10 days.
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Regularly updated with ways to engage with the City.
Community Engagement Highlights
Thriving in Place
•Survey is Open and Website is live at thrivinginplaceslc.org.
•An anti-displacement mural-painting
•April 16th at Three Creeks Confluence 10 AM –4 PM
•The public is invited to come help paint; dress accordingly.
SLC Street Surface Treatments –
Possible restriping
•Street Surface Treatments give opportunity for
restriping/transportation network change on roadway
•Identified streets are open for public feedback
•Decisions will be made on public feedback, master plans,
and ordinance.
•Survey is available via www.slc.gov/mystreet
Proposed Utility Rate Increase
•Presentation by Public Utilities today to council
•Mailer going out next week.
Glendale Water Park Survey
CLOSING SOON
•April 16th –this Saturday
Homelessness Update:
HRC and Overflow Occupancy
April 4 -8
STH -1000 West
Men's HRC
STH -King
Women's HRC
STH -Miller Mixed
HRC Total
St Vincent de
Paul
Shelter Capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg number of beds occupied/night 289 188 198 675 57
Avg number of beds unoccupied/night 11 12 2 25
Avg % of beds occupied/night 96.2%94.2%99%96.5%
Avg % of beds unoccupied/night 3.8%5.8%1%3.5%
Cleaning and Abatements
-Victory Road/ Foothills-hill conditions make it difficult to
clean. Current support efforts include toilets, handwashing
stations and regular trash pick -up on site. Abatement likely
near the end of the month, contingent on weather and soil
conditions.
Resource Fair-Victory Road April 8
-Rescue Mission 12 individuals
-SLCJC 9 cases
-Martindale Clinic 35 naloxone kits, 20 safer injection kits,
25 first aid kits, 35 fentanyl test strips, 12 sharps containers
-SLCo Health Dept. 4 vaccinations
-Riverside Stake Lunch
Kayak/ Bicycle Court
-Friday April 15th @ Jordan River Trail
Homelessness
update
Homelessness
Overflow Shelter
status
801-990-9999
•St. Vincent de Paul
-open nightly until April 15
•Scattered Motel Rooms
-24/7-referral only from HRC's
-open until June 30
•High Needs Temporary Housing Program
(formerly the Ramada Inn motel rooms)
-referral-only hotel rooms for elderly
and medically vulnerable people -
open 24/7
-moving back to HRC's by April 15
•Redwood Overflow Beds (formerly the Ramada
Inn common areas)
-open nightly from 7pm –6:30am
-open until April 15
•The best way to access emergency shelter beds
is:801-990-9999
System Infrastructure Updates
1) SLVCEH-Built for Zero data consulting
-Veteran homelessness
-coordinating with state
2) Salt Lake City Mayor's Office -
Bloomberg/ Harvard trainings
3) State Office of Homeless Services -
Homebase Consulting
services developing state
strategic plan
Homelessness
update
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: April 12, 2022
RE: Informational Update Fleet Block
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: April 12, 2022
Set Date: N/A
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: N/A
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive an Update on the status and disposition strategy for the city-owned property
known as the Fleet Block, located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South.
Until 2010, this property was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet. After the Fleet function
was moved to a facility farther west, the City conducted due diligence and various studies, and issued a
Request for Information (RFI) to prepare the property for redevelopment.
The goal of these efforts is to turn this city owned property into a community asset that will contribute
to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the city. Any redevelopment will need to
balance developer interest, land use and compatibility, and the significant community interest in the
property, focused on art murals painted on the building walls.
In January of this year, the Administration issued an RFI for the Fleet Block. The purpose of the RFI
was to “explore options available to the City to develop the Property and to learn from the prior
experience of others in developing complex urban infill projects. The RFI was intended solely to
assist in informing the City’s approach to developing the Property.”
Reponses to the RFI were due at the end of February. An internal City technical committee is
reviewing the responses and will utilize the information to draft a future Request for Proposal (RFP)
specific to development proposals.
Page | 2
The Administration will provide an overview of the status of the Fleet Block, and the proposed process
to redevelop the property. The Administration’s Transmittal letter notes that “while property
management and disposition are largely an Administrative function, the Council is considering a
rezone of the Property and may consider budgetary allocations in the future to move forward with
redevelopment of the Property. As such, it is helpful for the Council to be briefed and provide
feedback early in the process.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 2019, former Mayor Biskupski initiated a zoning amendment to create a new zone titled Form-
Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3) and rezone the Fleet Block.
The Fleet Block property became of focal point of community expression and interest during the
summer of 2020 amidst calls for social justice. In Fall of 2020, the Council held a series of briefings
and public hearings pertaining to the zoning amendments.
Many constituents spoke during the Fall 2020 Council meetings and covered various main themes,
including:
significant number of comments in favor of preserving the area or part of the area for a
community gathering space such as park, open space or community garden
some comments recommending a community center
requests to save the murals; requests to incorporate the murals into future open space or
development
requests for community to be included in conversation; some called for the City to establish a
community advisory group to help guide the development process
some expressed opposition to housing and commercial development on Fleet Block
some commenters expressed a desire to see the block developed as it has been a blight in their
neighborhood for years
importance of the area as a community gathering space was emphasized
Due to the public comments provided, the Council decided additional, meaningful public outreach was
needed to help identify the vision for the Fleet Block and define what the public benefits could look
like before redevelopment and zoning decisions were made.
The Council decided to postpone considering the zoning amendments until a plan to conduct
additional public outreach was agreed upon. At that time, the Council expressed general support for
the concepts of the zoning amendments; however, they felt with the enhanced focus on the block,
additional public outreach was needed. There has been general agreement between the
Administration and Council on components for the public process and goals based on previous
conversations. Emphasis would include:
1. Creation of a meaningful community gathering space on the block such as a park/public
square or open space.
2. Features that represent the history of marginalized members of the community and the fight,
struggle, and advancement of the community’s efforts for equality, fair representation, and
justice
3. Space for the incubation, growth, and economic success of small businesses
4. Affordable and accessible housing
Page | 3
At a December 2020 Council briefing, the Council directed staff to work with CAN and the Attorney’s
Office to outline potential conditions to the zoning amendments that would help ensure a meaningful
public process is completed. The process would help identify community benefits and be the basis of
draft motions for the Council’s consideration, for example, the adoption of the rezone would be
connected with:
1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future planning efforts (an
RFI).
2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for future
redevelopment of Fleet Block and what the public benefits could look like.
Since then the Administration has held meetings with stakeholders and elected officials, seeking
additional feedback and on the development process moving forward. This briefing will provide an
update to the City Council and the community on those efforts and outline the next steps.
The key sections of the update include:
1. Prior Studies
2. Community Expression
3. Development Constraints
4. Land Value
5. Zoning
6. Request for Proposal (RFP) Strategy
Request For Information (RFI) process
RFP Community Vision Plan
7. RFP Requirements and Preferences
8. Inclusive Marketing Pan
9. Inclusive Selection Committee
10. Community Benefit Agreement
11. Metrics and Outcomes
NEXT STEPS
Continue the public engagement
Consider the Zoning Amendments
o Text Amendment – creation of FBUN3
o Zoning Amendment – rezone Fleet Block to FBUN3
Internal RFI committee to:
o Inform community engagement for the RFP
o City staff, Council Members and Council Staff
RFP Committee
o Selection Committee
o Include stakeholders from community
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council requested a plan for the additional public outreach to be conducted before the
zoning amendments were scheduled again for discussion. Additionally, the administration has
said it would make sense to have the zoning in place before the RFP goes out for solicitation so
that development would fit within the FB-UN3 zone.
a. Does this update and outlined next steps satisfy the Council in terms of public outreach
and identification of shared benefits?
b. Is the Council ready to consider the zoning amendments at a future briefing? If not, are
there any questions or requests for how to move a zoning conversation forward?
Page | 4
2. Does the Council have any questions about potential participants in the RFP stakeholder
committees, or suggestions for participants?
3. Staff listed some of the potential community benefits the Fleet Bock could provide above.
a. Does the Council have any changes or additions?
FLEETBLOCKUPDATE
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION //APRIL 12, 2022
PROPERTY OVERVIEW
~8.75 acres • $37,500,000 or $98 per sq ft. • Zoning: Current -Public Lands, Proposed -FB-UN3
CALL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
PHOTO CREDIT: BUILDING SALT LAKE
Salt Lake City –FLEET BLOCK UPDATE
PUBLIC PROCESSES
ZONING
•Public notices
•Community Councils
•Open House
•Planning Commission
Public Hearing
•City Council Public
Hearing x2
ART HEALING
•Lead by the Mayor’s Office,
in coordination with the
SLC Arts Council
•2 healing practitioners -
Franque Bains; Melanie
Davis LCMHC, Black
Clinicians
•10 family representatives
•Utilize art as a vehicle to
drive social change –
recommendation letter,
signage
DEVELOPMENT
•RFI
•RFP -Community goals
& values
•RFP -Inclusive
marketing
•RFP –Inclusive selection
committee
•Ongoing community
commitments
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Salt Lake City –FLEET BLOCK UPDATE
Community
Engagement
To foster a project that is based on input from the City’s many stakeholders,
inclusive of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, and income, thereby resulting
in a project that is community supported and provides opportunity for
historically marginalized residents.
Policy Alignment To foster a project that aligns with adopted plans and policies, thereby
supporting previous public engagement, planning processes, and legislative
actions.
Existing Conditions To foster a project that considers existing conditions and logistics that may
influence the design and site plan, such as environmental contamination, high
voltage power lines, easements, underserved utilities, parking requirements,
and traffic circulation.
Financial
Considerations
To foster a project that is financially feasible and leverages the value of the
land to limit additional financial participation by the City while incentivizing
public benefits to implement the community’s vision.
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
Salt Lake City –FLEET BLOCK UPDATE
Power Lines High voltage lines run along the north side of the Property on 800 South
and can place constraints on building height and setbacks.
Environmental
Contamination
The Property has various types and levels of environmental contaminants
from over 100 years of industrial uses.
Street Conditions Streets surrounding the Fleet Block may need redesign to be made more
functional, attractive, and safer.
High Water Table Significant excavation for subsurface parking is unlikely due to the high
water table.
Soil Conditions Construction of higher intensity uses on the site will likely require driving
pilings, which adds to the cost of vertical construction.
Infrastructure
Capacity
Current infrastructure may be inadequate to serve higher density
development and will likely require investment to improve capacity.
Salt Lake City –FLEET BLOCK UPDATE
RFP –ENGAGEMENT PLAN
Request for
Information
As a precursor to the RFP,CAN issued an RFI to explore options available to
the City to develop the Property and to learn from the experience of others.
Community Vision
Plan
Community-driven plan for how best to incorporate community desires into
the Fleet Block RFP.
Requirements &
Preferences
Based on the Community Vision Plan, RFP requirements and preferences
will be developed to get competitive and specific responses that address
City and community needs.
Inclusive Marketing
Plan
The RFP will be made available to a diverse range of stakeholders through
an inclusive marketing plan.
Inclusive Selection
Committee
The RFP selection committee will include community representatives from
diverse backgrounds along with City representatives.
ONGOING COMMUNITY COMMITMENT -OPTIONS
Salt Lake City –FLEET BLOCK UPDATE
Community Benefits
Agreement (CBA)
•An agreement between developer(s) and community-based organization(s)
representing residents’ interests.
•Establishes the benefits the community will receive in exchange for
supporting the project.
•Benefits could include items such as commercial space for
underrepresented populations, local hiring practices, and a dedication of
funding for community purposes.
Metrics &
Outcomes
•Used to track and measure the development’s outcomes in comparison to
the RFP’s vision, guiding principles, requirements, and preferences.
•Metrics could include affordability, underrepresented populations, climate
resiliency, community health, social and economic justice, etc.
NEXT STEPS
Salt Lake City –FLEET BLOCK UPDATE
Council’s Role While property management and disposition are largely an Administrative
function, the Council is considering a rezone of the Property and may
consider budgetary allocations in the future. As such, it is helpful for the
Council to be briefed and provide feedback early in the process.
Ongoing Community
Engagement
The Administration is developing detailed strategies to reach a wide range
of representatives to hear from and build trust with the City’s communities,
and to implement a project that reflects the community’s values and goals.
RFP Timeline Community engagement will continue for the next several months. After
which, the community’s values and goals will be incorporated into the RFP
with a goal of releasing the RFP by the fourth quarter of this calendar year.
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 Office Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 21, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN)
__________________________
SUBJECT: Update on the status and disposition strategy for 8.75-acres of city-owned property
located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South, also known as the Fleet Block.
STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods
385-270-4638, blake.thomas@slcgov.com
Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods
801-535-7244, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational Item
RECOMMENDATION: This briefing is for informational purposes; however, the Council may
wish to provide feedback due to related policy and budget considerations.
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City owns approximately 8.75 acres of a city block located between 300 and 400 West and
between 800 and 900 South, as depicted in Attachment A (the “Property). The Property, commonly
known as the “Fleet Block”, was utilized up until 2010 by the City to manage its vehicle fleet.
Since then, the City has conducted due diligence and various studies to prepare the Property for
redevelopment. Currently, the Administration is working to transform this underutilized
community asset into a project that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental
betterment of the city.
To prepare for the forthcoming RFP process, community engagement is being carried out along
with technical considerations, with the goal of implementing a project that aligns with the
community’s values, supports existing policies, and is logistically and financially feasible. The
following components are being considered:
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 22, 2022 14:45 MDT)03/22/2022
03/22/2022
1. Community Engagement – To foster a project that is based on input from the City’s many
stakeholders, inclusive of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, and income, thereby
resulting in a project that is community supported and provides opportunity for
historically marginalized residents.
2. Policy Alignment – To foster a project that aligns with adopted plans and policies,
thereby supporting previous public engagement, planning processes, and legislative
actions.
3. Existing Conditions – To foster a project that considers existing conditions and logistics
that may influence the design and site plan, such as environmental contamination, high
voltage power lines, easements, underserved utilities, parking requirements, and traffic
circulation.
4. Financial Considerations – To foster a project that is financially feasible and leverages
the value of the land to limit additional financial participation by the City while
incentivizing public benefits to implement the community’s vision.
This briefing seeks to provide an overview of the status of the Property, and the proposed
process to redevelop the Property. While property management and disposition are largely an
Administrative function, the Council is considering a rezone of the Property and may consider
budgetary allocations in the future to move forward with redevelopment of the Property. As
such, it is helpful for the Council to be briefed and provide feedback early in the process.
Prior Studies:
Since 2010, the City has conducted several studies to determine the best approach to
redeveloping the site. Most recently, the Administration contracted with Urban Design
Associates and Cascadia Partners for a study that included a community engagement process and
produced a design proposal with a corresponding economic analysis. The study concluded that
there is a strong momentum for an innovation district; the Property is appealing for start-ups and
business expansions; and there is a strong presence of the arts, breweries, and culinary uses in the
neighborhood. Additionally, the community engagement process indicated support for the
development of a mix of uses including housing, commercial, and open space, with a desire to
strengthen multimodal transportation connectivity and infrastructure. The subsequent design
proposal incorporated new city streets, public space, and a mix of land uses housed within
buildings up to six stories.
The study was presented to the Council on February 12, 2019. At that briefing several concerns
were raised, specifically about the type and amount of open space. The study was never endorsed
or adopted as a master plan for the block. While the study provided value by soliciting public
input and providing a development option, the Administration is viewing the study as a scenario
analysis and does not plan on using it as a masterplan for the Property.
Community Expression
In summer of 2020, with a call for social justice at the local, regional, and national level, the
Property was utilized for community expression, protest, and a call for social change which
resulted in community-initiated murals on the Property. The Administration recognizes the
importance of carrying out a transparent and inclusive process to redevelop the Property, and has
incorporated several strategies, as further described herein, to carry out these objectives. Further,
the Mayor’s Office, in coordination with the Arts Council, is working with the arts community
and the families of those represented in the murals on a proposal to utilize art within the
forthcoming project as a medium for awareness to drive social change. The resulting project is
intended to be an equitable development that meets the needs of underserved communities
through policies and programs that reduce disparities while fostering a healthy and vibrant
community.
Development Constraints:
The Property has certain development constraints that will influence the forthcoming
development plan. Additional detail is as follows:
1. Power Lines: High voltage lines run along the north side of the Property on 800 South
and can place constraints on building height and setbacks.
2. Environmental Contamination: The Property has various types and levels of
environmental contaminants and groundwater intrusion from over 100 years of industrial
uses. Based on previous estimates, cleanup costs may range from approximately
$600,000 to $2,500,000, depending on the level of remediation and type of end uses.
3. Street Conditions: Many streets surrounding the Fleet Block need redesign to be made
more attractive and safer. The City’s latest pavement survey shows that three of the block
faces around the Fleet Block have pavement in poor condition and the 300 West block
face is in failed condition. Additionally, any forthcoming development will require new
street infrastructure, whether publicly or privately owned, to improve access, circulation,
and walkability of the site.
4. High Water Table: Significant excavation for subsurface parking is unlikely due to the
high water table. Large surface parking lots or parking structures are more practical for
the site but could negatively impact the urban design.
5. Soil Conditions: Construction of higher intensity uses on the site will likely require
driving pilings, which adds to the cost of vertical construction.
6. Infrastructure Capacity: Basic infrastructure may be inadequate to serve higher density
development and will likely require investment to improve capacity and development
readiness.
Land Value:
Land Value: As per an appraisal dated January 2022, the market value of the Property is
$37,500,000, or $98 per square foot, as if no environmental remediation is required. The 89,900
square feet of industrial space does not contribute to value. Additionally, the value considers that
the land has been zoned from PL to a zoning district that permits a variety of uses.
Zoning:
The Property is currently zoned Public Lands (PL), which generally limits the property to
institutional and municipal uses. In March 2019, former Mayor Jackie Biskupski initiated a
petition to rezone Fleet Block to a new zone to facilitate development of the Fleet Block in a way
that supports the City’ s master plans. In response to the petition, the Planning Division
evaluated zoning for the block that would support the City's goals as noted in the Downtown
Master Plan (2016.) The block has been identified in the Downtown Plan to be a redevelopment
site that "demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing of land uses once
thought to be incompatible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first."
Accordingly, a zoning amendment has been proposed that would apply a modified version of the
City's Form Based Urban Neighborhood-2 (FB-UN2) zone to the Fleet Block. The zone would
be known as the Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3 (FB-UN3) zone. The zone would have
similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone, which is mapped on the blocks around 900 South and
200 West and allows for four to five story tall mixed-use development. The FB-UN3 zone would
primarily differ in that it would include requirements for mid-block walkways, allow more
intense commercial land uses, such as light manufacturing and industrial assembly, and allow for
greater height (up to 125') than the adjacent FB-UN2 zone.
RFP Strategy:
Through a request for proposal (RFP) process, the Administration plans to solicit competitive
offers to acquire the Property and implement a development that will foster equitable, inclusive,
innovative, and sustainable growth. While the City could sell the Property, the transaction will
likely be a long-term ground lease to allow the City to maintain an interest in the Property.
Additionally, the RFP strategy includes mechanisms to ensure that the values, goals, and
requirements expressed through the RFP are indeed carried out, providing ongoing commitments
and accountability. Engagement strategies are intended to reach a wide range of representatives
to hear from and build trust with the City’s communities, during a period of unprecedented
attention to the issue of what it means to be inclusive and what it means to be truly heard. This
engagement is a critical component of a larger dedication to meaningful community involvement
in the development of the City. Additional detail on the proposed RFP strategy is as follows:
1. Request for Information (RFI)
As a precursor to the RFP, CAN issued an RFI to explore options available to the City to
develop the Property and to learn from the prior experience of others in developing
complex urban infill projects. Due on February 25, 2022, RFI responses gathered
feedback regarding development options with the proposed zoning, Form-Based Urban
Neighborhood 3 or FB-UN3. An internal technical committee is reviewing and analyzing
the information received from the RFI and will utilize it to inform the RFP process.
2. RFP Community Vision Plan
A Vision Plan will be developed that provides community-driven, realistic guidance to
the City for how best to incorporate community desires into the Fleet Block RFP. The
Plan is anticipated to include the following components:
a. Community Vision Statement: A statement of what the community envisions the
block to incorporate and may include statements regarding inclusion, affordability,
design elements, land uses, ongoing engagement, etc.
b. Guiding Principles: A set of guiding principles that support the community vision and
are used to inform and evaluate RFP responses. A draft set of guiding principles
(Attachment B) has been created based off precursory community input and current
city plans, polices, and priorities.
c. Development Concepts: Based on the Vision Statement, Guiding Principles, and
information collected through the RFI, various design and development concepts will
be presented to the community to gauge preferences and prioritization for:
o Character images visualizing potential development typologies.
o Range of alternative site concepts including various development synergies and
public benefits such as affordable housing, housing tenure and typologies,
density/scale, commercial uses, urban design, connectivity, public art, open
space, etc.
3. RFP Requirements and Preferences
RFP requirements and preferences will be developed to get competitive and specific
responses that address the City and community’s needs. These requirements will include
essential development components that are deemed vital for redevelopment of the site,
such as:
a. Affordability requirements
b. Inclusionary hiring practices
c. Design standards (i.e. floorplate maximums)
d. Tenant requirements (i.e. local businesses, specific uses, family housing)
e. Tenure requirements (i.e. homeownership)
f. Open space requirements
g. Development team requirements (i.e. partnerships with underrepresented businesses)
4. Inclusive Marketing Plan
The RFP will be made available to a diverse range of stakeholders through an inclusive
marketing plan. As a result, the RFP will be targeted to underserved populations such as
persons with limited English proficiency and persons from the Black, Indigenous, and
people-of-color (BIPOC) communities.
5. Inclusive Selection Committee
The selection committee that will be responsible for evaluating, ranking, and selecting
proposals for an award will include community representatives from diverse backgrounds
along with City representatives.
6. Community Benefit Agreement
To ensure that the community’s input does not get lost or diluted after the RFP is
awarded, a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) could be a requirement of the RFP. A
CBA is a contract between a developer and community-based organizations representing
residents’ interests. The agreement spells out the benefits the community will receive in
exchange for supporting the project. The CBA could include benefits such as:
a. Requirements for local hiring
b. Commercial space dedicated to underrepresented populations/businesses
c. The development of certain public amenities
d. Partnership with local artists from the BIPOC community on privately owned,
publicly visible art instillations.
While many of the above benefits would be included in a development agreement
between the developer and City, a CBA would provide additional assurance and
accountability by the developer to the community. It could include elements that are
typically not included in a development agreement, such as the type of artists to be
commissioned for certain art projects. The parameters of the RFP requirements of a CBA
would need guidance from the Attorney’s Office, as this would be a new concept for the
City.
7. Metrics & Outcomes
A set of metrics will be identified to track and measure the development’s outcomes in
comparison to the vision, guiding principles, requirements, and preferences identified in
the RFP. By establishing metrics early in the process and tracking outcomes over time,
the City and developer will be held accountable to the community. Potential metrics may
measure indicators such as affordability, underrepresented populations, climate
resiliency, community health, and social and economic justice.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The Fleet Block project includes multiple public processes, with a summary as follows:
1. Zoning: Thus far, the rezone process has included public noticing; outreach to the Central
9th and Ballpark community councils; an open house held on July 8, 2019 that was
attended by over 50 participants; a Planning Commission public hearing held on
December 11, 2019; and City Council public hearings held on November 10 and
November 17, 2020.
2. Art: The Mayor’s Office, in coordination with the Arts Council, is working with the arts
community and the families of those represented in the murals on a proposal to utilize art
within the forthcoming project as a medium for awareness to drive social change.
3. RFP: The Administration’s RFP strategy includes community-supported elements that
will be included in the RFP, including a vision statement, guiding principles, and
development concepts. The RFP strategy also incorporates an inclusive marketing plan
and selection process. Additionally, a community benefits agreement may be a
requirement of the RFP to encourage ongoing participation from and commitments to
community representatives.
EXHIBITS:
A. Site Map
B. Draft Guiding Principles
EXHIBIT A: Site Map
EXHIBIT B: Draft RFP Guiding Principles
The following draft RFP guiding principles are intended to evolve as the City receives
additional input from the community and completes due diligence efforts on the property.
a. Land Uses: Mixed-use development that provides for growth while being
contextually sensitive, and that incorporates public space with some mix of residential,
commercial, retail, hotel, or other function. Land uses shall maximize space utilization, include
an array of amenities, establish a unique architectural expression, and be pedestrian oriented.
b. Public Space: Accessible public space to promote public gatherings, free
expression, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community, and that may be developed,
maintained, and activated through a public-private partnership with the City.
c. Placemaking & Community Expression: Publicly visible art or placemaking that
may express community values, establish a unique identity for the Property or Granary District,
and/or heighten awareness of social issues. This could include scenarios in which existing
community murals are memorialized or preserved and integrated into the publicly accessible
space and/or a new community-supported project is carried out.
d. Equity & Inclusion: Equitable development that provides access to opportunity
for historically marginalized residents, which may include space for the incubation and growth of
small innovative businesses (e.g., makers, artists, etc.), mixed-income housing with units for
residents that are 50% of the area median income or below, community resources such as a
grocery store or childcare facility, and integration with current and future transit routes and
infrastructure.
e. Infrastructure & Connectivity: Infrastructure improvements that mitigate traffic
congestion, incorporates parking efficiencies, and provide for safety, walkability, connectivity,
and accessibility both within the block and to adjacent transportation networks and land uses.
f. Environment & Sustainability: Sustainable and environmentally responsible
development that promotes community resiliency through the mitigation of existing
contamination, promotion of environmental equity, and the efficient use of resources.
g. Financial Leverage & Partnerships: Financially viable development that utilizes
innovative financing tools and partnership structures to limit financial participation by the City,
allows for the incorporation of public benefits, and provides opportunities for revenue sharing.
Long-term partnership structures with the City may include a land lease or other structure that
could offset costs associated with deeply affordable housing, below-market commercial space,
public space, infrastructure, etc.
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:April 12, 2022
RE: SECOND ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE INTENTS
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has provided a progress update on responses to the Legislative Intents adopted by the
Council as part of the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) budget, and on several Intents outstanding from previous years.
The purpose of this update is to help clarify any pending questions before the annual budget discussions (see
Attachment C1). The First Administration Responses on the FY22 Legislative Intents were briefed in the Council
Work Session on September 22, 2021, and some previous years’ Intents were closed.
Administration responses to each Legislative Intent are summarized below, and potential Council policy
questions are noted in the context of each specific item. The full Legislative Intent statements and complete
Administration responses can be found in the transmittal. The Council will consider closing any completed
Legislative Intents during the upcoming budget discussions.
Goal of the briefing: Review the Administration’s progress on Council Legislative Intents and provide
feedback as needed.
SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATION RESPONSES
1. Attorney’s Office
a.FY21 – Decriminalization Review of City Code. Initial review of City code carried out by
law student clerk in summer of 2021 revealed that more attention and expertise will be needed
to complete this review, including involvement of the Prosecutor’s Office. The project will be
continued in the coming fiscal year.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 12, 2022
Set Date: n/a
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
2
The Council may wish to ask whether the Attorney’s Office plans to request
any additional budget allocation for this project, and whether there is an
estimated completion date.
2. Community and Neighborhoods Department
a.FY22 - Update Boarded-Building Fee. The cost analysis for this Legislative Intent will be
finalized for the next Legislative Intents update, during the budget discussions.
b.FY22 - Trips-to-Transit Expansion Evaluation. Ridership levels and cost-per-rider are
the metrics used as guides to potential expansion. Also, the Transit Master Plan identifies the
Upper Avenues and the East Bench as candidates for on-demand service. Data from Phase 1
(service to Westside communities) will be available in the next year or two and will allow the
Transportation Division to forecast the potential for expansion in these neighborhoods.
c.FY21 - Transfer Housing Trust Fund Development Loans and Payments to RDA.
The Housing Stability Division continues to administer these loans and assist the HTF Advisory
Board. In 2022, the Finance Department will prepare a budget amendment to transfer the
balance sheet of the loans, and coordinate with RDA for a corresponding budget amendment to
accept the balance sheet. Once the loans are transferred, the Attorney’s Office will prepare and
review with the Council the needed code modifications related to restructuring the HTF
Advisory Board.
3. Finance Department
a.FY22 - Expanded Funding Our Future Definition [“public safety” definition in Funding
Our Future to include social workers and non-emergency traffic enforcement programs).
Response forthcoming.
4. Police Department
a.FY21 - Police Department Role.
i.Park Rangers. The Park Rangers program, which is currently getting underway, is
now part of the Public Lands Department and will be staffed by civilians. The Police
Department’s dedicated Park Bike Squad will continue to provide a police presence in
City parks to deter criminal activity, engage with residents, and work with Public Lands
employees to address ongoing law enforcement issues like illegal camping, curfew
violations, drug use, thefts, and violent crimes, like assaults and robberies.
The Council may wish to ask when the PD’s Park Bike Squad, which
was not fully staffed as of February 2022, is anticipated to return to
full staffing.
ii.Social Workers. Hiring is underway to fill the additional 9 social worker positions
authorized in the FY22 budget. These new staff members will help the team cover
evening and weekend shifts.
iii.Internal Affairs Unit. The Department hired a civilian director for the Internal
Affairs Unit, which is now part of the Chief’s Office. The director works closely with the
City’s Human Resources Department, the independent Civilian Review Board, and the
public. This director is not a sworn officer, which allows for continuity and steady
leadership since the position is not subject to rotating assignments.
The Legislative Intent indicated that the Council’s interest was “to
enhance the independence of the Internal Affairs unit.” The Council
may wish to ask how this new position helps further that goal, and
whether the Human Resources Department has taken on any new
roles.
3
iv.Police Civilian Response Team (PCRT). This program is currently under
development in the Police Department. It is planned as a response to police-related calls
for service that are categorized as low-hazard and non-emergency. Professional
oversight, training, policy, and codes of conduct will be the same as every other PD
employee.
The Council may wish to ask when the hiring for the PCRT will begin,
and how many FTEs will be hired for this new role.
b.FY21 - Police Department Zero-based Budget Exercise. The Police Department
participated in the independent audit evaluation by Matrix Consulting during FY21 and is now
participating in the City’s initial efforts to undertake a program-based budgeting process. This
process cannot get fully underway until the migration to the City’s new Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) is complete.
Would the Council like to request additional information on the
Administration’s efforts to undertake a program-based budgeting process?
c.FY21 – Police Department Reporting Ordinance. Response forthcoming.
5. Public Lands Department
a.FY22 - Golf Fund Update. The Golf Division provided extensive information in response to
the three-part Legislative Intent. The full response can be seen in Attachment 1 to the
transmittal.
i.Golf Fund Financial Sustainability: Trends in revenues, expenditures. Golf
revenues during the pandemic surpassed five-year averages; the number of rounds
jumped by 18% FY20 t0 FY21. Operations costs are increasing across the board due to
inflation and supply problems. The Division is attempting to establish a three-month
operations cash reserve. In addition, the Administration’s transmittal notes:
“The Golf Division is utilizing this opportunity to funnel increased revenues back into
the golf facilities to address long over-due repairs and improvements to irrigation
systems, playing surfaces, practice facilities, cart paths and clubhouse areas.”
ii.Long-term CIP Plans, based on current projections and the recently
completed short-term CIP plan. Last year, the Council approved an additional $1
fee per 9 holes to increase CIP funds. It took effect on January 1, 2022. The Golf
Division also provided some additional information on its pending long-term CIP plan
in their response to this intent.
“Although a long-term plan has not been finalized, long-term CIP projects are being
identified, evaluated and planned for. These long-term projects include replacement of
aged and failing irrigation systems at Rose Park, Mountain Dell, Nibley Park and
Forest Dale golf courses. New clubhouses are sorely needed at all locations.
The Public Lands Department and Golf Division management teams are evaluating all
public funding options available including general obligation bonds, ZAP tax
applications, TRCC funds and other state and federal grant programs along with
public-private partnerships.
The Department of Public Utilities applied in October of 2021 for $1.8 million dollars
in federal WaterSMART funds to help pay for a new irrigation system and turf
reduction program at the Rose Park Golf Course. The Golf Fund is providing $1.8
4
million dollars in matching funds to this project. The grant award is in April. Golf is
also beginning to allocate additional funds to cover escalating costs of this project.
iii.Golf Food and Beverage Options. This part of the Legislative Intent specifies that
the Golf Division should review the specific open space zoning ordinances with the goal
of removing barriers to providing additional food and beverage options in golf courses.
The Council also requested an analysis of any barriers that might exist in State law, and
that changing these laws be identified as a future legislative priority. The Division’s
response is as follows:
“In August of 2021, the contracted concessionaire for 5 of the 6 Salt Lake City golf
courses abruptly requested to end their agreement with the City after just 15 months of
operations citing financial losses. These losses were realized despite the Golf Division
waiving their fees and all revenue sharing for the entirety of 2020 due to the pandemic
disruption. The Golf Division continued operations of the cafes at the five courses for
the remainder of 2021. However, the courses were not able to offer beer sales, which
make up most of the concessionaire’s profits.
City Code 15.08.050 makes it unlawful for a person to consume beer in a City park,
unless it is a park in which the City has expressly granted a concessionaire operating
in the park a license to sell beer. The City’s golf courses are “parks” as defined in
chapter 15.04.
The City has previously entered into a concessionaire agreement, authorizing a City
employee to make the application at certain golf courses that were unable to secure a
concessionaire contract or during the Olympics so alcohol could be served in the City &
County Building. This action requires public liability and liquor liability (“dramshop”)
insurance, which the City does not carry. There are many risks and downsides to
requiring a city employee to place themselves as the sole responsible individual on the
application for a beer license and puts the employee in an extremely liable position
should a lawsuit be filed. The Golf Division prefers not to require an employee to take
this risk.
The City does not allow employees to receive tips, which is a normal practice at food
and beverage operations. To try and attract workers in the golf Cafes, the Golf
Division increased pay above the living wage. However, given the lack of a beer
license at those locations and the higher wage, the course cafes lost a significant
amount of revenue while trying to still provide café services to golf patrons.”
The Golf Division has re-published the concessionaire RFP and hopes to contract with
replacement concessionaires at the five locations for the 2022 season and beyond.
However, absent new concessionaire contracts, the Golf Division will offer reduced
services at the remaining courses.
Given the information detailed above, the two main obstacles to providing additional
food and beverage services at this time are:
1. Lack of interest from potential concessionaires due to lack of revenue potential.
2. The State restriction to the City as an applicant for beer license.
The Golf Division has proposed altering (reducing) the fee structure for potential
concessionaires to make operating a golf course café more profitable to attract more
interest. The Golf Division is also looking into areas of additional investment within
the café spaces to help make the operations more attractive to both potential
concessionaires and golfing and nongolfing customers.
5
Golf will continue discussions with Human Resources and Finance, to explore options
that could allow City employees to accept tips while working in Golf cafés. This would
greatly help contain expenses necessary to operate.”
b.FY22 - Public Lands Maintenance [Funding Estimates]. The Public Lands Department
is working on an estimate of funding needs, based on a complex framework (see Transmittal)
that includes full staffing at appropriate wages, replacement of failing infrastructure, and
unfunded responsibilities, including tasks like weed abatement and tree maintenance.
6. Public Services Department
a.FY15 Maintenance of Business Districts. Several years ago, Public Services reported
having had productive discussions with RDA staff about various models to fund maintenance.
Discussions focused on Central 9th and Regent Streets and included considering how parking
can support business district maintenance. Nothing further has been reported since.
7. RDA
a.FY22 - Energy Efficiency as a Condition of any RDA Project Loans and
Investments. The RDA Board/Council adopted a Sustainability Policy during a December
2021 meeting.
b.FY22 - Structure of Accounts within RDA and All Other Departments, including
Fund Balances and Previous Capital Projects. The RDA responded, “The efforts
requested in this Legislative Intent are being undertaken as part of the preparation for the
implementation of the new ERP system.”
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents
Briefing #1: Post-budget discussion
Transmittal: August
Work Session: September
Purpose:
o Q & A with department representatives
o Workshop to refine the legislative intents
o Receive information from the departments – what’s been tried and/or whether
they would like to propose a better approach, etc.
o Early status information, first-round thoughts, feedback
Briefing #2: Mid-year status update –Timed to coincide with BA 3 or 4
Transmittal: January - February
Work Session: March
Purpose:
o Briefing from Department representatives
o Mid-year update on progress made, department response, impact to budget if
any, etc.
o This is not expected to be a 100% complete report or close-out, but rather a mid-
term update
Briefing #3: Combined with annual budget report
Transmittal: No separate transmittal; information and updates included or apparent in
annual budget information
Work Session: Intents would be discussed as part of department annual budget briefings
Purpose:
o Continue tracking legislative intents and close out as applicable
o Refine status and next steps for the coming fiscal year
Exceptions: Some items may have a separate timeline identified and those will be considered
separately.
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: February 23, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: FY 2022 Open Legislative Intents February Responses
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Randy Hillier, (801) 535-6606 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Legislative Intents
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is forwarding to the City Council responses to the
City Council’s FY 2022 adopted legislative intents and further responses from prior fiscal year’s
open legislative intents. The Administration’s final responses to the above-mentioned legislative
intents will be contained in the FY 2022-23 Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Lisa Shaffer (Feb 23, 2022 18:05 MST)
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
1
Attorney
FY 2021 – Decriminalization Review of City Code. It is the intent of the Council that an
in-depth review be conducted of the City Code to consider items that could be de-criminalized.
Council staff could work with Council Members and the City Attorney’s Office to draft a scope
and come back with a report on the timeline.
Previous Administration Response: The City Attorney’s Office has two clerks from
the University of Utah Law School starting in May 2021 and we are excited to engage
them in this analysis and process. The clerks’ work product will be a chart that can be
shared with both the Council and Administration so both branches can prioritize
sections of City Code to potentially decriminalize.
February 2022 Response: The Attorney’s Office performed an initial review of City
code with the help of a law student clerk and the Prosecutor’s Office. This project
required more attention and expertise than initially expected and we look forward to
engaging City Attorney’s Office resources for the project in FY 2022-23.
CAN
FY 2021 – Transfer Housing Trust Fund Development Loans and Payments to
RDA. The Council intends to transfer the Housing Trust Fund’s housing development-loan-
related balances and payments to be overseen by the RDA. During FY20, HAND and the RDA
developed a detailed “housing framework” for consideration by the RDA Board and the Council.
These bodies may wish to schedule time once the FY21 budget is complete to finalize this work,
which may include changes to City ordinances and/or board policies.
Previous Administration Response: HAND continues to work with the RDA, the
Attorneys, and Finance regarding the transfer of the Housing Trust Fund or HTF (aka
HDTF) portfolio. The portfolio resides in HAND’s loan management system (N4F), and
HAND continues to maintain the loans. The key component of transferring the portfolio
requires ordinance modifications regarding the current Housing Trust Fund Ordinance
that includes process for the HTF Advisory Board. For example, the HTFAB does not
currently have the authority to make a recommendation to the RDA Board, only to the
Mayor and City Council. Clarification from Council/Board on moving forward with the
proposed structure from RDA staff will guide future process for the HTFAB and would
assist in proposed modifications. HAND will continue to work with CAN Leadership, the
RDA, the Attorneys, and Finance on proposed code modifications and identifying
appropriate fund classes and cost centers to enable the transfer.
February 2022 Response: Housing Stability continues to work with CAN Leadership,
the RDA, the Attorneys, and Finance regarding the transfer of the Housing Trust Fund or
HTF (aka HDTF) portfolio. The portfolio resides in Housing Stability’s loan management
system (Benedict Group Inc., LNF), and Housing Stability continues to administer the
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
2
loans and assist the HTF Advisory Board. In 2022, Finance will prepare a budget
amendment to transfer the balance sheet of the loans, and coordinate with RDA for their
corresponding budget amendment to accept the balance sheet. The Attorney’s Office will
assist with globally reassigning the loans to RDA. Housing Stability and RDA have
completed a transfer test between loan systems (the RDA uses the same loan system).
Once the loans are transferred, the Attorney’s Office will prepare and review with the
Council needed code modifications related to restructuring the HTF Advisory Board.
Housing Stability will continue to work with CAN Leadership, the RDA, the Attorneys,
and Finance on the steps required to finalize the HTF transfer to the RDA.
FY 2022 - Update Boarded-Building Fee. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration propose a boarded building fee that includes the full City costs of monitoring
and responding by Police, Fire and other City departments at these properties.
February 2022 Response: The cost analysis related to this Legislative Intent is in the
process of being finalized. Further detail will be forthcoming in the next Legislative
Intent response.
FY 2022 - Trips-to-Transit Expansion Evaluation. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration provide their strategy for evaluating whether to expand the Trips -to-Transit
program, which will begin to serve Westside neighborhoods in late 2021, to other areas of the
City.
February 2022 Response: CAN recommends the following metrics as guides on
expansion to help inform the policy decisions related to allocating the budget for
expansion. The Upper Avenues and the East Bench are the other two areas identified in
the Transit Master Plan as candidates for on-demand service.
Usage/ridership: Is the service popular enough to justify expansion?
Cost per rider: Is the service cost effective enough to justify expansion?
The service provider (Via) does ridership modeling based on land use, demographics,
and other data. The documented ridership and costs associated with the Phase 1 service
in the Westside communities will allow for more accurate forecasts. Within the next year
or two, we will have enough data from phase 1 to be able to do more accurate forecasts
for the potential expansion neighborhoods.
Finance
FY 2022 - Expanded Funding Our Future Definition. It is the intent of the Council that
the definition of “public safety” for allocation of Funding Our Future revenue include not only
the Police Department, Fire Department, and 911 Dispatch, but also any social workers and non-
emergency traffic enforcement programs which are designed to expand the City’s public safety
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
3
alternative response model. (Note: The current definition included Fire and 911 Dispatch since
FY2020.)
February 2022 Response: Response forthcoming.
Police
FY 2021 - Police Department Role: It is the intent of the Council to re-evaluate the role the
City asks the Police Department to play, and the budget to fulfill that role, and ask the
Administration to evaluate moving certain programs out of the Police Department, like park
rangers and social workers, and potentially add a function to the Human Resources Department
to enhance the independence of the Internal Affairs unit.
Previous Administration Response:
i. Park Rangers (Incorporates and FY 2020 Legislative Intent): The
Police Department has established a bike squad assigned to park patrols and is
working closely with parks staff to identify the most effective use of these park
patrol units. The Administration is also looking at other models around the
country with the goal of enhancing the work these squads do with additional
resources focused on customer service. Ideally, these additional resources would
provide a combination of education and compliance of park rules, environmental
services, and historical and cultural interpretation. Utilizing this model would not
eliminate the need for the park patrol bike squads – whose focus is to enforce
state and local laws and provide quick response in our public spaces when called.
February 2022 Response: The Police Department has a dedicated Park Bike
Squad with a primary mission of providing a police presence in city parks to deter
criminal activity and engage with citizens in a positive way to enhance the park
experiences. The squad works with existing SLC Park employees to address on-
going park issues that require police intervention such as illegal camping, curfew
violations, drug use, thefts, and crimes of violence such as assaults and robberies.
Under normal circumstances the Park Squad and Park employees meet monthly
to discuss park issues (it should be noted the Park Squad is not fully staffed so the
monthly meetings have been suspended until the squad is back to full staffing).
Note: Park Rangers is a civilian program that is managed through the parks
department.
The Police Civilian Response Team (PCRT) is conceptualized to be a public safety
response to low-hazard non-emergency police related calls-for-service. This
would be in terms of both telephonic case reports and in-person responses during
high call-volume times and days of the week. The intent is to augment and
enhance the current police response service within the city through diversity in
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
4
response teams; similar to the current co-response model with social workers,
other than PCRT employees will generally not work exclusively with an officer.
The PCRT will be an added program to the SLCPD repertoire of services offered
to SLC residents, businesses, and visitors. It will have a defined leadership
structure and consist of several full-time employees. Professional oversight,
training, policy requirements, and codes of conduct would be the same as every
other SLCPD employee.
A steering committee is currently working through the logistics of adding a new
response program to the police department. The logistics include but are not
limited to - development of an initial and on-going training program, specific job
and duty descriptions, leadership components, equipment procurement,
uniforms, dispatch interactions, overlap with traditional policing services, and
policies and procedures.
ii. Social Workers: The Social Workers are working with officers assigned to the
Crisis Intervention Team in a Co-responder model. The social workers have
expressed concerns regarding a potential shift in this model, because they often
respond to dangerous situations that ultimately require a police officer. The
Department and the Administration are committed to continuing to evaluate the
co-responder model to ensure that City residents are getting the best and most
helpful response to calls for service, and that social workers and officers remain
safe on the job.
February 2022 Response: Social Work team expansion is in progress. The FY
22 budget added an additional 9 FTE’s. As those positions are hired on this will
facilitate coverage of shifts on evenings and weekends. The Social Workers are
highly effective working as a co-responder model providing valuable resources to
the community and officers while answering calls for service and client
management.
Internal Affairs Unit: The Police Department is actively working with Human
Resources to enhance the oversight of the Internal Affairs Unit and is in the
process of hiring a Civilian Director. A Civilian Director will ensure that the IA
unit operates professionally and with the continuity and experience that is
required to best serve the Department and the City’s residents.
February 2022 Response: The Salt Lake City Police Department has hired a
civilian Director for the Internal Affairs Unit (IAU). The civilian IAU Director
works closely with the Chief’s Office, Human Resources, the Civilian Review
Board, other City components and the public, providing continuity and steady
leadership as the incumbent is non-sworn and therefore not subject to rotational
assignments.
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
5
The IAU Director oversees the Internal Affairs Unit, ensuring the professional
standards program is one that is fair, objective, thorough and consistent,
reflecting the values of the Salt Lake City Police Department, while protecting the
rights of officers and citizens, promoting respect and trust within the Department
and the community, resulting in a culture of individual responsibility,
accountability, and adherence to the greatest standards of professionalism.
The IAU Director supports the IAU staff by providing guidance and direction to
investigators including reviews of investigative methodologies, interviews, and
reports. The IAU Director fosters and promotes a culture of compliance and
trust, identifying issues of concern while offering suggestions to improve training,
policy, and procedures.
FY 2021 - Police Department Zero-based Budget Exercise. It is the
intent of the Council to hire an independent auditor to evaluate each line item in
the Police Department budget with the goal of conducting a zero-based budget
exercise, which takes the budget apart and builds it back in a way that aligns with
the policy goals of the Council, Mayor and public. A report back to the Council
would happen in September, or sooner if possible.
Previous Administration Response: The Council hired an auditor to evaluate the
Police Department Budget and the presentation to Council by Matrix is scheduled on
4/20/2021.
February 2022 Response: The Police Department participated in the independent
audit evaluation by Matrix during FY 2021. The Police Department is now participating
in the City’s initial efforts to undertake a program-based budgeting process that will
provide department costs based on programs within the department.
FY 2021 – Police Department Reporting Ordinance. The Council intends to work with
the Attorney’s Office to create an ordinance that establishes reporting requirements for internal
information collected by and related to the Police Department.
Previous Administration Response: While the first step of this reporting and
transparency goal was the adoption of the body camera ordinance in 2020, the
Attorney’s Office looks forward to engaging with the Council on additional reporting
requirements for internal information collected by and related to the Police Department.
February 2022 Response: Response forthcoming.
Public Lands
FY 2022 - Golf Fund Update. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide
information on the following items in anticipation of a work session briefing to review and
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
6
discuss options for the Golf Fund. (Note: this item consolidates Legislative Intents from FY21,
FY20, and FY19.)
Golf Fund Financial Sustainability: Trends in revenues, expenditures,
Long-term CIP Plans. Based on current projections and the recently completed short-
term CIP plan,
Golf Food and Beverage Options. A review of the specific open space zoning ordinances,
with the goal of removing barriers to providing additional food and beverage options in
golf courses. To the extent that barriers exist in State law the Council requests an
analysis of those, and that changing them be identified as a future legislative priority.
February 2022 Response: See Attachment #1 at the end of the document.
FY 2022 - Public Lands Maintenance. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration provide an estimate of the funding that would be needed to adequately maintain
all of the City's public lands. This estimate should include the number of FTEs, as well as
supplies, equipment, and appropriate signage.
February 2022 Response: Providing adequate maintenance of Salt Lake City’s public
lands is an increasingly complex issue, involving funding deficiencies, aging
infrastructure, growth of the City, staffing restraints, extreme weather events, and
increasing crime and antisocial behavior. We are constantly balancing the needs of daily
park users against the needs of persons experiencing homelessness. In addition, :
physical condition, accessibility, positive experience for visitors, relevance to the
community served and the adaptability of the asset to changing circumstances are
factors that contribute to the quality of the City’s green infrastructure.
Innovative and environmentally based approaches to improving our public lands is key
to making long term changes to the maintenance concerns of today. Well designed and
well-used public spaces is key to community wellness and has a direct relationship to
their usage. Research has shown that there is a direct relationship between the level of
park use and the perception of security: the larger the number of visitors involved in
positive activities within a park acts as a deterrent to anti-social behavior.1.2
An accumulation of events impacting maintenance has led to a decline in Salt Lake City’s
public lands and park appearance. In some instances, poor appearances has clearly led
to a decrease in beneficial and legal park use and perception of safety. With these
influences, the natural progression is an increase in crime and anti-social behaviors
occurring in our public spaces. These factors contribute to the public’s perception of
safety and their willingness to use a space.
The Department is proposing an FY22-23 CIP funding request to take a deep look at our
public lands and ask the following questions: does the public space meet the needs of its
users; is the park or trail diverse and interesting; does it connect people with their
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
7
community; does the public green space look well-kept and cared for; and can it provide
visitors with a positive image and experience. Understanding the relevance of our public
lands to the communities they serve and the deferred maintenance needs within each
public green space is critical to prioritizing resource allocation.
With these factors in mind, the following framework outlines steps to adequately
maintain the City’s public lands. The Public Lands team is working on narrative to
explain these solutions with cost estimates including FTE’s, supplies, and equipment.
1. Close the recruitment gap
a) Seasonal Staffing & Affordable Care Act implications
b) Wages
c) Extreme Working Conditions
d) Increasing Supervisory Demands
2. Match growth of the City with growth of our Public Lands System
a) More Park Visitors
b) Pressure to Grow
c) Design and Crime
3. Address the City’s Public Lands aging infrastructure
a) Growth without Investment
b) Large Equipment Replacement
4. Improve stewardship capacity
a) Volunteer Programs
b) Friends Groups
c) Data Collection
5. Resolve unfunded directives
a) Weed Abatement
b) Unsheltered Camp Cleanup
c) 1,000 Tree Initiative
d) Tree Protection
6. Reduce or eliminate crime and antisocial behaviors in parks, golf
courses, trails and natural lands.
a) Involving Community in Design
b) Visibility
c) Activity and Life
d) Park Rangers
e) Signage
Public Services
FY 2015 Maintenance of Business Districts. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration explore changes so that maintenance of business districts (existing and future)
would be paid through the Business Improvement District (BID) process, so that property
owners that benefit share in the costs.
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
8
Most Recent Administration Response: Public Services has had productive
discussions with RDA staff about various models to fund maintenance. Discussions have
focused on Central 9th and Regents Streets and include considering how parking can
support business district maintenance.
February 2022 Response: Nothing further has developments since the last
Administration response.
RDA
FY 2022 - Energy Efficiency as a Condition of any RDA Project Loans and
Investments. It is the intent of the Council/Board that all RDA project loans and investments
require certain energy efficiency standards be met, including that buildings be all-electric, as a
condition of funding by January 1, 2022.
Staff note: The Council/Board may wish to designate specific energy efficiency or sustainability
standards, such as those set out by LEED and other accrediting organizations. (See examples at
https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/green-building-standards.)
February 2022 Response: The Agency Board (Council) adopted a Sustainability
Development Policy during a December 2021 meeting that satisfies the conditions and
requirements requested in the Legislative Intent.
FY 2022 - Structure of Accounts within RDA and All Other Departments, including
Fund Balances and Previous Capital Projects. It is the intent of the Council/Board to
review the full structure of RDA accounts with RDA and Finance Staff, including fund balances
and capital projects funded in previous years. The Board may wish to discuss with the RDA and
Finance staff the best way to get this information on a real-time basis. Staff note: The City’s
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) effort will help in tracking/providing this information in a
less labor-intensive way, although the horizon for full implementation could be a year or longer.
February 2022 Response: The efforts requested in this Legislative Intent are being
undertaken as part of the preparation for the implementation of the new ERP system.
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
9
Attachment #1
Golf Fund Financial Sustainability: Trends in revenues, expenditures,
Over the past two years, the Golf Fund has seen a highly impactful surge of play due to
conditions associated with the COVID-19 situation. This surge led to a renewed interest in the
game among current and previous players that may have left the game in the past. Additionally,
a number of new players have taken up the sport.
Golf revenues are up compared to 5-year averages due to the increase in play. However,
operational costs for golf courses, as with most other industries, are experiencing a significant
increase across the board due to inflationary, supply channel and scarcity factors.
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
10
The Golf Division is utilizing this opportunity to funnel increased revenues back into the golf
facilities to address long over-due repairs and improvements to irrigation systems, playing
surfaces, practice facilities, cart paths and clubhouse areas.
The Golf Division is attempting to stabilize the Fund in light of volatility in supply-chain and
service delays and price increases by establishing a 3-month operational cash reserve.
Historical Golf Rounds:
Play in FY22 continues to outpace FY21 at 2.13% higher. FY21 saw an increase in play over FY20
by 17.87%. These increases can be tied to impacts of COVID-19. Interest in playing golf remains
high and we expect to have numbers similar to last spring barring unseasonable weather during
March through June.
Long-term CIP Plans. Based on current projections and the recently completed
short-term CIP plan,
The Golf Division continues to update short- and long-term CIP planning as situations dictate.
Asset failures due to age necessitate flexibility as well as ever-changing supply chain
complications and rising costs of materials and services.
Although a long-term plan has not been finalized, long-term CIP projects are being identified,
evaluated and planned for. These long-term projects include replacement of aged and failing
irrigation systems at Rose Park, Mountain Dell, Nibley Park and Forest Dale golf courses. New
clubhouses are sorely needed at all locations.
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
11
The Public Lands Department and Golf Division management teams are evaluating all public
funding options available including general obligation bonds, ZAP tax applications, TRCC funds
and other state and federal grant programs along with public-private partnerships.
The Department of Public Utilities applied in October of 2021 for $1.8 million dollars in federal
WaterSMART funds to help pay for a new irrigation system and turf reduction program at the
Rose Park Golf Course. The Golf Fund is providing $1.8 million dollars in matching funds to this
project. The grant award is in April. Golf is also beginning to allocate additional funds to cover
escalating costs of this project.
On January 1, 2022, the Golf Division implemented an additional $1 per 9 holes fee to the
existing $1 per 9 holes fee to increase the amount of funds available for CIP.
Golf Food and Beverage Options. A review of the specific open space zoning
ordinances, with the goal of removing barriers to providing additional food and
beverage options in golf courses. To the extent that barriers exist in State law the
Council requests an analysis of those, and that changing them be identified as a
future legislative priority.
In August of 2021, the contracted concessionaire for 5 of the 6 Salt Lake City golf courses
abruptly requested to end their agreement with the City after just 15 months of operations citing
financial losses. These losses were realized despite the Golf Division waiving their fees and all
revenue sharing for the entirety of 2020 due to the pandemic disruption. The Golf Division
continued operations of the cafes at the five courses for the remainder of 2021. However, the
courses were not able to offer beer sales, which make up most of the concessionaire’s profits.
City Code 15.08.050 makes it unlawful for a person to consume beer in a City park, unless it is a
park in which the City has expressly granted a concessionaire operating in the park a license to
sell beer. The City’s golf courses are “parks” as defined in chapter 15.04.
The City has previously entered into a concessionaire agreement, authorizing a City employee to
make the application at certain golf courses that were unable to secure a concessionaire contract
or during the Olympics so alcohol could be served in the City & County Building. This action
requires public liability and liquor liability (“dramshop”) insurance, which the City does not
carry. There are many risks and downsides to requiring a city employee to place themselves as
the sole responsible individual on the application for a beer license and puts the employee in an
extremely liable position should a lawsuit be filed. The Golf Division prefers not to require an
employee to take this risk.
The City does not allow employees to receive tips, which is a normal practice at food and
beverage operations. To try and attract workers in the golf Cafes, the Golf Division increased pay
above the living wage. However, given the lack of a beer license at those locations and the higher
wage, the course cafes lost a significant amount of revenue while trying to still provide café
services to golf patrons.
FY 2022 Legislative Intents / Previous Year’s Intents that
Remain Open
12
The Golf Division has re-published the concessionaire RFP and hopes to contract with
replacement concessionaires at the five locations for the 2022 season and beyond. However,
absent new concessionaire contracts, the Golf Division will offer reduced services at the
remaining courses.
Given the information detailed above, the two main obstacles to providing additional food and
beverage services at this time are:
1. Lack of interest from potential concessionaires due to lack of revenue potential.
2. The State restriction to the City as an applicant for beer license.
The Golf Division has proposed altering (reducing) the fee structure for potential
concessionaires to make operating a golf course café more profitable to attract more interest.
The Golf Division is also looking into areas of additional investment within the café spaces to
help make the operations more attractive to both potential concessionaires and golfing and non-
golfing customers.
Golf will continue discussions with Human Resources and Finance, to explore options that could
allow City employees to accept tips while working in Golf cafés. This would greatly help contain
expenses necessary to operate.
04/12/2022
BUDGET BRIEFING FY2023CITY COUNCIL
FY 2023 Budget Goals & Objectives -Budget Drivers
•Forecast revenues and expenses on information known today with reasonable
assumptions for the future
•Assumptions and actual results will be reviewed in a timely manner and
appropriate actions taken
•Control costs and look for ways to strengthen non aeronautical revenue growth
•Continue to stabilize rates and charges through ARPA and Infrastructure Grants
•Secure long term debt financing to continue to finance the New SLC
Enplaned Passenger Traffic
11,293,011 11,850,220
12,420,172
13,090,133
10,095,732
7,176,375
11,506,679
13,827,600
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Actuals
Actual Budget
Income Statement Forecast
Description FY 2022
Budget
FY 2022
Forecast
FY 2023
Budget
Operating Revenue $252,039,100 $ 296,436,600 $295,469,100
Passenger Incentive Rebate (2,375,800)(13,480,200)(14,115,800)
Operating Expenses (162,726,200)(156,274,600)(181,158,600)
Net Operating Income 86,937,100 126,681,800 100,194,700
AIP and Other Grants 60,750,200 61,210,600 83,231,400
Passenger Facility Charges 42,407,400 46,899,500 52,290,300
Customer Facility Charges 9,607,400 10,295,400 11,761,600
Interest Income 3,000,000 4,774,300 2,000,000
Bond Issuance Costs (3,500,000)(3,010,000)(3,500,000)
Interest Expense (142,244,600)(125,100,000)(136,333,200)
Non-Operating Income (29,979,600)(2,830,200)9,450,100
Total Sources and Revenues 56,957,500 119,651,600 109,644,800
Capital Equipment (6,138,800)(6,138,800)(7,760,600)
Increase to Airport Reserves $50,818,700 $ 115,612,800 $101,884,200
CARES, CRRSAA, ARPA, and Infrastructure Grants
Total FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024
CARES Act $82.5 $3.9 $66 $12.6 $$
CRRSSA *20.6 20.6
ARPA **80.8 6.8 37 37
BIL (Infrastructure)125.8 25.2 25.2 25.2
Total $309.7 $3.9 $66 $65.2 $62.2 $62.2
*Concession Relief $2.75 million not included in total
**Concession Relief $11 million not included in total
•CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA grants have been or are expected to be applied to reimburse
Operating Expenses
Federal Relief Grants (in millions)
FY 2023 Operating Revenues Budget of $295,469,100
Airlines
$151,699
51%
Landside Concessions
$94,851
32%
Terminal Concessions
$26,985
9%
Other
$2,382
1%
Leases
$12,867
5%
State Aviation Tax
$3,224
1%
General Aviation
$3,461
1%
Source: Airport records (in thousands)
Comparison of Airline Revenues
Revenue Category FY 2022
Budget
FY 2022
Forecast
FY 2023
Budget
Landing Fees $57,152,500 $63,279,300 $57,590,200
Terminal Rents 88,940,500 98,489,200 94,115,000
Airline Revenue Sharing (2,375,800)(13,907,300)(14,115,800)
Hardstand 6,539,800 5,676,500 6,244,200
Support Buildings 3,892,300 3,870,600 3,924,000
Passenger Boarding Bridge 1,744,800 1,582,500 1,582,500
Fuel Farm 1,805,100 1,805,100 1,809,200
Remain Overnight 454,900 544,000 549,400
TOTAL AIRLINE REVENUE $158,154,100 $161,339,900 $151,698,700
Enplaned Passengers 11,506,700 12,718,200 13,827,600*
*Airline Projections
Comparison of Concession Revenues
Revenue Category FY 2019
Actual
FY 2022
Budget
FY 2022
Forecast
FY 2023
Budget
Auto Parking $ 36,297,300 $28,719,300 $48,213,700 $52,726,900
Car Rental 29,855,500 27,283,000 34,013,200 36,127,200
Ground Transportation Fees 6,304,300 3,348,300 5,817,600 5,996,700
Food & Beverage 12,557,300 10,031,400 11,707,900 16,798,500
Retail 6,805,700 5,086,200 7,612,800 8,230,800
Flight Kitchen 1,985,800 1,351,200 2,117,400 2,329,100
Advertising Media 1,090,700 250,000 578,700 578,700
TOTAL CONCESSION REVENUE $94,896,600 $76,069,400 $110,061,300 $122,787,900
FY 2022 Operating Expenses Budget of $181,158,600
Source: Airport records (in thousands)
Salaries/ Benefits
$62,545
34%
Maint. Contracts
$28,928
16%
Materials & Supplies
$17,494
10%
Services
$34,855
19%
Inter Gov't Charges
$23,289
13%
Utilities
$7,022
4%
Other
$7,026
4%
Comparison of Operating Expenses
Expense Category FY 2022
Budget
FY 2022
Forecast
FY 2023
Budget
Salaries and Benefits $56,381,000 $55,659,800 $62,544,500
Maintenance Contracts 25,713,700 24,834,100 28,927,800
Services 31,747,100 29,289,900 34,854,600
Materials and Supplies 14,899,500 14,523,500 17,494,200
Intergovernmental Charges 19,961,200 19,121,000 23,289,100
Utilities 7,019,600 7,052,600 7,021,800
Other 7,004,100 5,793,700 7,026,600
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $162,726,200 $156,274,600 $181,158,600
Labor and Operating Expense Highlights
•Airport unfunded 77 FTE’s in FY20 and FY21 (Covid) and filled 38 in FY22 Budget
•FY 2023 Budget requests 35.5 positions including 16 divestiture officers $3.1 M
•Merit Increases 4.5% Insurance 7.5% $4.3 M
•Police $1.9 million Fire $1.3 million
•Shuttle Services $1.25 million
•Janitorial Contract $1.9 million
•Security Contract $734K
•IT Contracts $1.1 million
•Chemicals $1 million
Cost Per Enplaned Passenger (CPE)
3.69 3.56 3.83
3.90
5.41
11.24
8.41 8.16
3.97
4.33
7.53
8.62 9.05
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Actuals 2018 Projections
Actual Forecast
Capital Equipment Budget Request
Replacement New Total
Fleet $4,483,000 $2,714,000 $7,197,000
Other 237,900 325,700 563,600
Total $4,720,900 $3,039,700 $7,760,600
FY 2022 Major Capital Equipment Highlights
Rosenbaur Panther ARFF 6x6 ARFF
Truck
$925,000
Runway Paint Removal Truck 800,000
Runway Rubber Removal Truck 800,000
Single Axle Paint Truck 800,000
Large Wheeled Loader 525,000
Versalift Personnel Lift Truck 300,000
Replacement
Fleet
58%
Replacement
Other
3%
New Fleet
35%
New Other
4%
FY 2022 Capital Equipment By Type
Capital Improvement Program
Source of Funds:Use of funds:
AIP / Grants $4,561,000 Airfield $10,563,000
Passenger Facility Charges -Auxiliary Airports / GA 8,202,500
Customer Facility Charges -Landside / Roads 4,546,000
GARBS -Terminals 5,443,000
Airport Funds 37,252,500 Other Projects 13,059,000
Total $41,813,500 Total $41,813,500
AIP / Grants
10.9%
Airport Funds
89.1%
Terminals
13.0%
Airfield
25.3%
Auxiliary
Airports / GA
19.6%
Landside /
Roads
10.9%
Others
31.2%
FY 2023 Budgeted
CIP ProjectsProjects Fund
New Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2023
•Terminal Projects -$5,443,000
-Concourse B Maintenance Facilities and Shell Space
•Airfield Projects -$10,563,000
-Taxiway E Reconstruction
-Gate #39 Reconstruction
-SkyWest Hangar Taxilane Reconstruction
•Other Projects -$13,059,000
-Electrical & Comm Duct Bank from AOC to Gate #7
-Equipment Storage Building
-South Employee Parking Lot Program(Design)
Note: Partial listing of Projects
New Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2023
•Landside -$4,546,000
-Terminal Front Access Road Improvements
-Park and Wait Lot Expansion
-EV Charging Stations
•Auxiliary Airports -$8,202,500
-SVRA Hangar Site Development
-SVRA New T-Hangars
Questions?
BUDGET BOOK
for
FISCAL YEAR 2023 DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
BUDGET FY 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Budgeted Operating Statement 1
Operating Revenues 2
Operating Expenses 3
Organizational Chart 8
Staffing Document 9
Travel Budget 16
Sources and Uses of Funds 20
Capital Equipment 21
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 23
Capital Improvement Project Descriptions 24DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
BUDGETED OPERATING STATEMENT
FOR FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2022 AND 2023
FY 22 FY 22 FY 23
Description Amended Forecast Requested
Budget Budget
Operating Revenue 252,039,100$ 271,528,200$ 295,469,100$
Operating Expense 162,726,200 156,274,600 181,158,600
Net Operating Income 89,312,900$ 115,253,600$ 114,310,500$
Other Income / (Expense)
Interest Income 3,000,000 4,774,300 2,000,000
Bond Issuance Costs (3,500,000) (3,010,000) (3,500,000)
Interest Expense (142,244,600) (125,100,000) (136,333,200)
Passenger Incentive Rebate (2,375,800) (13,480,200) (14,115,800)
Total Other Income / (Expense)(145,120,400) (136,815,900) (151,949,000)
Net Revenues from Operations (55,807,500)$ (21,562,300)$ (37,638,500)$
Other Sources of Funds
Grants and Other Funds for Capital Projects 2,950,500 20,463,000 4,799,500
Passenger Facility Charges - --
Customer Facility Charges - 909,000 -
General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs)351,463,000 375,845,000 -
Funds from Reserves/Others 42,883,300 65,900,800 44,774,600
Total Other Source of Funds 397,296,800$ 463,117,800$ 49,574,100$
Use of Airport Capital Funds
Capital Projects 39,695,000 24,002,000 41,813,500
Terminal Redevelopment Program 164,849,000 297,159,000 -
North Concourse Program 186,614,000 135,818,000 -
Capital Equipment 6,138,800 6,138,800 7,760,600
Total Use of Airport Capital Funds 397,296,800$ 463,117,800$ 49,574,100$
Net Airport Reserves (55,807,500)$ (21,562,300)$ (37,638,500)$
Requested
Description Actual Budget Forecast Budget
FY 21 FY 22 FY 22 FY 23
Terminal Rents 139.55$ 187.04$ 163.25$ 170.34$
Landing Fees 2.54$ 3.96$ 3.04$ 2.85$
Cost per Enplaned Passenger 11.25$ 11.56$ 8.41$ 8.16$
BUDGET IMPACT ON TERMINAL RENTS AND LANDING FEESDRAFT
1
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
COMPARISON OF FY 2022 BUDGETED AND FORECASTED REVENUES
TO FY 2023 BUDGETED REVENUES
FY 22 FY 22 FY 23
Description Amended Forecast Requested
Budget Budget
Airline Fees
Scheduled Airline Landings 51,408,800$ 48,065,600$ 52,274,900$ 866,100$ 1.7%
Charters / Commuters 283,300 450,000 334,900 51,600 18.2%
Cargo 5,460,400 4,986,100 4,980,400 (480,000) -8.8%
Passenger Boarding Bridge Fees 1,744,800 1,582,500 1,582,500 (162,300) -9.3%
Other Buildings 3,892,300 3,870,600 3,924,000 31,700 0.8%
Fuel Farm 1,805,100 1,805,100 1,809,200 4,100 0.2%
Remain Overnight 454,900 544,000 549,400 94,500 20.8%
Hardstand 6,539,800 5,676,500 6,244,200 (295,600) -4.5%
Airline Terminal Rents - TU1 86,564,700 69,451,100 79,999,200 (6,565,500) -7.6%
Airline Terminal Rents - TU2 - - - - 0.0%
Total Airline Fees 158,154,100$ 136,431,500$ 151,698,700$ (6,455,400)$ -4.1%
Non-Airline Fees
Extraordinary Service Charges 53,900$ 64,100$ 68,500$ 14,600$ 27.1%
Cargo Ramp Use Fee 293,300 250,300 382,100 88,800 30.3%
International Facility Use Fee 1,698,400 2,442,300 1,774,700 76,300 4.5%
Tenant Telephone Fees 62,100 59,300 59,300 (2,800) -4.5%
General Aviation Hangars 1,181,600 1,116,400 1,138,000 (43,600) -3.7%
FBO Hangars 20,600 20,400 20,800 200 1.0%
Cargo Buildings 1,484,000 1,504,100 1,580,200 96,200 6.5%
Flight Kitchen 1,351,200 2,117,400 2,329,100 977,900 72.4%
Office Space 1,984,100 1,945,400 2,011,100 27,000 1.4%
Food Service 9,869,300 11,539,500 16,627,800 6,758,500 68.5%
Vending 162,100 168,400 170,700 8,600 5.3%
News & Gifts 5,086,200 7,612,800 8,230,800 3,144,600 61.8%
Car Rental Commissions 19,790,800 26,363,500 28,133,800 8,343,000 42.2%
Car Rental - Fixed Rents 7,492,200 7,649,700 7,993,400 501,200 6.7%
Leased Site Areas 3,902,900 4,375,100 4,789,600 886,700 22.7%
Auto Parking 28,719,300 48,213,700 52,726,900 24,007,600 83.6%
Ground Transportation 3,348,300 5,817,600 5,996,700 2,648,400 79.1%
Advertising Media Fees 250,000 578,700 578,700 328,700 131.5%
Security Charges for Screening 339,000 340,300 340,300 1,300 0.4%
State Aviation Fuel Tax 2,000,000 2,931,200 3,224,300 1,224,300 61.2%
Fuel Revenue 1,309,800 1,379,700 1,380,500 70,700 5.4%
Fuel Oil Royalties 522,800 750,000 765,000 242,200 46.3%
Military 156,800 156,800 156,800 - 0.0%
Central Receiving & Distribution 1,209,600 1,786,500 1,955,800 746,200 61.7%
Other 1,596,700 5,913,500 1,335,500 (261,200) -16.4%
Total Non-Airline Fees 93,885,000$ 135,096,700$ 143,770,400$ 49,885,400$ 53.1%
Total Operating Revenues 252,039,100$ 271,528,200$ 295,469,100$ 43,430,000$ 17.2%
FY 22 Budget
to FY 23 Budget
Variance
DRAFT2
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
COMPARISON OF FY 2022 BUDGETED AND FORECASTED EXPENSES
TO FY 2023 BUDGETED EXPENSES
FY 22 FY 22 FY 23
Description Amended Forecast Requested
Budget Budget
Salaries and Fringe Benefits
Supervisory and Professional 27,952,500$ 28,157,000$ 30,503,000$ 2,550,500$ 9.1%
Operating and Maintenance 9,706,100 9,238,300 10,800,800 1,094,700 11.3%
Clerical and Technical 1,538,300 1,496,300 1,713,700 175,400 11.4%
Hourly and Seasonal 153,900 82,100 208,000 54,100 35.2%
Uniform and Tool Allowance 25,200 26,300 24,000 (1,200) -4.8%
FICA/MCR 2,809,800 2,789,900 3,204,400 394,600 14.0%
State Retirement 6,928,200 7,229,000 7,832,000 903,800 13.0%
Health Insurance 7,267,000 6,640,900 8,258,600 991,600 13.6%
Total Salaries and Benefits 56,381,000$ 55,659,800$ 62,544,500$ 6,163,500$ 10.9%
Materials and Supplies
Books, References and Periodicals 28,100$ 33,500$ 25,900$ (2,200)$ -7.8%
Office Materials and Supplies 158,000 148,000 158,700 700 0.4%
Copy Center Charges 6,500 5,000 5,500 (1,000) -15.4%
Postage 18,000 18,000 18,000 - 0.0%
Computer Software and Supplies 717,900 718,900 960,100 242,200 33.7%
Security System Supplies 459,800 459,800 684,900 225,100 49.0%
Gasoline and Oil 597,900 778,300 597,900 - 0.0%
Compressed Natural Gas 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 - 0.0%
Other Fuel 953,000 953,000 953,000 - 0.0%
Tires and Tubes 100,000 95,500 100,000 - 0.0%
Motive Equipment and Supplies 753,500 725,700 753,500 - 0.0%
Communication Equipment and Supplies 396,900 398,000 622,100 225,200 56.7%
Special Clothing and Supplies - Fire & Police 144,500 144,500 144,500 - 0.0%
Paint and Painting Supplies 354,000 354,000 354,000 - 0.0%
Construction Materials and Supplies 847,600 825,400 850,600 3,000 0.4%
Electrical Supplies 744,800 745,000 1,094,800 350,000 47.0%
Road and Runway Supplies 615,000 615,000 615,000 - 0.0%
Janitorial Supplies 1,071,500 1,071,500 1,124,500 53,000 4.9%
Laundry and Linen Supplies 179,100 179,000 203,900 24,800 13.8%
Grounds Supplies 111,800 112,000 99,000 (12,800) -11.4%
Mechanical Systems Supplies 1,794,400 1,929,000 1,945,000 150,600 8.4%
Signage Materials and Supplies 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 0.0%
Chemicals and Salt 2,404,900 1,810,000 3,536,400 1,131,500 47.0%
Safety Equipment 137,900 195,900 159,900 22,000 16.0%
Licenses, Tags and Certificates 28,300 28,300 44,700 16,400 58.0%
Small Tools, Equipment and Furnishings 377,000 382,600 543,000 166,000 44.0%
Material and Supplies 194,100 192,600 194,300 200 0.1%
Total Materials and Supplies 14,899,500$ 14,523,500$ 17,494,200$ 2,594,700$ 17.4%
FY 22 Budget
to FY 23 Budget
Variance
DRAFT3
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
COMPARISON OF FY 2022 BUDGETED AND FORECASTED EXPENSES
TO FY 2023 BUDGETED EXPENSES
FY 22 FY 22 FY 23
Description Amended Forecast Requested
Budget Budget
FY 22 Budget
to FY 23 Budget
Variance
Services
Auditing Fees 68,000$ 68,000$ 68,000$ -$ 0.0%
Legal Fees 450,000 199,300 450,000 - 0.0%
Public Relations 828,500 828,500 826,000 (2,500) -0.3%
Professional and Technical Services 3,511,200 3,500,000 4,271,900 760,700 21.7%
Electrical Power 4,944,300 5,010,000 4,943,500 (800) 0.0%
Natural Gas 842,600 842,600 842,600 - 0.0%
Water 1,232,700 1,200,000 1,235,700 3,000 0.2%
Telephone 93,600 81,700 95,400 1,800 1.9%
Communications Maintenance Contracts 411,800 426,300 488,400 76,600 18.6%
Office Equipment Maintenance Contracts 131,400 131,000 282,300 150,900 114.8%
Communication Equipment Maint. Contracts 452,600 452,000 1,171,100 718,500 158.7%
Electrical Maintenance Contracts - - - - 0.0%
Motive Equipment Maintenance Contracts 80,000 119,000 80,000 - 0.0%
Janitorial Service Maintenance Contracts 15,109,200 14,342,000 17,122,800 2,013,600 13.3%
Building Maintenance Contracts 3,037,000 3,213,400 2,908,100 (128,900) -4.2%
Ground Maintenance Contracts 61,000 50,000 61,000 - 0.0%
Maintenance Contracts 2,677,600 2,510,200 2,682,600 5,000 0.2%
Parking 21,526,100 19,574,200 22,765,100 1,239,000 5.8%
Central Receiving & Distribution Center 1,814,415 1,946,000 1,850,000 35,585 2.0%
Printing Charges 17,400 10,900 17,100 (300) -1.7%
Educational Training 179,000 155,300 204,000 25,000 14.0%
Waste Disposal 696,000 622,000 782,500 86,500 12.4%
Passenger Boarding Bridge Maint. Contract 1,014,100 1,000,000 1,328,100 314,000 31.0%
Baggage Handling System Maint. Contract 2,739,000 2,590,200 2,803,400 64,400 2.4%
Other Contractual Payments 2,562,885 2,304,000 3,524,600 961,715 37.5%
Total Services 64,480,400$ 61,176,600$ 70,804,200$ 6,323,800$ 9.8%
Other Operating Expenses
Equipment & Building Rental 404,200$ 387,000$ 404,200$ -$ 0.0%
Meals and Entertainment 29,200 14,800 31,700 2,500 8.6%
Employee Meal Allowance 25,600 19,200 26,100 500 2.0%
Memberships 341,200 337,000 348,700 7,500 2.2%
Out-Of-Town Travel 667,600 668,000 706,700 39,100 5.9%
Employee Costs 202,100 219,200 212,500 10,400 5.1%
Bad Debts 30,000 30,000 30,000 - 0.0%
Liability Insurance Premium 472,000 447,800 472,000 - 0.0%
Property Insurance Premium 3,000,000 2,090,600 3,000,000 - 0.0%
International Flight Incentive 400,000 200,000 357,000 (43,000) -10.8%
Unemployment and Workers Compensation 260,000 202,500 260,000 - 0.0%
Occupational Health Clinic Charges 10,000 12,000 11,000 1,000 10.0%
Water Stock Assessments 18,600 20,000 18,600 - 0.0%
Other Expenses 1,143,600 1,145,600 1,148,100 4,500 0.4%
Total Other Operating Expenses 7,004,100$ 5,793,700$ 7,026,600$ 22,500$ 0.3%DRAFT4
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
COMPARISON OF FY 2022 BUDGETED AND FORECASTED EXPENSES
TO FY 2023 BUDGETED EXPENSES
FY 22 FY 22 FY 23
Description Amended Forecast Requested
Budget Budget
FY 22 Budget
to FY 23 Budget
Variance
Intergovernmental Charges
Administrative Service Fees 1,572,000$ 1,572,000$ 1,648,600$ 76,600$ 4.9%
SLC Police Services 8,549,000 8,549,000 10,475,000 1,926,000 22.5%
City Data Processing Services 3,650,000 2,650,000 3,650,000 - 0.0%
Risk Management Premium 350,000 350,000 350,000 - 0.0%
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 5,840,200 6,000,000 7,165,500 1,325,300 22.7%
Total Intergovernmental Charges 19,961,200$ 19,121,000$ 23,289,100$ 3,327,900$ 16.7%
Total Operating Expenses 162,726,200$ 156,274,600$ 181,158,600$ 18,432,400$ 11.3%DRAFT5
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SUMMARY OF FEES PAID TO SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENTS
FY 2022 FORECAST AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 FY 22 FY 23
Description Amended Forecast Requested
Budget Budget
Administrative Service Fees
Accounting 171,700$ 171,700$ 180,100$
Payroll 105,200 105,200 110,300
Purchasing 141,100 141,100 148,000
Cash Management 20,900 20,900 21,900
Budget and Policy Development 58,300 58,300 61,100
City Recorder 51,200 51,200 53,700
City Attorney 431,100 431,100 452,100
City Council 79,000 79,000 82,800
Mayor 37,100 37,100 38,900
Human Resources 393,500 393,500 412,700
Contracts 82,900 82,900 86,900
Total Administrative Service Fees 1,572,000$ 1,572,000$ 1,648,500$
Police Services
S.L.C. Police Department 8,549,000$ 8,549,000$ 10,475,000$
Information Management System Services
Data Processing Division 3,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 3,500,000$
OneSolution Finance Software 150,000 150,000 150,000
Risk Management Administration
Fees and Premiums 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$
Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF)
S.L.C. Fire Department 5,840,200$ 6,000,000$ 7,165,500$
Total Fees 19,961,200$ 19,121,000$ 23,289,000$ DRAFT6
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
PERSONNEL COST EXPENSE ANALYSIS
FY 2022 FORECAST AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 (1)(2)(3)(4)
Description Amended FY 22 FY 23 FY 23 FY 23
Budget Forecast Base Adjusted Requested
Salaries & Benefits
Supervisory & Professional $27,952,500 $28,157,000 $28,536,700 $28,894,100 $30,503,000
Operating & Maintenance $9,706,100 9,238,300 10,132,400 10,483,000 10,800,800
Clerical & Technical $1,538,300 1,496,300 1,514,800 1,635,500 1,713,700
Hourly & Seasonal $153,900 82,100 156,000 156,000 208,000
Uniform & Tool Allowance $25,200 26,300 24,000 24,000 24,000
FICA / MCR $2,809,800 2,789,900 2,989,100 3,047,000 3,204,400
State Retirement $6,928,200 7,229,000 7,339,300 7,461,400 7,832,000
Health Insurance $7,267,000 6,640,900 7,384,700 7,645,600 8,258,600
Totals $56,381,000 $55,659,800 $58,077,000 $59,346,600 $62,544,500
FY 22 Amended Budget -1.28%3.01%5.26% 10.93%
FY 22 Forecast 4.34%6.62% 12.37%
FY 23 Base 2.19%7.69%
FY 23 Adjusted 5.39%
Funded FTE's 570.8 583.8 583.8 583.8 619.3
UnFunded FTE's 40.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 -
Total FTE's 610.8 610.8 610.8 610.8 619.3
Notes / Assumptions:
(1) FY 22 Forecast to remain flat with 27 FTEs unfunded
(2) Base Budget includes salary and benefits costs for current year authorized employees
(3)
(4) All FTEs have been funded for FY 23
Adjusted Base includes an assumed 4.5% salary increase and a vacancy factor of (-3.0%). Insurance is
forecasted to increase 7.5% and retirement is forecasted to remain flatDRAFT
7
Erin MendenhallSalt Lake City MayorWilliam W. WyattExecutive DirectorBrady FredricksonDirector Planning & EnvironmentalPatty M. NelisEnvironmental Programs ManagerEddie R. ClaysonDirector MaintenanceBruce ArnoldAsst. Maintenance Director - Facility MaintenanceDusty BillsAsst. Maintenance Director - AirfieldGreg Arslanian Asst. Maintenance Director - Electrical SupportEdwin M. CherryDirector Information TechnologyByron D. GraySuperintendent Technical SystemsDean WarnerInformation TechnologyManagerShane AndreasenDirector Commercial ServicesA. Cole HobbsContracts ManagerBrad E. WolfeCommercial ManagerJoel R. NelsonProperty ManagerMichael RawsonBusiness Development ManagerPeter L. HigginsActing Director EngineeringNathan MendenhallGeographic Information Systems ManagerRobert S. BaileyCivil Engineering ManagerScott MartinAirport Architect Facility DevelopmentNancy VolmerDirector Communication & MarketingNate LavinAir ServiceDevelopment ManagerTreber AndersenDirector Operations*Rick StrattonRescue & Firefighting Battalion ChiefAlvin L. StuartAsst. Operations Director Landside & TerminalsDave KorzepAssistant Operations DirectorSecurity & ControlHeidi A. HarwardSafety Program ManagerMatt BrownActing Assistant Operations DirectorAirfieldBrian ButlerChief Financial OfficerShaun AndersonControllerLorin RollinsFinance ManagerLorilynn CrispConstruction Finance ManagerSalt Lake CityDepartment of AirportsJanuary 2022*Stefhan BennettPolice CaptainAirport Bureau* Salt Lake City Corporation employees assigned to the AirportMedardo GomezDirector Operational Readiness & TransitionPeter L. HigginsChief Operating OfficerJasen AsayCommunication Manager*Megan DePaulisSenior City Attorney Tina NeeExecutive AssistantNick MeskerAsst. Maintenance Director - Technology*Cate BrabsonSenior City Attorney Salt Lake City Department of Airports Advisory Board DRAFT8
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
STAFFING DOCUMENT
FY 2022 BUDGET AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 FY 23
FTE FTE
Executive Director's Office 6.00 5.50
Commercial Services 16.00 15.00
Finance and Accounting 16.50 16.50
Information Technology 37.00 39.00
Maintenance 294.50 301.50
Planning and Environmental 9.00 10.00
Engineering 31.00 31.00
Operations 196.80 196.80
Public Relations 4.00 4.00
Total Positions - Department of Airports 610.80 619.30
FY 22 FY 23
FTE FTE
STAFFING - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
Executive Director's Office
Executive Director 1.00 1.00
Executive Assistant 1.00 1.00
Airport Construction Project Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Director ORAT 1.00 1.00
ORAT Specialist 0.00 0.50
Office Techinician II 1.00 0.00
Training & Employee Services
Administrative Secretary I 1.00 1.00
Total Positions - Director's Office 6.00 5.50
STAFFING - COMMERCIAL SERVICES DIVISION
Administration
Director Administration and Commercial Services 1.00 1.00
Administrative Secretary II 1.00 0.00
Admin. Assistant / Airport GRAMA Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Commercial Services
Commercial Manager 1.00 1.00
Property and Real Estate Manager 1.00 1.00
Contract and Procurement Manager 1.00 1.00
Business Development Manager 1.00 1.00
Airport Risk Manager 1.00 1.00
Airport Tenant Relations Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Airport Property Specialist I / II 4.00 3.00
Airport Contract Specialist I / II 2.00 3.00
Commercial Program Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Total Positions - Commercial Services 16.00 15.00
Division
Position Title
DRAFT9
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
STAFFING DOCUMENT
FY 2022 BUDGET AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 FY 23
FTE FTE
STAFFING - FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING DIVISION
Administration
Chief Financial Officer / Director of Finance and Accounting 1.00 1.00
Construction Accounting and Funding
Construction Finance Manager 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst III / IV 1.00 1.00
Accountant II / III 2.00 2.00
General Accounting and Financial Reporting
Controller 1.00 1.00
Airport Finance Manager 1.00 1.00
Accountant I / II / III 3.00 3.00
Airport Revenues and Statistics
Airport Finance Manager 1.00 1.00
Accountant I / II / III 3.00 3.00
Part-time/Accounting Intern 0.50 0.50
Internal Audit
Auditor II / III 2.00 2.00
Total Positions - Finance and Accounting 16.50 16.50
STAFFING - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Information Systems
Director Information Technology 1.00 1.00
Information Technology Manager 1.00 1.00
Senior Network Architect 0.00 1.00
Senior Software Engineer 1.00 1.00
Network Engineering Team Manager 1.00 1.00
Network System Engineer I / II / III 3.00 4.00
Software Support Admin II 1.00 1.00
Network Support Administrator I / II / III 6.00 6.00
Technical System Analyst II / III / IV 1.00 0.00
Technical Systems
Airport Special Systems Manager 1.00 1.00
Technical Systems Program Manager 3.00 3.00
Network Support Administrator I / II / III 11.00 12.00
Technical Systems Analyst I / II / III / IV 3.00 3.00
Telecommunications
Network Support Team Manager 1.00 1.00
Network Support Administrator III 2.00 2.00
Network Systems Engineer II 1.00 1.00
Total Positions - Information Technology 37.00 39.00
Position Title
DRAFT10
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
STAFFING DOCUMENT
FY 2022 BUDGET AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 FY 23
FTE FTE
STAFFING - MAINTENANCE DIVISION
Maintenance Administration
Director of Airport Maintenance 1.00 1.00
Assistant Maintenance Director 4.00 4.00
Airport Maintenance Manager 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 1.00 1.00
Airport Procurement Specialist 0.00 1.00
Airport Budget & Special Project Coordinator 2.00 0.00
Office Facilitator I / II 1.00 1.00
Intern 0.50 0.50
Fleet Maintenance
Airport Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00
Airport Fleet/Warehouse Operations Manager 1.00 1.00
Fleet Management Service Supervisor 4.00 5.00
Facilities Maint. Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Senior Fleet Mechanic 5.00 6.00
Fleet Body Repair and Painter 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mechanic 20.00 20.00
Fleet Services Worker 1.00 1.00
Airfield & Grounds Maintenance
Airport Maintenance Ops Support Manager 1.00 1.00
Senior Airport Grounds Supervisor 4.00 4.00
Facilities Support Coordinator 3.00 2.00
Airfield Maintenance Supervisor 9.00 10.00
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 0.00
Airfield Maintenance Equipment Operator I / II / III / IV 89.00 89.00
Senior Florist 1.00 1.00
Structural Maintenance
Airport Facilities Asset Manager 1.00 1.00
Senior Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Facilities Support Coordinator 0.00 2.00
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Carpenter II 6.00 9.00
General Maintenance Worker III 2.00 2.00
Painter II 5.00 7.00
Airport Signs Graphic Design Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Airport Lead Sign Technician 3.00 3.00
Electrical Support
Airport Maintenance Manager 1.00 1.00
Airfield Electrical Supervisor 4.00 4.00
Facility Maintenance Supervisor 0.00 1.00
Airport Lighting & Sign Technician 2.00 3.00
Airfield Maint. Electrician 20.00 21.00
Airport Maint. Electrician I / II / III 1.00 4.00
Position Title
DRAFT11
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
STAFFING DOCUMENT
FY 2022 BUDGET AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 FY 23
FTE FTE
STAFFING - MAINTENANCE DIVISION - continued
South Valley Regional Airport
Airfield Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Airport Grounds/Pavement Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Preventative Maintenance
Senior Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 2.00 1.00
Facilities Maintenance Coor Supervisor 7.00 3.00
Facility Maintenance Supervisor 0.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Coordinator 0.00 24.00
HVAC Specialist 1.00 1.00
General Maint. Worker III / IV / V 4.00 0.00
Maintenance Electrician III / IV 3.00 0.00
HVAC Technician II 8.00 8.00
Airport Lighting & Sign Technician 3.00 0.00
Janitorial Contracts Maintenance
Aviation Services Manager 1.00 1.00
Facilities Maintenance Contract Administrator 1.00 1.00
Facilities Support Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Facilities Contract Compliance Specialist 6.00 6.00
Glycol Treatment Facility
Airport Maintenance Manager 1.00 1.00
Facilities Maintenance Coordinator 6.00 6.00
Electronics Security Hardware
Aviation Maintenance Manager 0.00 1.00
Technical Systems Manager 2.00 1.00
Computer Maintenance Mgmt Systems Administrator 1.00 2.00
Senior Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 0.00 3.00
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 3.00 0.00
Electronic Security Technician 12.00 12.00
Facilities / Airlines Services
Aviation Services Manager 1.00 1.00
Facilities Maintenance Coor Supervisor 1.00 0.00
Aviation Svcs Tech Sys Admin 1.00 1.00
Facilities Maintenance Coordinator 18.00 1.00
Warranty Commissioning
Facilities Maintenance Warranty Comm Manager 1.00 1.00
Civil Maintenance Warranty 1.00 1.00
Tech Systems Analyst IV 1.00 1.00
Facilities Support Coordinator 0.00 1.00
Warehouse
Warehouse Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 4.00 4.00
Warehouse Support Worker 1.00 1.00
Total Positions - Maintenance 294.50 301.50
Position Title
DRAFT12
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
STAFFING DOCUMENT
FY 2022 BUDGET AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 FY 23
FTE FTE
STAFFING - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Planning and Environmental Services
Director of Airport Planning/Capital Program 1.00 1.00
Airport Environmental Program Manager 1.00 1.00
Airport Senior Planner 3.00 3.00
Airport Senior Environmental and Sustainability Coordinator 1.00 2.00
Environmental Specialist I / II 1.00 1.00
Airport Planning Programs Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I / II 1.00 1.00
Total Positions - Planning and Environmental 9.00 10.00
STAFFING - ENGINEERING DIVISION
Administration
Director of Engineering 1.00 1.00
Civil Engineering and Construction Administration
Engineer VII 2.00 2.00
Senior Engineer Project Manager 1.00 1.00
Engineer VI 2.00 2.00
Engineer V 1.00 1.00
Airport Surveyor 1.00 1.00
Airport Construction Manager 1.00 1.00
Engineering Technician VI 2.00 2.00
Engineering Technician V 3.00 3.00
Engineering Technician IV 1.00 1.00
Airport Field Technician 1.00 1.00
Architectural Services
Airport Architect 1.00 1.00
Airport Senior Architectural Manager 1.00 1.00
Engineering Construction Program Manager 1.00 1.00
Airport Construction Manager 2.00 2.00
Senior Architect 1.00 1.00
Architectural Associate IV 1.00 1.00
Geographic Information System (GIS) Services
GIS Manager 1.00 1.00
GIS Program Analyst 2.00 2.00
Engineering Records Program Specialist 1.00 1.00
Administration Support
Airport Construction Project Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Project Coordinator II / III 2.00 2.00
Office Facilitator 1.00 1.00
Total Positions - Engineering 31.00 31.00
Position Title
DRAFT13
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
STAFFING DOCUMENT
FY 2022 BUDGET AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 FY 23
FTE FTE
STAFFING - OPERATIONS DIVISION
Administration
Chief Operating Officer 1.00 1.00
Director of Airport Operations 1.00 1.00
Assistant Operations Director 3.00 3.00
Airport Operations Mgr - Safety Program 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Management Analyst 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 1.00 1.00
Operations Intern 1.00 1.00
Airfield Operations
Airport Operations Manager - Airfield 14.00 14.00
Airport Operations Specialist - Airfield 21.00 22.00
South Valley Regional Airport FBO
Airport Operations Manager - Airfield/FBO 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Agent - FBO 6.00 6.00
Airport Operations Technician 2.50 2.50
Airport Operations Customer Service Representative 1.00 1.00
Landside / Terminal Operations
Airport Operations Manager - Terminals 2.00 2.00
Airport Operations Specialist - Terminals 25.00 41.00
Airport Operations Parking Manager 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Terminal Landside Supervisor 11.00 11.00
Airport Operations Duty Agent 14.00 0.00
Airport Landside Operations Officer 36.00 36.00
Access Control
Airport Operations Manager - Access Control 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Supervisor - Access Control 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Access Control Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Access Control Specialist 7.00 9.00
Airport Operations Security Specialist 2.00 2.00
Airport Operations Duty Agent Supervisor 1.00 0.00
Control Center
Airport Operations Manager - Communications 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Supervisor - Communications 5.00 5.00
Airport Operations Training Supervisor - Communications 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Lead Coordinator 4.00 4.00
Airport Operations Communications Coordinator I / II 14.00 12.00
Regular Part-Time/Paging Operator 0.30 0.30
Safety Program
Airport Engagement Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Airport Employment Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Airport Training Coordinator 1.00 0.00
Airport Safety Coordinator 3.00 3.00
Position Title
DRAFT14
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
STAFFING DOCUMENT
FY 2022 BUDGET AND FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
FY 22 FY 23
FTE FTE
STAFFING - OPERATIONS DIVISION - continued
Ground Transportation
Airport Operations Manager - Ground Transportation 1.00 1.00
Airport Landside Operations Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Specialist - Commercial Vehicle Inspector 3.00 3.00
Office Technician II 1.00 0.00
Airport Volunteer Program
Airport Operations Manager - Customer Service 1.00 1.00
Airport Customer Service Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Airport Customer Service Representative 1.00 1.00
Total Positions - Operations 196.80 196.80
STAFFING - PUBLIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Public Relations
Director Airport Public Relations & Marketing 1.00 1.00
Air Service Development Manager 1.00 1.00
Airport Communication Manager 1.00 1.00
Airport Communication Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Total Positions - Public Relations 4.00 4.00
Position Title
DRAFT15
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
FY 2023 TRAVEL BUDGET
Sponsoring # FY23
Description Agency Attendants Requested
Executive Director and Staff
AAAE Annual Aviation Issues Conference AAAE 1 3,500$
AAAE Annual Conference AAAE 1 3,500
ACI-NA Annual Conference ACI-NA 1 2,500
ACI-NA Airports @ Work Conference ACI-NA 1 3,500
ARP/ NCP Meetings 1 10,000
Bond Sale Meetings 1 6,000
CEO Forum & Winter BOD Meeting ACI-NA 1 3,500
IAAP Annual Conference IAAP 1 3,500
Meetings with Delta Airlines 1 5,000
Passenger Terminal Expo & Conference PTE 1 6,500
Washington Legislative Conference AAAE / ACI-NA 1 2,500
Sub-Total 50,000$
Engineering
ACI-NA Annual Conference ACI-NA 1 3,000$
Airfield Pavement Design & Construction Seminar AAAE 1 2,500
Airfield Pavement Maintenance & Evaluation AAAE 1 2,500
Airport Planning Design & Construction AAAE 4 8,000
Airports @ Work Conference ACI-NA 2 5,000
American Congress Survey & Mapping Conference ACSM 1 2,500
Bond Related Travel 1 3,500
ESRI Annual Users Conference ESRI 1 2,700
Geospatial Technologies Conference AAAE 1 2,800
Miscellaneous 1 2,000
NW Mountain Region Airports Conference FAA 3 4,500
Sub-Total 39,000$
Commercial Services
AAAE Annual Conference AAAE 1 2,500$
ACI-NA Annual Conference ACI-NA 1 2,500
ACI-NA Risk Management Conference ACI-NA 1 2,000
ARP Workshops, ARP Design Workshops 1 12,000
Business of Airports Conference ACI-NA 4 10,000
IRWA Annual Conference IRWA 1 2,000
NAGARA Annual Conference NAGARA 1 2,000
Steering Group Meeting / Chief Revenue Officer Forum ACI-NA 1 2,500
Western Regional Airport Property Managers Conference WRAPM 3 8,500
Sub-Total 44,000$
Public Relations
Air Service Marketing meetings with Airlines 1 10,000$
Arts in The Airport Workshop AAAE 1 2,500
International Pow Wow (IPW)US Travel Assoc 1 3,000
JumpStart ACI-NA 1 3,000
MarCom Conference ACI-NA 1 3,000
Mead & Hunt Conference Mead & Hunt 1 3,000
Public Information Officer Conference UT PIO Assoc 1 1,000
Routes Americas Routes 1 4,000
Routes World Routes 1 7,500
Utah Tourism Conference UT Tourism Industry Assoc 1 1,500
Sub-Total 38,500$ DRAFT16
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
FY 2023 TRAVEL BUDGET
Sponsoring # FY23
Description Agency Attendants Requested
Finance and Accounting
AAAE CIP Workshop AAAE 2 4,000$
AAAE Finance and Admin Conference AAAE 2 5,000
ACI Annual Conference ACI-NA 1 2,500
ACI Business of Airports Conference ACI-NA 2 4,000
ACI CFO Summit ACI-NA 1 2,000
Association of Internal Auditors Annual Conference AAIA 2 4,000
Discuss Oracle and Unifier programs with other airports Oracle 1 1,500
FAA Northwest Region Airports Conference FAA 1 2,000
GFOA Annual Conference GFOA 2 4,000
Misc. Bond / ARP Travel 1 5,500
National Association of Construction Auditors Conference NACA 1 2,000
Rating agency update 1 2,000
UGFOA Annual Conference UGFOA 2 2,500
Sub-Total 41,000$
Information Technology
ACI Annual Conference ACI-NA 1 2,000$
Annual end users meeting of Honeywell security systems users Honeywell 2 3,000
Annual Security Professional Standards Guidelines Expo ASIS 1 1,500
Association of Public Safety Communications & Motorola Trunk Users Group APCO / MTUG 1 2,800
BICSI Fall Conference & Exhibition BICSI 1 3,000
Factory Certification - Video Pelco 2 3,000
HP / Aruba Conference HP 2 4,600
IED Factory Training IED 2 3,000
IPI Confernece and Expo IPI 1 2,000
Largest US Physical security event held annually in Las Vegas ISC West 3 2,300
Technical training / Conference 1 2,100
Unifier conference Unifier 1 2,000
Sub-Total 31,300$
Planning and Environmental
AAAE Annual Conference & Exposition AAAE 2 4,400$
ACI Annual Conference & Exhibition ACI-NA 2 4,400
Airport Business Diversity Conference AMAC 1 2,200
Airport Planning, Design & Construction Symposium AAAE / ACC 1 2,200
Airport System Planning & Design UC Berkley 1 4,500
Airports at Work Conference ACI-NA 1 2,200
APA National Planning Conference APA 1 2,400
DBE On-Site Interview SLCDA 1 500
Misc. Environmental Conference / Workshops ACI-NA 2 3,000
Miscellaneous Travel 2 3,500
National Civil Rights Training Conference USDOT 1 2,200
NW Mountain Region Airports Conference FAA 1 2,200
Prevailing Wage Seminar USDOL / WHD 1 2,200
Sustainability Conference/workshop 1 2,400
Utah Airport Operators' Association Fall Conference UAOA 1 600
Utah Airport Operators' Association Spring Conference UAOA 1 800
Sub-Total 39,700$
Legal
ACI-NA Annual Conference 2 7,000$
ACI-NA Legal Affairs Spring Conference 2 7,000
Sub-Total 14,000$ DRAFT17
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
FY 2023 TRAVEL BUDGET
Sponsoring # FY23
Description Agency Attendants Requested
Operations
AAAE Annual Conference and Exposition AAAE 3 8,500$
ACI-NA Annual Conference ACI-NA 1 2,500
ACI-NA Fall Public Safety & Security Conference ACI-NA 2 6,000
Airport Customer Experience Symposium AAAE / ACI-NA 2 5,000
Airport Emergency Managers Symposium AAAE 1 2,000
Airport Facilities Management Conference NWAAAE / AAAE 2 5,000
Airport Ground Transportation Association Annual Conference AGTA 1 2,500
Airports @ Work Conference ACI-NA 1 3,000
American Society of Safety Professionals ASSP 2 4,000
ARFF Chiefs and Leadership School AAAE / ARFFWG 3 7,000
ARFF Working Group Annual Conference ARFFWG 3 7,000
Aviation Issues Conference AAAE 1 3,000
Bird Strike Committee Meeting AAAE 1 2,500
Bureau of Criminal Identification Annual Training BCI 2 2,000
Cornerstone Convergence Conference Cornerstone 1 3,000
F. Russell Hoyt National Airports Conference AAAE 2 5,000
Honewell Connect Annual Conference Honeywell 1 2,500
Hub Airports Winter Operations & Deicing Conference NEAAAE / AAAE 2 4,000
Inernational Parking Institute Annual Conference IPI 1 2,500
Intial and Recurrent ARFF Training DFW FTRC 39 165,000
National ADA Symposium ADA National Network 1 2,500
National Civil Rights Training Conference for Airports FAA 1 2,000
National Emergency Number Association Annual Conference NENA 1 3,000
National Parking Association Annual Conference NPA 1 2,000
National Safety Council Congress & Expo NSC 2 5,000
NW Mountain Region Airports Conference FAA 1 2,500
NWAAAE Annual Conference NWAAAE 3 6,000
Open Doors Annual Conference Open Doors 1 2,000
Operations and Technical Affairs Committee Meeting ACI 1 2,500
Parking and Landside Management Workshop AAAE 1 2,000
Peer Reviews 2 3,000
Runway Safety Summit AAAE 1 3,000
Safety Management Systems Conference AAAE 2 4,000
Snow Symposium NEAAAE 1 3,000
Taxi, Limo, Paratransport Association Annual Conference TLPA 1 3,000
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Conference AAAE 1 2,000
Utah Airport Operators Association Fall Conference UAOA 3 3,000
Utah Airport Operators Associtaion Spring Conference UAOA 3 3,000
Utah Weed Control Association Annual Meeting UWCA 2 2,000
Versaterm Annual Conference Versatern 1 2,000
Sub-Total 299,500$ DRAFT18
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
FY 2023 TRAVEL BUDGET
Sponsoring # FY23
Description Agency Attendants Requested
Operational Readiness, Activation, and Transition
AAAE Annual Conference & Expo AAAE 1 2,800$
AAAE NW Chapter Annual Conference AAAE 1 2,200
AAAE Orat Aviation AAAE 1 2,600
ACRP Workshop ACRP 1 600
APTA Annual Conference APTA 1 2,400
Board of Examiners retreat AAAE 1 600
Board of Examiners retreat AAAE 1 600
F Russell Hoyt National Airports Conference AAAE 1 2,500
UAOA Fall Conference UAOA 1 1,200
UAOA Spring Conference UAOA 1 1,200
Sub-Total 16,700$
Maintenance
AAAE AFMC AAAE 3 4,500$
AAAE Airport Planning Design & Construction Symposium AAAE 1 2,000
AAAE International Aviation Snow Symposium AAAE 2 5,000
AAAE Large Hub Winter Operations Conference AAAE 2 5,000
AAAE/FAA Airfield Signs Systems & Maint. Mgmt Workshop AAAE 1 2,000
ACI-NA Airports @ Work ACI-NA 1 2,500
ACI-NA Annual Conference ACI-NA 1 2,500
ADB Safegate/Electric West Training ADB 2 5,000
Critical Facilities Summit 1 2,000
Day Trips 2 1,000
Deice Conference 1 2,000
DormaKABA Factory Training/Certification DormaKABA 3 6,000
EAMS / CMMS Working Group MAXIMO / EAMS 2 4,500
Equipment Inspections-Fire truck ROSENBAUER 5 10,000
F Russell Hoyt National Airports Conference AAAE 1 2,500
FAA Informational Conferences FAA 1 2,500
IES Aviation Lighting Committee Technology Meeting IES 3 9,000
IFMA Knowledge Transfer Day IFMA 3 4,500
IFMA Spring Symposium IFMA 2 4,000
IFMA World Workplace IFMA 2 6,000
ISC West Security and Electronics Conference ISC 2 3,000
ISSA Interclean Conference ISSA 1 2,500
MAXIMO Users Group MAXIMO 3 3,000
NFMT National Facilities Management Conference NFMT 3 6,000
UAOA Fall Conference UAOA 3 3,000
UAOA Spring Conference UAOA 3 2,000
Sub-Total 102,000$
Salt Lake City Department of Airport Totals 715,700$ DRAFT19
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
FOR FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2022 AND 2023
Funds Available as of 7/1/21
Unrestricted Funds
Total Funds Available as of 7/1/21 397,617,079$
Sources of Funds
Net Decrease to Reserves from Operations (21,562,300)
Grants and Other Funds for Capital Projects 20,463,000
General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs) 375,845,000
Passenger Facility Charges -
Customer Facility Charges 909,000
375,654,700
Uses of Funds
Capital Projects 456,979,000
Capital Equipment 6,138,800
463,117,800
Estimated Funds Available as of 7/1/22 310,153,979$
Sources of Funds
Net Decrease to Reserves from Operations (37,638,500)$
Grants and Other Funds for Capital Projects 4,799,500
General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs) -
Passenger Facility Charges -
Customer Facility Charges -
(32,839,000)
Uses of Funds
Capital Projects 41,813,500
Capital Equipment 7,760,600
49,574,100
Estimated Funds Available as of 7/1/23 227,740,879$ DRAFT20
SALT LAKE DEPARMENT OF AIRPORTSCAPITAL EQUIPMENTFY 2023 BUDGET DescriptionN= New R= ReplaceQtyFY 22 Airport FundsAirfield Terminals LandsideRoads & GroundsOtherFleet Equipment1 Ton 4WD Pickup Truck R 1 40,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 1 Ton 4WD Pickup Truck R 1 36,000 36,000 18,000 18,000 1 Ton 4WD w/Snow Plow & Spreader R 1 50,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 1 Ton 4WD w/Utility Bed R 1 50,000 50,000 50,000 5th Wheel Runway Snow Removal Truck N 1 250,000 250,000 187,500 62,500 6,000 LB Capacity Forklift w/Outdoor Pneumatic Tires N 1 35,000 35,000 35,000 Articulating Aerial Lift (JLGE450AJ) N 1 90,000 90,000 90,000 Chevrolet Bolt EUV R 1 40,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 Drop Deck Trailer R 1 15,000 15,000 7,500 7,500 Electric Scrubber R 1 60,000 60,000 45,000 15,000 Ford Edge or SUV N 1 34,000 34,000 3,400 17,000 1,700 1,700 10,200 Ford F-150 N 1 40,000 40,000 6,000 12,000 6,000 16,000 Ford F-150 Crew Cab w/Tool Box R 1 38,000 38,000 38,000 Ford F-150 Electric Truck w/Light Package R 1 50,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 Ford F-150 Electric Truck w/Light Package R 1 50,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 Ford F-150 Electric Truck w/Light Package R 1 50,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 Ford F-150 Electric Truck w/Light Package R 1 50,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 Ford F-150 Electric Truck w/Light PackageR 150,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 Ford F-150 Electric Truck w/Light PackageR 150,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 Ford F-150 Electric Truck w/Light PackageR 150,000 50,000 50,000 Ford F-150 w/Bins & Ladder RackN 150,000 50,000 50,000 Ford F-150 w/Cargo Topper & Ladder RackN 4 200,000 200,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 Ford F-250 Extended Cab TruckR 135,000 35,000 17,500 17,500 Ford F-350 w/12 Ft Stake Bed & Lift GateN 150,000 50,000 5,000 45,000 Graco Ride on Paint StriperR 135,000 35,000 35,000 Half or 1 Ton Pickup TruckR 138,000 38,000 9,500 28,500 Half or 1 Ton Pickup TruckR 138,000 38,000 9,500 28,500 Half or 1 Ton Pickup TruckR 138,000 38,000 19,000 19,000 Half or 1 Ton Pickup Truck w/Utility BedR 145,000 45,000 11,250 33,750 Half or 1 Ton Pickup Truck w/Utility BedR 145,000 45,000 11,250 33,750 Heavy Duty Tire BalancerR 120,000 20,000 20,000 Heavy Duty Tire Removal/Installation MachineR 120,000 20,000 20,000 Henke 14 Ft Street PlowR 125,000 25,000 25,000 International 10 Wheeler Hook Lift/Potassium SpreaderN 1 200,000 200,000 120,000 80,000 International Runway TruckR 1 240,000 240,000 240,000 Kubota Tractor w/Plow & SpreaderR 132,000 32,000 32,000 Large Wheeled LoaderR 1 525,000 525,000 262,500 131,250 131,250 Light Duty Tire Removal/Installation MachineR 120,000 20,000 20,000 New ForkliftR 130,000 30,000 30,000 New Low Boy Transport TrailerN 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 80,000$ -$ -$ 20,000$ -$ Polaris Ranger Utility VehicleR 130,000 30,000 30,000 Rosenbauer Panther ARFF 6x6 ARFF TruckR 1 925,000 925,000 693,750 231,250 Runway Paint Removal TruckN 1 800,000 800,000 800,000 Runway Rubber Removal TruckN 1 800,000 800,000 800,000 Single Axle Paint TruckR 1 800,000 800,000 600,000 200,000 LocationDRAFT21
SALT LAKE DEPARMENT OF AIRPORTSCAPITAL EQUIPMENTFY 2023 BUDGET DescriptionN= New R= ReplaceQtyFY 22 Airport FundsAirfield Terminals LandsideRoads & GroundsOtherLocationFleet Equipment ContinuedSpreader for Granular & Liquid Potassium R 1 70,000 70,000 42,000 28,000 Tow Behind Runway Friction Tester R 1 150,000 150,000 150,000 TYMCO Regenerative Air Sweeper (None Silent) R 1 250,000 250,000 125,000 125,000 Versalift Personnel Lift Truck R 1 300,000 300,000 150,000 150,000 Wausau 22 Ft Runway Plow R 1 65,000 65,000 32,500 32,500 Wausau 22 Ft Runway Plow N 1 65,000 65,000 32,500 32,500 Western 9 Ft 3 Yard Stainless Steel Spreader R 1 7,000 7,000 3,500 3,500 Western MVP3 Snowplow R 1 7,000 7,000 3,500 1,750 1,750 Western MVP3 Snowplow R 1 7,000 7,000 3,500 3,500 Western MVP3 Snowplow R 1 7,000 7,000 3,500 3,500 Total Fleet Equipment 7,197,000$ 7,197,000$ 4,652,150$ 444,500$ 252,700$ 415,700$ 1,431,950$ Other EquipmentCisco 2140 Security Appliance R 4 221,908 221,908 221,908 Smoking Shelter for Commercial Lane #2 N 2 77,700 77,700 77,700 Terminal Front - Security Barriers N 1 248,000 248,000 248,000 Wolf 60" Stove/Range R 1 16,000 16,000 16,000 Total Other Equipment 563,608$ 563,608$ -$ -$ 77,700$ 248,000$ 237,908$ Total Capital Equipment 7,760,608$ 7,760,608$ 4,652,150$ 444,500$ 330,400$ 663,700$ 1,669,858$ DRAFT22
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFY 2023 BUDGETAnticipated FundingPage #AUA Cost Center / Project TitleEstimated Completion DateEstimated Cost at CompletionAIP Federal Grants PFC Paygo CFC GARBS Other Grants Airport / Tenant Total FundsTerminals24Concourse B - Maintenance Facilities & Shell SpaceDec-235,290,000 5,290,000 5,290,000 25Stairs to Access Pedestrian Bridges RoofsJun-23153,000 153,000 153,000 Subtotal Terminals5,443,000 - - - - - 5,443,000 5,443,000 Airfield26Pump House #9 Renovations (Construction)Jun-23463,000 463,000 463,000 27Cylinder Saddle Tanks for Runway Deicer FluidJun-23379,000 379,000 379,000 28Gate #39 Reconstruction (Contruction)Nov-222,318,000 2,318,000 2,318,000 29SkyWest Hangar Taxilane ReconstructionNov-23934,000 934,000 934,000 30Taxiway E Reconstruction (F1 - F2)Oct-236,469,000 4,561,000 1,908,000 6,469,000 Subtotal Airfield10,563,000$ 4,561,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,002,000$ 10,563,000$ Auxiliary Airports31SVRA Hangar Site DevelopmentSep-233,018,000 3,018,000 3,018,000 32SVRA New T-HangarsAug-244,235,500 4,235,500 4,235,500 33Skydive Utah Taxilane & ApronSep-23490,000 490,000 490,000 34SVRA Vitek Hangar ApronSep-23459,000 459,000 459,000 Subtotal Auxiliary Airports8,202,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,202,500$ 8,202,500$ Landside35Booth 10 Restroom InstallationFeb-23265,000 265,000 265,000 36Ground Trasportation Staging Lot Study & ModsJul-23153,000 153,000 153,000 37Ground Trasportation Staging Lot Restroom & EV Charging StationsJun-23 678,000 678,000 678,000 38Park & Wait Lot ExpansionOct-231,413,000 1,413,000 1,413,000 39Terminal Front - Access Road ImprovementsOct-23 2,037,000 2,037,000 2,037,000 Subtotal Landside4,546,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,546,000$ 4,546,000$ Other Capital Improvements40Equipment Storage Bldg (Construction)Dec-233,923,000 3,923,000 3,923,000 41Replace PVC Roof Membrane on NS1Dec-22337,000 337,000 337,000 42Replace PVC Roof & Greenhouse Panels on NS14Dec-2276,000 76,000 76,000 43Electrical & Comm Duct Bank from AOC to Gate #7Nov-225,746,000 5,746,000 5,746,000 44Electric Vehicle Charging Stations FY23Aug-23477,000 238,500 238,500 477,000 45South Employee Parking Lot Development Program (Design) Jun-282,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Subtotal Other Capital Improvements13,059,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 238,500$ 12,820,500$ 13,059,000$ Grand Total Capital Improvement Program41,813,500$ 4,561,000$ -$ -$ -$ 238,500$ 37,014,000$ 41,813,500$ DRAFT23
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Concourse B - Maintenance Facilities and Shell Space
Project Description:
This project will finish and enclose approximately 21,437 SF of interior space for maintenance shops
and future leasable areas on Concourse B.
Project Justification:
Current space occupied by maintenance shops on Concourse A have been requested by an Airport
tenant.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 January 2023 December 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$4,213,000 $506,000 $64,000 $85,000 $422,000 $5,290,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -- $5,290,000
PROJECT LOCATION DRAFT24
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Stairs to Access Pedestrian Bridges Roofs
Project Description:
This project will add a fence at the garage to prevent access to the Gateway roof. The project will
also install stair accesses from the Gateway roof to the bridge walkway roofs.
Project Justification:
The existing bridges between the Gateway building and the terminal do not have access to the roofs
for maintenance.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 September 2022 June 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$114,000 $18,000 $1,000 $2,000 $18,000 $153,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -- $153,000
PROJECT LOCATION DRAFT25
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Pump House #9 Renovations (Construction)
Project Description:
This project will renovate pump house #9.
Project Justification:
The existing pump house needs an additional pump added for capacity due to the increased amount of
pavement. A sediment catch basin should also be added.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 June 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$363,000 $5,000 $10,000 $85,000 $463,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -- $463,000
PROJECT LOCATION DRAFT26
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Cylinder Saddle Tanks for Runway Deicer Fluid
Project Description:
This project will install 20,000 gallon dual wall Saddle Tanks for potassium acetate (runway liquid
deicer fluid).
Project Justification:
Based on inconsistencies with the global economy as well as national supply chain issues, it is in
the best interest of the Airport to have on site a one year supply of potassium acetate to counter
these unforeseen circumstances. Strategic inventory planning will be essential for future operations.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 February 2023 June 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$317,000 $32,000 $7,000 $7,000 $16,000 $379,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$379,000
PROJECT LOCATION
-DRAFT27
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Gate 39 Reconstruction (Construction)
Project Description:
This project will reconstruct Gate 39 to allow 2-way airfield traffic access and provide a more direct path to
the new terminal area apron. Work will include demolition of existing asphalt pavement, unclassified
excavation, placement of engineered fill, placement of new portland cement concrete pavement,
constructing a 10-ft x 30-ft guard enclosure, prefabricated canopy, and installation of CASS and CCTV
related equipment. Also included is providing water, sewer, electrical, and communications to the guard
shack.
Project Justification:
Gate 39 provides access to the new terminal area apron from the southwest side of the Airport. With the
current demolition of the Airport facilities under the Terminal Redevelopment Program, there is an increased
need to provide essential services to the new terminal area apron from the west side of the Airport.
Increased commercial vehicle traffic at existing Gate 40 has caused operational and safety issues with
vehicles having to wait within the taxilane object free area of Taxilane 1. This project will modify existing
Gate 39 to allow for more capacity through the gate and Gate 40 will be eliminated as an airfield access.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 November 2022
Construction
Cost Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$1,861,000 $56,000 $37,000 $178,000 $2,318,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$2,318,000
PROJECT LOCATION
-
$186,000
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection
DRAFT28
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: SkyWest Hangar Taxilane Reconstruction
Project Description:
This project is a continuing phase to maintain the Airport's infrastructure. The project will consist of
building a temporary taxilane to the SkyWest Hangar to maintain access while the existing taxilane is
reconstructed. The reconstructed taxilane will include new base course, lean mix concrete, and 16"
portland cement concrete pavement. After the reconstructed taxilane is complete, the temporary taxilane
will be removed and the infield area graded.
Project Justification:
The existing taxilane is failing and continous spalling is creating a FOD hazard for all aircraft in the area.
The extent of the damage is to the point where repairs by Airport Maintenance are not lasting because
of the pavement condition. Reconstructing this taxilane will provide a new safe entrance for aircraft
using the SkyWest maintenance facility and reduce FOD potential for aircraft on Taxiway F in the vicinity
of the taxilane.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 August 2023 November 2023
Construction
Cost Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$758,000 $81,000 $16,000 $3,000 $934,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$934,000
PROJECT LOCATION
-
$76,000
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection
DRAFT29
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Taxiway E Reconstruction F1-F2
Project Description:
This project is a continuing phase to maintain the Airport's infrastructure and bring the taxiway geometry
to current FAA standards. The project will consist of replacing the pavement on Taxiway E between
Taxiways F1 and F2. Work will include demolition of existing concrete pavement and econocrete base,
unclassified excavation, placement of engineered fill, placement of new econocrete base course and
new Portland Cement Concrete. Also included is pavement marking and reinstalling in-pavement
centerline and taxiway edge lights complete with new underground cabling and connectors.
Project Justification:
Taxiway E connects Runway 16R-34L and Runway 16L-34R with the terminal area. It has a high volume
of aircraft use because it serves as a major taxi route for arriving and departing aircraft. The taxiway
concrete panels are showing signs of pavement distress including surface spalling, full depth slab
cracking, and corner breaking. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for this section of pavement has a
rating ranging from 57 - 66 indicating that the pavement is in fair condition. This area has received
multiple patches where the concrete has settled indicating possible base failure. This project will make
a significant contribution to safety and capacity by ensuring that the taxiway pavement integrity is
preserved and minimizing FOD.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
October 2020 May 2023 October 2023
Construction
Cost
Design,
Construction
Admin., & Inspection
Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$5,630,000 $272,000 $113,000 $3,000 $451,000 $6,469,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$4,561,000 - - - $1,908,000
PROJECT LOCATIONDRAFT
30
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: South Valley Regional Airport Hangar Site Development
Project Description:
This project will widen an existing taxilane north of the existing shade hangars and construct a new ramp
complete with underground utilities for a proposed future site for T-hangars at the South Valley Regional
Airport (SVRA).
Project Justification:
An existing taxilane north of the shade hangars will be widened approximately 21' to accommodate Group
II aircraft to access a new 280' x 575' ramp where future T-hangars will be constructed. New underground
utilities consisting of gas, power, communication, water, storm drain, and sewer will be installed and
stubbed up to within 15 feet of the future T-hangars.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 April 2023 September 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$2,473,000 $247,000 $49,000 $2,000 $247,000 $3,018,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -- $3,018,000
PROJECT LOCATION DRAFT31
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: South Valley Regional Airport – T-Hangars
Project Description:
This project will install 21 new 1,400 SF T – Hangars at SVRA, which include a private restroom in each
hangar.
Project Justification:
The demand for additional hangar space at SVRA has increased and hangars are needed to meet demand.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
August 2022 April 2023 August 2024
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$3,289,500 $347,000 $29,000 $70,000 $500,000 $4,235,500
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -- $4,235,500
PROJECT LOCATION DRAFT32
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Skydive Utah Taxilane and Apron
Project Description:
This project will construct a new 270-foot long x 35-foot wide taxilane and a 75-foot x 100-foot apron for a future
hangar facility for Skydive Utah. This project will include excavation and removal of existing material, storm drain
installation, import of engineered fill, new asphalt pavement, and painting.
Project Justification:
Skydive Utah, one of two tenants currently operating from the Tooele Valley Airport (TVY), is wanting to
expand their operations. They currently rent the aircraft they are using and are wanting to purchase it.
In order to protect their investment, they want to build a hangar facility large enough to store the
aircraft. This project will build a taxilane and apron at a location at TVY that will accomodate the
proposed future location of the Skydive Utah hangar. This project will enable the first phase in a series
of investments that Skydive Utah is planning to make at the airport.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 June 2023 September 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin. & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$398,000 $42,000 $8,000 $2,000 $40,000 $490,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds OTHER Airport Funds
- - - -$490,000
PROJECT LOCATION
DRAFT33
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: South Valley Regional Airport Vitek Hangar Apron Construction
Project Description:
This project will construct a new 160-foot x 90-foot apron for a future hangar for Vitek. This project will
include the excavation and removal of existing material, storm drain installation, import of engineered
fill, installation of hangar utilities to the lease line of the facility, and construction of a new asphalt apron.
Project Justification:
Vitek is wanting to expand their operations to the South Valley Regional Airport (SVRA). The are
currently negotating their lease and want to break ground on this facility next year. This project will build
an apron at SVRA that will accommodate the proposed future location of the Vitek hangar.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 April 2023 September 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin. & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$344,000 $39,000 $7,000 $35,000 $34,000 $459,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds OTHER Airport Funds
- - - -$459,000
PROJECT LOCATION
DRAFT34
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Booth 10 Restroom Installation
Project Description:
This project will install a gender-neutral restroom facility near Booth 10. Booth 10 is a staffed gate that
controls the entry of vehicles to the two commercial lanes in front of the Terminal. It is staffed in order to
assist vehicles that need access to quickly enter without blocking other traffic and also to help redirect
vehicles that queue at this entrance in error to be rerouted to the public lanes for pickup or dropoff. This
restroom will be designed to be a single room with water and sewer hookup and ADA compliant. The
project includes costs for a premanufactured structure, foundation, and utility connections to the new
facility.
Project Justification:
Booth 10 is currently staffed by Landside Officers 24/7. When restroom breaks are needed, posted
personnel must call for relief and walk to the restrooms inside the Terminal. Original Airport
Redevelopment Program plans included a restroom at Booth 10 that was value engineered out of the
program. This restroom will greatly benefit the operational needs at this staffed gate.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 September 2022 February 2023
Construction
Cost Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$200,000 $26,000 $4,000 $15,000 $265,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$265,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection
$20,000
-DRAFT35
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Ground Transportation Staging Lot Study & Modifications
Project Description:
This project will study the recently completed Ground Transportation (GT) Staging Lot by evaluating the
current conditions and designing changes to improve safety and minimize conflicts in the lot. Currently
GT, Transportation Network Companies (TNC), and bus traffic all use a central roadway going throught
the center of the GT lot. Airport Operations has observed that most vehicles are not obeying posted
speed limit signs in the area. A study will be completed to include all stakeholders. The study will be
used to prioritize recommendations to improve safety witin the lot.
Project Justification:
Both TNC and GT traffic currently use the GT lot and the present design allows for traffic to proceed
through the lot at speeds that are much higher that the current 10 MPH posted speed limit. The
modifications to the lot resulting from the study will improve safety and traffic flow in the area.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 March 2023 July 2023
Construction
Cost Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$83,000 $9,000 $2,000 $51,000 $153,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$153,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection
$8,000
-DRAFT36
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Ground Transportation Staging Lot Restroom & EVC Stations
Project Description:
This project will design and install a prefabricated restroom building and provide underground electrical
infrastructure for Electric Vehicle Charging (EVC) stations for use by Ground Transportation (GT)
vehicles and taxis.
Project Justification:
The restroom and EVC infrastructure will allow GT drivers to stage for longer periods of time on
campus and improve service levels for passenger pickup by GT vehicles. The EVC infrastructure will
encourage GT and taxi companies to use electric vehicles creating a positive environmental impact.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 April 2023 June 2023
Construction
Cost Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$525,000 $56,000 $11,000 $33,000 $678,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$678,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection
$53,000
-DRAFT37
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Park and Wait Lot Expansion
Project Description:
This project will expand the Park and Wait Lot's parking capacity and reduce traffic congestion and
safety concerns. Work will include demolition of existing curb and gutter, and removal of existing
landscape, irrigation, and berm. New construction will consist of storm drainage installation, imported
engineered fill, concrete curbing, asphalt paving, pavement marking, and new irrigation and landscaping,
electrical, fiber, and parking lot lights and electronic Flight Information Display Sign (FIDS) installation.
Project Justification:
GateThe parking and usage of the Park and Wait Lot has increased significantly over the past several
years and has reached it's maximum capacity at peak passenger pickup times during both day and
nightime operations. Additional parking is needed to accommodate peak travel times and help reduce
traffic congestion within the Park and Wait Lot and at the Terminal pickup and drop off lanes. This will
also discourage parking and waiting along the airport entance roads that is currently happening.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 May 2023 October 2023
Construction
Cost Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$1,159,000 $110,000 $23,000 $5,000 $1,413,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$1,413,000
PROJECT LOCATION
-
$116,000
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection
DRAFT38
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Terminal Front Access Road Improvements
Project Description:
This project will expand the curb area for the Ground Transportation B Lane and arrivals curb to reduce
traffic congestion and safety concerns. Work will include demolition of existing curb and gutter, barrier
wall, landscaping and irrigation, pavement marking removal, and unclassified excavation. New
construction will consist of the placement of engineered fill, asphalt roadway patching, new barrier wall
construction, concrete sidewalk, pavement markings, reconfiguration of irrigation lines and restoration of
landscaping, and installation of steel fencing.
Project Justification:
The B Lane is a pick up and drop off lane in front of the Terminal for charter buses, Lyft, and Uber
which frequently fills to capacity causing overcrowding and safety concerns. This project will expand the
available curb area of both the Commercial Traffic B Lane and the west end of the arrivals curb for
vehicle pull out and reduce traffic congestion.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 June 2023 October 2023
Construction
Cost Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$1,669,000 $167,000 $29,000 $5,000 $2,037,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$2,037,000
PROJECT LOCATION
-
$167,000
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection
DRAFT39
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Equipment Storage Building (Construction)
Project Description:
This project will provide a 16,000 square foot equipment storage building that will be used to store a
variety of airport equipment, including maintenance trailers, shuttle buses, and a high lift bucket truck.
Project Justification:
The equipment that will be stored in this building is very expensive. Storing this equipment indoors will
protect it from the elements and prolong the expected life of the equipment.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 September 2022 December 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$3,386,000 $182,000 $34,000 $50,000 $271,000 $3,923,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$3,923,000
PROJECT LOCATION
-DRAFT40
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Replace PVC Roof Membrane on NS1 (Roads & Grounds Maint Bldg)
Project Description:
Remove and replace the existing roof membrane including cover board and damaged insulation
with 80 mil PVC roof Membrane and new accessories.
Project Justification:
The current roof membrane is 20+ years old and has scrim visible. The existing roof has a 20 year
warranty that has expired. As recommended by the airport roofing consultant (JSR), the roof is in
poor condition and should be replaced as soon as possible.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 December 2022
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$251,000 $38,000 $5,000 $5,000 $38,000 $337,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$337,000
PROJECT LOCATION
-
August 2022
DRAFT41
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Replace PVC Roof & Greenhouse Panels on NS14
Project Description:
This project will remove and replace the existing roof membrane including cover board and
damaged insulation with 80 mil PVC roof Membrane and new accessories, install safety rail for
roof hatch, install liner in the "internal gutter", and also remove abandoned vent stack on east roof
top unit. The project will also replace greenhouse panel roof.
Project Justification:
The current roof membrane is 24+ years old and has scrim visible. The existing roof has a 20
year warranty that has expired. As recommended by the airport roofing consultant (JSR), the roof
is in poor condition and should be replaced as soon as possible.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 December 2022
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$56,000 $9,000 $1,000 $1,000 $9,000 $76,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
- - -$76,000
PROJECT LOCATION
-
August 2022
DRAFT42
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Electrical & Communications Duct Bank from AOC to Gate 7
Project Description: The Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) has requested the Airport replace damaged sections of the
Jordan 14 electrical circuit ductbank so that RMP can install new primary power conductors. This project will install
approximately 4,800 LF of 8-way 6-inch electrical ductbank. The ductbank will begin west of Runway 17/35 and run
westbound just south of the South Electrical Airfield Vault and end southeast of the Airport Operations Center (AOC).
Included with this work is the repair of collapsed conduits at the 2200 West and 2400 West intersections with North
Temple Street. Along with the electrical ductbank, the project will also install a new 8-way 4-inch communications
ductbank parallel to the electrical ductbank. A total of eight each new electrical vaults and communication vaults (3
aircraft rated and 5 non-aircraft rated) will be required along the new ductbank alignment. The project will also include
Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) with nondestructive digging equipment during design to identify utility conflicts
and mitigate associated risks.
Project Justification: The Jordan 14 electrical circuit is a critical power feed for the Airport with conductors that have
been compromised by collapsed conduits in several locations. The existing conduit damage creates a high level of risk
in the event of a conductor failure which would require a complicated repair by making it difficult or impossible to
remove and replace the circuit conductors. The result of a failed conductor on the Jordan 14 circuit could be a lengthy
power outage (or partial outage) at the Airport while sections of the conduit are being repaired. A new communications
ductbank is also required due to existing communcation pathways being full. The communication ductbank will allow
for future expansion of the Airport's IT network to locations in the General Aviation (GA) area and other facilities in the
general area. There will be a savings of time and money by co-locating both ductbanks at the same time.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 November 2022
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost
at Completion
$4,674,000 $524,000 $11,000 $5,746,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
-- --$5,746,000
PROJECT LOCATION
$467,000$70,000
DRAFT43
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (FY2023)
Project Description:
SLCDA has created a Master Plan to inform a phased installation program for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
(EVCS) relative to the annual purchase of electric vehicles in Utah. For the past several years, the airport has
received rebates from Rocky Mountain Power and grants from UCAIR which have reimbursed 50% of the cost to
purchase and install EVCSs on the airport campus. This year the airport will apply for funding incentives to install
infrastructure for eight Level III EVCSs for the Airport Operations fleet.
Project Justification:
Salt Lake City is designated as a Serious Nonattainment Area for EPA's 24-hour standard for particulate matter
PM2.5. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 is an air pollutant resulting from motor vehicle emissions that contribute
to respiratory problems. The project will promote additional options for sustainable transportation and will
reduce area emissions that contribute to fine particulate matter. The Airport is proposing to install infrastructure
and purchase eight Level III EVCSs at the Airport Operations Center. This project will result in significant emissions
reduction based on the Operations Division's vehicle use which averages 100 - 125 miles per day.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
August 2022 September 2022 August 2023
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin. & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency
Estimated
Cost at
Completion
$355,000 $54,000 $14,000 -$54,000 $477,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds OTHER Airport Funds
- - -$238,500 $238,500
PROJECT LOCATION
DRAFT44
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET
Project Title: South Employee Parking Lot Development Program (Design)
Project Description: This program will implement a series of projects over the next 5 years that will allow
for the development of the Southern Open Space (Former Golf Course) into an employee parking lot as
shown on the new SLCIA ALP. Phase 1 of this project will design the relocation of the surplus canal.
This phase is intended to complete the design and permitting requirements set forth by the USACE.
Phase 2 will be to mitigate the wetlands in the area which to allow for the new canal to be relocated.
Phase 3 will be to relocate the canal to the south, parallel to the existing TRAX line. Phases 4 and 5 will
then design and build the infrastructure, parking lot, roadways, and employee screening facility required
to operate the South Employee Parking Lot.
Project Justification: The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified that a new employee
parking lot will be needed to accommodate the forecasted increase in employee numbers at our facility.
The existing South Employee Parking Lot will be reutilized to accommodate the forecasted increase in
passenger parking. With passenger numbers already approaching past 2019 numbers and the airlines
expecting to increase both their operations and employee numbers at SLCIA, the need to expand our
parking has been excelerated. There currently is not enough parking to sustain peak days. This program
will provide an immediate and long-term parking solution.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2022 July 2025 June 2028
Construction
Cost
Design, Construction
Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost
at Completion
-$2,500,000 --
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
-- --$2,500,000
PROJECT LOCATION
--DRAFT45
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:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 12, 2022
RE:FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES,
Water, Sewer, Stormwater, and Street Lighting Funds
KEY POINTS
The Department of Public Utilities has submitted a budget totaling $413 million across all four Funds, which will
cover operating, capital, and debt payments. The driving factor for the significant budget, as in previous years, is
the large-scale capital projects and related bonding activity.
Rate increases: Based on financial modeling the city is doing now, the projections show that rate increases
will be needed each year, and are necessary to pay the debt and secure good bond agreements. This year’s
approximate increase of 15% in each utility except Street Lighting is anticipated to be slightly higher than those
in the later years. The rate increases are projected to continue, although rate increases alone do not raise
revenue sufficient to cover the department’s cash for capital projects.
Furthermore, revenue for the water utility decreases with conservation, which the City strongly encourages.
However, a certain portion of the cost of operating the water utility is fixed and does not decrease with water
conservation, so the rate increases are shouldering two burdens at once in at least that instance.
Capital Projects & Bonding: A few key notes related to the proposed bond issuance:
The Department intends to issue bonds in an amount contemplated at one of three levels, depending on
which projects are prioritized in the whole financial context of the decision. Those levels are currently
$279, $305 or $347 million.
Bonding will fund infrastructure construction.
The bond amounts are calculated and annual debt payments rely on each of the utilities’ revenues from
rates. The bond increase bond payments are what affects the projected future rate increases.
(It should be noted, however, that the City and its revenue streams secure the bonds as well if an
unlikely scenario occurs where a Utility Fund cannot cover a debt payment.)
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 12, 2022
Public Hearing: May 17 and
June 7 with the Annual Budget
schedule.
Potential Action: TBD, possibly
June 14, 2022
Page | 2
Total debt obligation on the Public Utilities infrastructure projects is still climbing, and will peak in
2029.
The Department is pursuing additional funding, such as federal grant and loan funding, through state
and federal channels, to offset the amount of bonding necessary for the capital projects.
Plans & Studies: Of note, the Department also requests funding for two measures that relate to cost,
community impacts and potential mitigation. The corresponding costs are included not as a signal the projects
are either a priority or concern but for reference:
1. A rate study, taking place this year. The study engages people and groups throughout the community in
evaluating realistic scenarios of household cost, business cost and other factors. Constituents from each
Council district historically served. Issues of economic significance such as current inflation could make
the feedback robust.
2. Impact fee planning. Previous partial updates to the Department’s impact fee planning were discarded
or postponed and are no longer valuable for the effort. The Department proposes new impact fee
planning with at least two components:
a. Updates to the amount charged when new construction connects to a city utility system. In fact,
the term for a Public Utilities impact fee is connection fee. So the basis for the fee is the added
cost to the system of serving the new connection.
i. Similarly, customer rates reflect the ongoing and regular cost of the service, which
increases as the utilities expand, maintain and update critical infrastructure across the
valley.
ii. State and federal regulatory mandates drive projects and thus costs. Regulatory
deadlines largely do not account for construction market flux.
b. Impact fee facilities plan, a document developed with consultants that carefully observes and
implements state code strictly governing spending of this revenue source. With a new plan
comes new opportunities for cost effective leveraging of impact fees on necessary utility
projects. The Department historically applies impact fees on the many projects underway
eligible for the source.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Costs in the Water Utility related to aging infrastructure, now five and six decades old, begin to accumulate
next year and in subsequent years. This year’s appropriation request is $9.2 million, where next year’s
anticipated request is $48.85 million. The trend continues upward into the hundreds of millions in
total for water treatment plant update and replacement alone.
Costs in the Sewer Utility related to aging infrastructure and new regulatory requirements have accrued and
will continue for years to come. Last year costs on the new Wastewater Reclamation facility closed out near $190
million. The facility is currently anticipated to cost up to and even over $800 million in total. At one time
the projected cost was significantly less. Inflation and the local market are factors, and timing being driven by
regulatory mandates means less flexibility to space the project out in a cost effective way.
The personnel-related increase is proposed to be $2,672,913, resulting in an increased total budget of
49,027,442. This includes the citywide proposed cost of living adjustment (COLA), which this year would be
4.5%. This amount also reflects the Department’s proposal to add seven new positions, including: safety
inspectors, GIS and IT support, water technician, two engineering positions, and an accountant position. The
Department has 470.5 full time equivalent positions and the additional new positions would increase that to
477.5.
Page | 3
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask about the schedule for other more routine capital improvement projects
and what residents may observe for other infrastructure repair around the City.
2. The Council may wish to ask about the level of public engagement the Department is doing for the major
projects, so that residents and customers are aware of the significant costs that are affecting user rates.
3. The Council may wish to ask for an update on the coordination with the State and other municipalities
in our service areas.
4. Council Members have received comments and observations from community members and members
of the business community about rising costs. Utility costs are increasing. Council Members might be
interested to hear from the department about ways to reduce cost, such as coordinating on-site
pretreatment measures with businesses where appropriate.
5. Council Members signal in various contexts a willingness to consider policy that supports water
conservation. The Department might have ideas or examples of useful policies that do not inadvertently
create other problems for cities and residents. The Council might ask the Department to return with
examples.
6. The Department also proposes bonding sooner than previously anticipated. A screenshot of the
proposed timeline is below. Council Members might wish to ask questions about any or all of these
elements:
Page | 4
7. A few scenarios are discussed for the bond amount being proposed now. They are shown below in case
Council Members are inclined to explore the topic.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1, Public Utilities FY2023 proposed budget
Page | 5
APPENDIX
Salt Lake City
Department of Public Utilities
Proposed Budget for 2022-2023
1
Salt Lake City Public
Utilities Mission and
Services
•Drinking Water
•Wastewater
•Stormwater
•Street Lighting
“Serving our community,
protecting our environment”
2
FY 2023 Salt Lake City Public
Utilities Budget Priorities
•Aging infrastructure investment
•Water stewardship
•Regulatory programs
•Operations and maintenance
•Financial health
•Sustainability
•Employee well-being
3
Utility Resilience
•Drought and climate planning and response.
•CIP during a time of inflation, pandemic, and drought.
•Strategies to replace large, aging, generational infrastructure.
•Organizational and operational adaptation amid growth and changing
regulations.
•DEI orientation internally and with the public we serve.
•Hiring talent with passion and integrity, promoting from within.
•Deep dive into rate structures, community financial capability, and
customer assistance.
•Local, state, and federal relationships.
•Community engagement.
4
Total Public Utilities Budget:
$413,124,942
-1.75%•Revenues projected at
$413,124,942; WIFIA proceeds
of $125,965,000.
•Rate increases for water,
sewer, and stormwater
utilities.
•Capital Improvement Program
investments $252,838,910.
•Operations budget
$122,794,572.
•Seven additional employees –
bringing staffing to 477.5 full-
time equivalent employees.
Operations
30%
Debt
Service
7%
Capital
Improvements
61%
Capital
Outlay
2%
TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES
BUDGET
5
Water Utility
Budget:
$132,752,815
4.23%
•Water service fees contribute to most
of the projected revenue, at
$98,266,900.
•Reserve fund use proposed at
$24,656,447.
•A rate increase of 15%.
•Capital investments of $38,989,000.
•Capital program emphasis on
treatment plants, water mains, wells,
meters, and reservoirs.
6
Sewer Utility Budget:
$255,914,580
-4.59%
•Sewer fees and the WIFIA loan comprise most of the sewer
utility’s projected revenue, at $66,740,000 and $125,965,000,
respectively.
•Unspent bond proceeds will be transferred to reserve fund
for use on WRF -$59,283,673.
•Debt service payments of $21,409,504.
•A rate increase of 15% is proposed.
•Capital Improvements of $205,884,910; new WRF is 87% of
sewer CIP budget, 70% of overall sewer utility budget, and
43% of total Public Utilities budget.
7
Stormwater Utility Budget:
$18,699,722
-2.61%
•Stormwater fees projected to generate $12,321,733 in
revenue.
•Reserve funds from 2020 bond proceeds at $5,222,989.
•Capital improvement program investment proposed to
be $5,725,000.
•Rate increase of 15% proposed.
8
Street Lighting Utility
Budget: $5,757,825
1.02%
•Street light fees and
reserves account comprise
most of the projected
revenue, at $4,174,622 and
$1,455,603, respectively.
•Capital improvement
program $2,240,000.
•New rate study to be
conducted to help with
implementation of Street
Lighting Master Plan update.
9
Rate Projections and Summaries
10
Rate
Adjustment
History
Year Water Sewer Stormwater Street Lighting
2014-2015 4% 8% 0% 0%
2015-2016 4% 8% 0% 0%
2016-2017 4% 14% 0% 0%
2017-2018 7% 30% 0% 0%
2018-2019 4% 15% 10% 0%
2019-2020 5% 18% 10% 0%
2020-2021 0% 18% 0% 0%
2021-2022 8% 18% 10% 0%
2022-2023 15% 15% 15% 0%
Projected
Five-Year
Rate
Adjustments
Water Rate –Monthly Impact
13
Sewer Rate –Monthly Impact
14
Stormwater Rate –Monthly Impact
15
Water Rate
Comparison
with
Nearby
States
Comparison of AVERAGE
Recognizable Cities in Western States MONTHLY
RANKING City, State CHARGES
1 FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA $132.66
2 CHEYENNE, WYOMING $74.18
3 BOISE, IDAHO $74.03
4 DENVER, COLORADO $60.25
5 HENDERSEN, NEVADA $57.22
6 PHOENIX, ARIZONA $55.37
7 RENO, NEVEDA $52.42
8 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA $46.99
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (Proposed) 15%$46.32
9 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (Current)$40.16
16
Water Rate Comparison –Local (February 2022)
MONTHLY MINIMUM RATE OVER MONTHLY WINTER @ SUMMER @ TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY TAX
MINIMUM ALLOWANCE MINIMUM PER FLOURIDE 7,480 GAL 23,936 GAL WINTER SUMMER ON $200,000 TOTAL
RANKING CITY OR DISTRICT NAME CHARGE IN GALLONS ALLOWANCE GALLONS CHARGE PER MONTH PER MONTH CHARGES*CHARGES* PROPERTY CHARGES
1 PARK CITY -GRADUATED RATES (1)53.63 0 6.68 -11.27 1,000 113.59 294.84 908.73 1179.35 2088.08
2 SALT LAKE CITY -OUTSIDE OF CITY (Proposed)15.57 0 2.30 -4.35 748 38.58 110.08 308.64 440.32 748.96
3 PLEASANT GROVE -GRADUATED RATES (6)24.32 5,000 2.95 -6.26 1,000 31.64 116.51 253.09 466.04 719.13
4 AMERICAN FORK -GRADUATED RATES (2)16.17 3,000 3.52 -4.96 1,000 33.01 113.53 264.04 454.13 718.17
5 DRAPER CITY -GRADUATED RATES (3) 20.25 0 2.05 -3.71 1,000 39.08 97.00 312.65 388.01 700.66
6 SOUTH JORDAN CITY -GRADUATED RATES (4)30.00 0 2.00 -2.50 1,000 45.33 84.09 362.64 336.36 699.00
7 WEST JORDAN CITY (11)20.00 0 2.25 -3.85 1,000 37.50 98.35 300.02 393.41 693.43
8 SALT LAKE CITY -OUTSIDE OF CITY 13.54 0 2.00 -3.78 748 33.54 95.70 268.32 382.80 651.12
9 RIVERTON CITY -GRADUATED RATES (5) 3.50 0 3.76 -3.91 1,000 32.00 96.34 255.97 385.36 641.33
10 MAGNA -GRADUATED RATES (10)18.10 6,000 2.08 -2.65 1,000 1.02 22.20 57.91 177.59 231.64 207.29 616.52
11 KEARNS IMPROVEMENT DIST-GRADUATED RATES (9)12.08 0 2.42 -3.04 1,000 30.18 78.65 241.45 314.58 45.23 601.27
12 SANDY CITY -OUTSIDE OF CITY (8)19.95 0 1.80 -2.75 1,000 34.82 80.07 278.56 320.30 598.86
13 OGDEN CITY -GRADUATED RATES (7)16.02 0 1.81 -7.24 1,000 31.04 86.72 248.31 346.87 595.18
14 SALT LAKE CITY -INSIDE OF CITY (Proposed)11.53 0 1.71 -3.22 748 28.55 81.68 229.12 326.72 31.79 587.63
15 SANDY CITY -INSIDE OF CITY (12) 14.43 0 1.64 -2.53 1,000 28.01 69.65 224.12 278.59 32.67 535.38
16 SALT LAKE CITY -INSIDE OF CITY (13) 10.03 0 1.48 -2.80 748 24.83 70.83 198.64 283.32 31.79 513.75
17 GRANGER -HUNTER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (14)13.00 0 1.77 -2.20 1,000 26.30 60.25 210.42 241.00 24.75 476.16
18 BOUNTIFUL CITY -RESIDENTIAL HIGH ELEVATION 23.57 5,000 1.98 1,000 28.48 61.06 227.84 244.25 472.10
19 CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE 21.00 5,000 2.25 1,000 26.58 63.61 212.64 254.42 467.06
20 PROVO 18.59 0 1.01 -1.67 1,000 26.14 58.56 209.16 234.25 443.41
21 MURRAY CITY -GRADUATED RATES (16)12.51 0 1.19 -1.75 748 24.91 58.76 199.28 235.04 434.32
22 BOUNTIFUL CITY -RESIDENTIAL LOW ELEVATION 21.39 5,000 1.79 1,000 25.83 55.29 206.63 221.14 427.78
23 OREM -GRADUATED RATES (17)20.20 0 0.83 -1.46 1,000 26.41 48.22 211.27 192.87 404.13
24 TAYLORSVILLE/BENNION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (15)9.00 0 1.43 -1.87 1,000 20.35 51.12 162.78 204.48 6.16 373.42
25 JVWCD (18)3.00 0 1.51 -3.36 1,000 14.29 52.77 114.36 211.10 40.26 365.72
Districts may also receive property taxes, therefore the total cost to a resident may not be reflected in the annual / monthly fee listed above.
17
Sewer Rate Comparison with Nearby States
COMPARISON OF
RECOGNIZABLE CITIES IN WESTERN STATES
CITY, STATE
1 RENO, NV $50.26
2 SALT LAKE CITY, UT (PROPOSED)47.21
3 BOISE, ID **46.72
4 SALT LAKE CITY, UT (CURRENT)41.05
5 PLEASANT GROVE, UT 40.43
6 CHEYENNE, WY **32.37
7 FLAGSTAFF, AZ 21.50
8 DENVER, CO 32.01
9 HENDERSON, NV 26.30
10 PHOENIX, AZ 25.18
11 LAS VEGAS, NV ***21.50
* ANNUAL COST BASED ON 12 MONTHS @ 5,984 GALLONS PER MONTH AVERAGE WINTER WATER CONSUMPTION.
** INCLUDES MONTHLY BASE RATE
*** $4.66 MONTLY BASE FEE, $16.84/0-5000 GALLONS, $16.00/5,000+ GALLONS
AVERAGE
MONTHLY
CHARGESRANKING
18
Sewer Rates Compared with Local Cities/Districts
1 CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE 0.00 9.00 $646.27
2 MURRAY CITY 9.73 6.86 609.36
3 SALT LAKE CITY, UT (PROPOSED)0.00 7.89 566.57
4 SALT LAKE CITY, UT (CURRENT)0.00 6.86 492.60
5 WEST JORDAN CITY 22.00 2.05 411.21
6 ODGEN CITY 32.78 0.00 393.36
7 KEARNS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 25.59 1.20 393.25
8 MAGNA CITY ****29.81 0.00 357.72
9 SOUTH VALLEY SEWER DISTRICT 25.00 0.00 300.00
10 MIDVALLEY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 24.50 0.00 294.00
11 GRANGER - HUNTER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 15.50 1.50 293.71
12 MT OLYMPUS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 22.00 0.00 264.00
13 COTTONWOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 20.00 0.00 240.00
14 SOUTH DAVIS SEWER DISTRICT 19.00 0.00 228.00
15 TAYLORSVILLE - BENNION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 11.15 0.00 133.80
* ANNUAL COST BASED ON 12 MONTHS @ 5,984 GALLONS PER MONTH AVERAGE WINTER WATER CONSUMPTION.
** INCLUDES MONTHLY BASE RATE
*** $4.66 MONTLY BASE FEE, $16.84/0-5000 GALLONS, $16.00/5,000+ GALLONS
**** $29.81 MONTHLY MIN, INCLUDES - 0 to 8,009 AVERAGE GALLONS
RANKING CITY OR DISTRICT
RATE
MONTHLY
RATE PER
1,000 GALS
ANNUAL FEES
SEWER *
19
Residential
Water and
Wastewater
Cost % Median
Household
Income
20
Stormwater Rates Compared with Local Cities
CURRENT
RANKING CITY NAME RATE
1 PLEASANT GROVE $14.41
2 PROVO 10.75
3 DRAPER CITY 9.00
4 OGDEN CITY 8.47
5 TAYLORSVILLE CITY *7.60
6 OREM 7.35
7 SOUTH JORDAN CITY 7.15
8 BOUNTIFUL CITY 7.00
9 MURRAY CITY 6.30
10 SALT LAKE CITY (PROPOSED)6.24
11 WEST JORDAN CITY 6.04
12 AMERICAN FORK 6.00
13 SANDY CITY 6.00
14 SALT LAKE CITY (CURRENT)5.43 21
Thank you!
22
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:April 12, 2022
RE: City Council Redistricting Update
NEW INFORMATION
Six Maps Recommended by Redistricting Advisory Commission (Attachments 8 through 13)
The Commission met six times between February 24 and April 7 at public meetings which were recorded and
posted on the City’s YouTube channel. At the last meeting, the Commission voted to recommend six maps to the
Council for consideration. The maps represent a spectrum of potential adjustments from minimal, to moderate
to a major set of changes. Attachments 8 through 13 are generally ordered from least changes (#8) to most
changes (#13). The maps are best evaluated by viewing them in the District Builder mapping tool because one
can zoom into specific areas to see streets and place names, toggle on and off the current Council District
boundaries and community council boundaries reference layers in the lower left corner, see district specific
populations and deviations from the ideal 28,532 and copy the map to one’s account to make edits. All the maps
meet the substantially equal population and contiguousness requirements and preserves two minority-majority
districts. The six recommended maps are summarized in the table below from least to most changes:
Map Name Population
Deviation Compactness District Builder Link Attachment
Politely Compact
with Minimal
Changes
1,400
4.9%41%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/2c974423-a9d9-45be-
bda9-f2eb09e1ab6e/
8
RD2022-03 1,044
3.7%41%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/6ab50d94-3be1-4330-
906d-eaa9db817c9c/
9
Community
Council
Boundaries
2,331
8.2%36%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/62cf0dc7-09e4-43f0-
8ac6-d7c0c67df385/
10
RD2022-04 549
1.9%40%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/2e32d9b1-abc9-4708-
abd8-06327fe3daa0/
11
RD2022-02 1,266
4.4%39%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/a53a01e0-5129-4d34-
be80-de57dc8fde9c/
12
Something Totally
Different
2,120
7.4%42%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/b86cbddd-d73f-4298-
80be-cc8686b288cc
13
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: January 4, 2022
2nd Briefing: January 11, 2022
3rd Briefing: February 1, 2022
4th Briefing: February 8, 2022
5th Briefing: February 15, 2022
6th Briefing: April 12, 2022
7th Briefing: April 19 and/or May 3, 2022
Public Hearing: April 19, 2022
Potential Action: May 3 or 10, 2022
Page | 2
Note: “compactness” is a math term to reflect how tight a shape is based on the ratio of the district’s area to
perimeter. For example, a circle is 100% compact.
Effective Date of New Boundaries and Adoption Resolution (Attachment 7)
The Attorney’s Office provided the adoption resolution for the Council to officially approve the new district
boundaries. The new boundaries will go into effect “upon execution” of the adoption resolution. This means the
boundaries go into effect once all parties have signed the resolution and it’s recorded in the public record.
Resolutions do not need to be published like ordinances to go into effect per state law.
Community Councils Letter to Redistricting Advisory Commission (Attachment 14)
Eight recognized community organizations, which are registered with the City, signed and sent a letter to the
Redistricting Advisory Commission. The letter asked the Commission to respect and maintain existing, self-
identified boundaries for community organizations. The Commission’s recommended map, “Community
Council Boundaries,” was drawn with a focus on keep community organizations within a single Council District
to the extent possible. While this approach prioritizes community organizations the tradeoff is a higher
population deviation, less compactness and more complicated boundaries for some Council Districts.
Public Outreach Update
- Two Press Releases: One for the selection of the commission members and it was also sent to all district
subscribers as an email blast, and another will be going out for the six recommended maps and public
hearing date. These are in addition to the earlier press release (Attachment 6) about the commission
application window.
- 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. At the time of
publishing this staff report the hub had over 1,600+ views overall of which 682 views since the end of
February and another 272 since the citywide redistricting mailer was sent. The hub was regularly
updated over the past two months with information on how to attend commission meetings, submit
comments and subscribe to receive updates.
- 33 Social Media Posts: 5 Instagram timeline posts, 5 Instagram stories posts promoting the timeline
posts with the info, 6 Nextdoor posts, 6 tweets, 6 Facebook timeline posts, and 5 Facebook stories posts
promoting the timeline info
- Video: SLCTV Capital City News produced a redistricting segment. A tutorial video was created to help
constituents draw their own maps and a public service announcement was released
- Citywide Mailer: A citywide postcard was sent to all households (92,000+ addresses) notifying them
about redistricting, important dates, the web hub and District Builder mapping tool.
- 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: Four 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, February, March, April and will continue to be added until the end of the
redistricting process. A section on Redistricting was included in the public utilities statements for
Council District Four.
Policy Question
1. Council Support for Map(s) – The Council may wish to review the six maps, discuss how each map
balances different priorities, and identify which map(s) have majority support. The Council is not bound
by the Redistricting Advisory Commission’s six recommended maps. If elements of different maps have
majority support, then they could be combined into a new map if requested.
Page | 3
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
Recommended Applicants
The Subcommittee met a second time to finish reviewing the 46 applications. Nine applicants are recommended
for selection to the Redistricting Advisory Commission which include one representative for each of the seven
Council Districts and two at-large members as listed below. The Council could consider a straw poll to approve
or reject this set of recommended applicants (a vote at a formal meeting is not required).
-Erik Lopez for District One
-Marti Woolford for District Two
-Mallory Bateman for District Three
-Neil Vander Most for District Four
-Eric Kenney for District Five
-Anne Cannon for District Six
-Elisabeth Morrey for District Seven
-Diya Oommen for at-large
-Daniel Cairo for at-large
The Subcommittee’s goal is to have a Commission that represents diversity across multiple factors. This group of
applicants represent a diverse mix of City residents. Some characteristics to note:
- Five women and four men
- Represent generations that span over six decades from youngest to oldest
- Homeowners and renters are included
- Represent multiple ethnicities
- Several are either currently or previously involved in local community councils
- Professional and academic backgrounds from various areas such as business and technology systems,
Census workers, demographics, geography, healthcare, student, community activists
- Includes members of the LGBT community
- Some applicants live in neighborhoods that are likely to experience boundary changes such as Wasatch
Hollow, Central 9th Business District, Euclid, Fairpark, and Guadalupe neighborhoods
The Subcommittee determined it was important to recommend one at-large member from the Westside to
balance historic inequities and recognizing District Two is likely to have boundary changes as the only district
that lost population over the last decade. The other at-large member is from District Four because it had the
largest population change and as a result the boundaries will need to significantly adjust.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the February 1 meeting, the Council took a straw poll to accept and consider applications submitted after the
deadline last Thursday. The Commission is envisioned to have at least seven members – one from each Council
District – and potentially more. A subcommittee of three Council Members (Petro-Eschler, Puy and Fowler)
volunteered to review the applications and recommend applicants to the full Council for selection.
Five additional applications were identified after the February 1 meeting which brings the total number to 45.
One application was mistakenly submitted to the wrong office and four others were caught in a spam filter. All
five of the applications were submitted before the deadline. An updated district breakdown is below.
District One – Five applications District Two – Seven applications
District Three – Nine applications District Four – Three applications
District Five – 11 applications District Six – Four applications
District Seven – Five applications
The draft guiding principles in the Additional info section was updated since the last staff report.
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
Page | 4
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.
- Limit the number of maps recommended to the Council (limit was two in 2011)
- 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
- Substantially equal population means a deviation between districts of no more than a certain percentage
such as 10%, 5%, 3%, etc.
- 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
- Should current residences of Council Members be considered by the Commission?
- To the extent practicable, City neighborhoods and business districts should not be split between districts
- Cores of prior districts should be preserved within new district boundaries
- Follow geographic boundaries (natural or man made such as ravines, rivers, major streets, and large
institutional campuses like universities) when drawing district boundaries
o An alternative approach uses the concept of border vacuums where major geographic
boundaries should be entirely placed within one political district. The challenges and
opportunities created by the geographic boundary could be more readily addressed when
aligned with political representation rather than being split between political districts which
could create additional barriers.
Page | 5
o A counter response to the border vacuums approach could be that having multiple political
representatives is beneficial in some instances because greater awareness exists of the
challenges and opportunities created by the geographic boundaries.
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
7. Redistricting Adoption Resolution
8. Politely Compact with Minimal Changes Map
9. RD2022-03 Map
10. Community Council Boundaries Map
11. RD2022-04 Map
12. RD2022-02 Map
13. Something Totally Different Map
14. Community Councils Letter to Redistricting Advisory Commission
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
1
RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, Section 10-3-205.5 of the Utah Code Annotated provides that within
six months after the Utah Legislature completes its redistricting process, the City Council
must make any adjustments in the boundaries of the City Council districts as may be
required to maintain districts of substantially equal population; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.06.010B of the Salt Lake City Code provides that the City
Council must reapportion City Council districts following each federal decennial census
to maintain substantially equal populations; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has completed its redistricting process; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given, the City Council held public hearings
on ________, 2022 and on _________ , 2022, which latter hearing was continued on
_________, 2022, _________, 2022, and _________, 2022, to consider the attached
adjustments to the City Council districts; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, all interested parties for and against the
proposed adjustments to the City Council districts were heard and all comments were
duly considered by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Salt Lake City Council as follows:
1. Designation of City Council District Boundaries. The boundaries of the
seven Salt Lake City Council districts shall be comprised of the areas designated for each
council district as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
2
2. Effective date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its execution.
Passed by the City Council this ______ day of April, 2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Recorder
3
EXHIBIT A
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
Politely Compact with Minimal Changes Attachment 8
Current City Council Districts
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
RD2022-03 Attachment 9
Current City Council Districts
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
Community Council Boundaries Attachment 10
Current City Council Districts
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA,
USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
RD2022-04 Attachment 11
Current City Council Districts
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
RD2022-02 Attachment 12
Current City Councils
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
Something Totally Different Attachment 13
Current City Councils
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
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:April 12, 2022
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND TO THE CURRENT
EXCHANGE, 1159 S. RICHARD STREET
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called The Current Exchange, at 1159 S. Richard Street. This retail business restores and modifies
“high-quality desirable classic automobiles,” replacing the internal combustion engines with modern, pre-
engineered electric motors. The EDLF recommends the Council approve a $100,000 loan at 7.25% interest over
seven years to this business for inventory. This loan will assist in the creation of one new job in the next year,
and the retention of three current jobs in five years.
The Current Exchange’s application meets the following EDLF program goals:
•Stimulates business development;
•Encourages private investment;
•Enhances neighborhood vitality; and,
•Boosts commercial enterprise.
The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development. Each loan application is
pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed before an application
may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on successful applications is
transmitted to the Council for final approval.
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $100,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called The Current Exchange, at 1159 S. Richard Street.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 12, 2022
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: April 19, 2022
Page | 2
A.EDLF available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Finance Department reported the
available fund balance at $12,100,205 on March 25, 2022. The amount of outstanding loans totals was
$3,129,051. (Staff Note: The Department of Economic Development suggested that the figure provided for
available fund balance be reviewed. Council staff is following up for more information.)
B.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development listed nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
City Employees
1. Finance Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department
2. Representative of the Mayor’s Office
3. Salt Lake City employee at large
4. Representative of the Division of Housing Stability
5. Director, Department of Economic Development
Community Volunteers
1. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB) member
2. Banker
3. Community lender
4. Business mentor
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other
unique information about this business that would help Council Members with their own evaluations of
how this application compares to others. For example, are there risk factors that are evaluated for each
company, like outstanding loans, years in business, etc.?
2.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
3. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include
clarification of the available EDLF fund balance, as well as the number of applications, review criteria
used, loan program goals, etc. This could be done in conjunction with the Department’s annual budget
briefing in the coming months.
Economic Development Loan Fund
Program Purpose
1.Stimulate business development and expansion
2.Create employment opportunities
3.Encourage private investment
4.Promote economic development
5.Enhance neighborhood vitality and commercial enterprise
6.Provide a financial tool for the underserved business community
3 Loan Types:
○Microloan -up to $25,000
○Start Up Loan -$25,000 -$100,000 (0-3 years in business)
○Expansion Loan -$100,000 -$350,000 (3 years+ in business)
Eligible Uses:
○Startup and existing businesses
○Revenue producing non-profit ventures
○A business expanding or relocating to Salt Lake City
○Energy-efficient (e2) equipment upgrades and building retrofits
○Construction/tenant improvement and/or real estate acquisition
○Signage, retail presentation, and display work
○Fixtures, furnishings, equipment and inventory
○Working capital and marketing
Loan Evaluation:
A loan evaluation matrix is used by the EDLF Committee to rank loan applications based on:
○Applicant’s credit history
○Ability to repay the loan
○Management ability
○Business experience
○Neighborhood impacts of the business
○Fiscal impacts of the loan relating to job creation and retention
○Leverage of public to private funds, and collateral
Recent Businesses Funded
The Pearl
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 22, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Deputy Director, Department of Economic Development
Lorena.riffojenson@slcgov.com
SUBJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – The Current Exchange
STAFF CONTACTS:
Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com
Will Wright, Project Manager, William.wright@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval
RECOMMENDATION: The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of $100,000
loan to The Current Exchange.
BUDGET IMPACT: $100,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On March 17, 2022, a loan request from The Current
Exchange was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion.
Basic Loan request
Business Name: The Current Exchange
Address: 1159 S Richard St
Loan Amount Requested: $100,000
Loan Term: 7 years
Interest Rate: 7.25%
Use of Funds: Inventory
Loan Type: Startup
Attachments: None
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 24, 2022 09:31 MDT)03/24/2022
03/24/2022
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Mayor Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, City Recorder, Arts Council, Business
Development, and DED Staff
From: Ben Kolendar
RE: Department Designee
Pursuant to City Policy 1.01.02 concerning Temporary Delegation of Authority, please be advised that I
will be out from March 22nd to March 30th, 2022. I will be out on personal leave.
On March 22nd, 2022, I hereby delegate, pursuant to the City Policy Manual, the following
administrative authority to: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Deputy Director – Office: 801.535.7299; Mobile
801.859.3170 – to exercise all authority of the Director except as otherwise delegated. This includes all
administrative functions of the Department of Economic Development.
I also delegate to Lorena Riffo-Jenson the authority to respond as the “Emergency Interim Successor” in all
emergencies and to take all administrative action required to respond should such an emergency or critical
situation arise in the event she or her staff may be unable to reach me after making reasonable
efforts. Signature by Lorena Riffo-Jenson shall be characterized as “Emergency Interim Successor” except
as otherwise delegated and be binding as if it were the Director.
DATED this 21st day of March 2022.
Department of Economic Development
_ _
Ben Kolendar, Director
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:April 12, 2022
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND TO MINDFUL LIVING
WELLNESS CENTER, 1592 SOUTH 1100 EAST
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called Mindful Living Wellness Center, at 1592 South 1100 East. This is a professional services business
that “provides float therapy, sound therapy, yoga, life coaching, meditation centers, infrared light therapy,
massages, facials, and overall mindfulness.” The City’s Economic Development Loan Fund recommends the
Council approve a $100,000 loan at 7.25% interest over seven years to this business for working capital. This
loan will assist in the creation of five new jobs in the next year and the retention of 27 current jobs.
The Mindful Living Wellness Center’s application meets the following EDLF program goals:
•Stimulates business development;
•Encourages private investment;
•Enhances neighborhood vitality; and,
•Boosts commercial enterprise.
The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development. Each loan application is
pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed before an application
may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on successful applications is
transmitted to the Council for final approval.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 12, 2022
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: April 19, 2022
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $100,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called Mindful Living Wellness Center, at 1592 South 1100 East.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.EDLF available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Finance Department reported the
available fund balance at $12,100,205 on March 25, 2022. The amount of outstanding loans totals was
$3,129,051. (Staff Note: The Department of Economic Development suggested that the figure provided for
available fund balance be reviewed. Council staff is following up for more information.)
B.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development listed nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
City Employees
1. Finance Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department
2. Representative of the Mayor’s Office
3. Salt Lake City employee at large
4. Representative of the Division of Housing Stability
5. Director, Department of Economic Development
Community Volunteers
1. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB) member
2. Banker
3. Community lender
4. Business mentor
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other
unique information about this business that would help Council Members with their own evaluations of
how this application compares to others. For example, are there risk factors that are evaluated for each
company, like outstanding loans, years in business, etc.?
2.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
3. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include
clarification of the available EDLF fund balance, as well as the number of applications, review criteria
used, loan program goals, etc. This could be done in conjunction with the Department’s annual budget
briefing in the coming months.
Economic Development Loan Fund
Program Purpose
1.Stimulate business development and expansion
2.Create employment opportunities
3.Encourage private investment
4.Promote economic development
5.Enhance neighborhood vitality and commercial enterprise
6.Provide a financial tool for the underserved business community
3 Loan Types:
○Microloan -up to $25,000
○Start Up Loan -$25,000 -$100,000 (0-3 years in business)
○Expansion Loan -$100,000 -$350,000 (3 years+ in business)
Eligible Uses:
○Startup and existing businesses
○Revenue producing non-profit ventures
○A business expanding or relocating to Salt Lake City
○Energy-efficient (e2) equipment upgrades and building retrofits
○Construction/tenant improvement and/or real estate acquisition
○Signage, retail presentation, and display work
○Fixtures, furnishings, equipment and inventory
○Working capital and marketing
Loan Evaluation:
A loan evaluation matrix is used by the EDLF Committee to rank loan applications based on:
○Applicant’s credit history
○Ability to repay the loan
○Management ability
○Business experience
○Neighborhood impacts of the business
○Fiscal impacts of the loan relating to job creation and retention
○Leverage of public to private funds, and collateral
Recent Businesses Funded
The Pearl
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 22, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Deputy Director, Department of Economic Development
Lorena.riffojenson@slcgov.com
SUBJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) - Mindful Living Wellness
Center
STAFF CONTACTS:
Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com
Will Wright, Project Manager, William.wright@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval
RECOMMENDATION: The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of $100,000
loan to Mindful Living Wellness Center.
BUDGET IMPACT: $100,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On March 10, 2022, a loan request from Mindful Living
Wellness Center was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion.
Basic Loan request
Business Name: Mindful Living & Wellness Center
Address: 1592 S 1100 E
Loan Amount Requested: $100,000
Loan Term: 7 years
Interest Rate: 7.25%
Use of Funds: Working capital (payroll)
Loan Type: Startup
Attachments: None
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 24, 2022 09:32 MDT)03/24/2022
03/24/2022
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Mayor Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, City Recorder, Arts Council, Business
Development, and DED Staff
From: Ben Kolendar
RE: Department Designee
Pursuant to City Policy 1.01.02 concerning Temporary Delegation of Authority, please be advised that I
will be out from March 22nd to March 30th, 2022. I will be out on personal leave.
On March 22nd, 2022, I hereby delegate, pursuant to the City Policy Manual, the following
administrative authority to: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Deputy Director – Office: 801.535.7299; Mobile
801.859.3170 – to exercise all authority of the Director except as otherwise delegated. This includes all
administrative functions of the Department of Economic Development.
I also delegate to Lorena Riffo-Jenson the authority to respond as the “Emergency Interim Successor” in all
emergencies and to take all administrative action required to respond should such an emergency or critical
situation arise in the event she or her staff may be unable to reach me after making reasonable
efforts. Signature by Lorena Riffo-Jenson shall be characterized as “Emergency Interim Successor” except
as otherwise delegated and be binding as if it were the Director.
DATED this 21st day of March 2022.
Department of Economic Development
_ _
Ben Kolendar, Director
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:April 12, 2022
RE: INFORMATIONAL: UPDATE ON THE GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT PLAN,
THRIVING IN PLACE
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will hear an update from the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) about work on
the City’s anti-gentrification and anti-displacement plan, known as Thriving in Place. This will include
information on new Utah statutes that are applicable to housing loss mitigation, as well as an analysis of the
City’s existing housing loss mitigation ordinance.
The anti-gentrification and anti-displacement plan, which got underway in September 2021, is intended to
identify policy measures that can help current residents remain in Salt Lake City as it grows and changes. These
policies will be developed from the Plan’s research on gentrification pressures in Salt Lake City and patterns of
involuntary displacement, including those related to escalating housing costs, eviction, and demolition.
Currently, the Thriving in Place project is approaching the end of its first phase, which focuses on defining and
understanding the issues through community engagement and data collection. The second phase will focus on
developing collaborative solutions, including a displacement mitigation plan. CAN expects to return to the
Council in late June to outline refinements to the plans for Phase Two, and again in September to present final
results. More information about the plan is available on the Thriving in Place website, which is available in
English and Spanish.
Goal of the briefing: Receive an update and provide feedback on the ongoing work for the City’s
Gentrification and Displacement Plan, known as Thriving in Place, as required by the Council’s policy on mid-
terms plan updates.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 12, 2022
Set Date: n/a
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Background
1.June 2020: In the FY21 annual budget, the City Council allocated funding for a Gentrification
Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan to understand the breadth and depth of involuntary
displacement and formulate policies and programs to mitigate any such displacement that might
occur.
2.December 2020: The Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) presented The
Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City to the City Council. The intent
of that presentation was to discuss various housing policy topics identified as goals in Growing SLC:
A Five Year Housing Plan.
3.September 2021: A consultant team was retained after a City Request for Proposals (RFP) was
initiated and completed. The Administration selected Baird & Driskell to oversee the Gentrification
Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan, now called Thriving in Place. The full team
includes:
- Baird & Driskell Community Planning (led by David Driskell);
- Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (led by Dr. Tim
Thomas); and
- A team from the Department of City and Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
(led by Dr. Ivis Garcia and Dr. Alessandro Rigolon).
B.2022 Utah State Legislature Updates
Two new laws from the 2022 Utah Legislative session—House Bill 462, Utah Housing Affordability
Amendments, and House Bill 303, Local Land Use Amendments—have elements that are related to anti-
gentrification and anti-displacement.
1. HB 462 and HB 303 define moderate income housing as 80% AMI or below. These two policies are
compatible with the City’s proposed Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives, RMF-30, Shared
Housing, Parking Reduction, and Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinances.
2. Elements of these statutes also apply to the establishment of a Housing Loss Mitigation fund and
the City’s ability to require moderate-income housing units in a land use decision:
a. HB 462 authorizes a city to establish a Housing Loss Mitigation fund to preserve
existing, subsidized, and new moderate-income housing (lines 708-710).
b. HB 303 states that a city may require moderate income housing units as a condition of
approval of a land use application only if the developer and the city enter into a written
agreement, or the city provides incentives that are agreed to by the developer (lines 828-
838). It does not specify that the written agreement must be a development agreement.
3. Additionally, HB 303 prohibits a city from approving or denying a land use application based on a
developer’s decision to incorporate moderate-income housing units in their development.
Page | 3
C.Existing Ordinance on Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss, and Potential Future
Adjustments
1.The current ordinance, Chapter 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss, was last
substantially amended in 2012. It states, “The purpose of the chapter is to mitigate the loss of
affordable housing stock due to new development with due consideration for vested or protected
property rights.” The ordinance requires a housing mitigation plan for:
a. Any application for a demolition permit that will result in a loss of one or more
residential units in a residential zone;
b. A request for a conditional use permit to expand parking in a residential or mixed-use
zone; and
c. Any petition for a zoning change that would permit a non-residential use of land that
includes residential dwelling units within its boundaries.
2. “Permitted mitigation measures” include replacing the lost housing units or paying a fee to the
Housing Trust Fund. The fee amount equals the difference between the fair market value of the
housing units to be eliminated or demolished, and the replacement cost of building new units of
similar square footage.
3. CAN staff and the City Attorney’s Office are currently evaluating other tools the City
may potentially use to make mitigation of residential housing loss more effective,
while complying with new statutes and existing case law. More information on this
work will be available to the Council in the coming weeks.
POLICY QUESTIONS
The Council may wish to discuss the following policy questions, which staff adapted from some of the
transmittal’s Proposed Policy Considerations:
1.Is the Council’s objective with a housing loss mitigation policy to mitigate the loss of
all housing or only the loss of affordable housing? If the objective is to target only
affordable housing, the current ordinance could be amended to reflect that. This could also inform
future policies included in the Thriving in Place plan.
2.On which stage of a proposed project should City housing loss mitigation policy
focus—for example, demolition, plan approval, or some other stage? Note that this
policy decision may affect the process for up-zoning decisions. Should the City’s policy require
affordable units for an up-zone?
3.What are the policy objectives of a housing loss mitigation fee? Should the fee be paid to
the RDA’s Housing Development Loan Program (where the City now concentrates resources for
affordable housing development), or would the Council prefer it be paid to a to-be-created
displacement mitigation program, which could also include other types of assistance? (Note:
depending on the Council’s direction, City staff may need to analyze the amount of revenue that
could accrue from a housing loss mitigation fee to assess whether it would be sufficient to either
fund a new program or build affordable housing. In either case, the general fund may need to
supplement this revenue).
Page | 4
4. Currently the City does not track affordable housing units unless the units have been subsidized by
City, County, State, or Federal funds. Would the Council like to request that the
Administration start tracking affordable units through the entitlement process or
business license rental applications? The City does not currently have a mechanism to track
existing “naturally occurring” affordable housing units, either. Would the Council like to ask
the Administration about the resources that would be necessary to track these
existing units?
5. Would the Council like to include a focus on displacement and loss of local
businesses, as well as affordable housing?
Salt Lake City’s
Anti-Displacement Strategy
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
April 12, 2022
Thriving in Place SLC
•Understand gentrification and
displacement in Salt Lake City
•Develop a plan of action and
policy recommendations
•Foster a community where
we all can stay and thrive
Learn more at ThrivingInPlaceSLC.org
Baird+Driskell
Community Planning
Project Management /
Planning Lead
University of Utah /
Dept. of City & Metro.
Planning
Engagement + Local Partner
Lead
UC Berkeley /
Center for Community
Innovation
Research + Analysis
Lead
David Driskell Daisy Quinonez
Ivis Garcia
Alessandro Rigolon
Tim Thomas
Julia Greenberg
Salt Lake City Staff Team
+ Steering Committee
Community Working Group of
Key Partners + Stakeholders
Our Team
Two Phases of Engagement
PHASE 1
Listening and
Learning
January – April 2022
PHASE 2
Crafting Collaborative
Solutions
May – August 2022
Broad + Targeted Outreach
●Project website
●Online survey
●Community events
●Presentations to
community groups
●Community Liaisons
●Intercept surveys
●Focus groups
●Youth workshops
thrivinginplaceslc.org
Getting the Word Out
●Door hangers
●Postcards
●Flyers
●Stencils
●Tabling
●Presentations
●Social media posts
●Email blasts
Community Liaisons
●Members of community
●Relationships of trust
●Formal and informal
methods
●Multiple languages
Youth Workshops
●Seven workshops
■Glendale Middle School
■Jackson Elementary
■Pacific Heritage Academy
●Interactive activities
●200+ participants
Engagement to date…
✓3100+ unique website visitors
✓1700+ completed surveys (700+ in person)
✓8400+ community interactions
✓7 youth workshops, 5 focus groups
✓14 engagements with trusted organizations
✓Story maps and project launch interviews in Fall 2021
✓Community Working Group meetings, two updates to the
HRC, presentation to the SLCN, and more
What happens next?
April
•Citywide mailer and email / social media push
•Community Events April 16 and 26
•Survey closes end of April
•Complete initial data analysis and mapping (UDP)
May
•Summarize what we’ve heard
•Groundtruth indicator maps
•Transition to Phase 2 (Crafting Collaborative Solutions)
Questions?
Sign up to receive project updates:
ThrivingInPlaceSLC.org
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: March 28, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Update on the status of the Thriving in Place plan and the Housing Loss
Mitigation (18.97) ordinance.
STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-270 -4638 ,
blake.thomas@slcgov.com
Angela Price, Policy Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-315 -9024 ,
angela.price@slcgov.com
Susan Lundmark, Project Manager, Transportation Division, 801-535 -6112,
susan.lundmark@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information item
RECOMMENDATION: No action needed
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In December 2020, the Department of Community and
Neighborhoods (CAN) presented The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable
Salt Lake City to the City Council. The intent of that presentation was to discuss various housing
policy topics identified as goals in Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan. These included the
vision for an equitable and holistic city, data analysis, a summary of comprehensive solutions
and policies including the Gentrification Mitigation Plan and the Housing Loss Mitigation
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 29, 2022 18:19 MDT)03/29/2022
03/29/2022
(HLM) ordinance, among other equitable housing concepts, and identification of next steps for
moving forward various housing policies.
Since the policy briefing in 2020, the Administration has selected Baird and Driskell to oversee
the Gentrification Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan or Thriving in Place (TIP). In
addition to a robust, community-driven planning process, data analysis and mapping, and policy
recommendations to mitigate displacement, the Baird Team will also guide policy changes to the
City’s Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (18.97).
This summary will provide the City Council with an update on:
• An overview of Thriving in Place including information on the engagement activities that
are currently underway and next steps;
• 2022 legislative requirements that are applicable to housing loss mitigation; and
• A detailed analysis of the Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (18.97),
including the history of the ordinance, a summary of the current ordinance, adopted
ordinance constraints, technical discrepancies, policy considerations, next steps, a legal
analysis of common questions, and an HLM project summary.
The TIP Plan and HLM ordinance both address the goal of “increasing housing opportunities for
cost burdened households” in Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan and meet several
objectives outlined in the plan.
The Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with the City Council to present the data
and engagement efforts that are happening in the TIP Plan and seek guidance on policy
directives to mitigate involuntary displacement and create a more equitable Salt Lake City.
The TIP Plan will inform the update to Growing SLC, which will be underway shortly. Both
plans will be brought before the City Council throughout the process and will be presented for
adoption when completed.
Thriving In Place
In June 2020, the City Council allocated FY21 funding for a Gentrification Assessment and
Displacement Mitigation Plan to understand the breadth and depth of involuntary displacement
and formulate policies and programs to mitigate any such displacement that might occur. After a
Request for Proposals (RFP) process was initiated and completed, a consultant team was retained
in September 2021, which consists of the following researchers and thought leaders in the fields
of gentrification and displacement:
• Baird & Driskell Community Planning (led by David Driskell);
• Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (UDP; led by Dr. Tim
Thomas); and
• University of Utah Department of City and Metropolitan Planning (CMP; led by Dr. Ivis
Garcia and Dr. Alessandro Rigolon).
Together with the consultant team, City staff (together, the Team) are guiding the Plan, now
called Thriving in Place, using the following overarching actions:
• To understand gentrification pressures in Salt Lake City;
• To document patterns of involuntary displacement, including those related to housing
costs, eviction, and demolition; and
• To find policy solutions to help people choose to stay, live, and thrive in Salt Lake City
even as the city grows and changes.
This briefing will provide an overview of TIP and what the Team has learned from early
community engagement. It is the intent of the Administration and the Consultant team to come
back to the City Council in a future meeting with an in-depth analysis of the Listening and
Learning phase and to seek guidance before the Crafting Collaborative Solutions phase.
• Phase 1: Listening and Learning – Focuses on defining and understanding the problem
and includes extensive community engagement and data collection.
o Quantitative data collection and analysis is led by UDP.
o Qualitative data collection through numerous community engagement activities.
o Information gathered in this phase provides context on experiences of
displacement, community asset mapping, and neighborhood challenges to ensure
policies are aligned to mitigate displacement pressures specific to Salt Lake City
neighborhood needs.
• Phase 2: Crafting Collaborative Solutions – Develops a Displacement Mitigation Plan
that includes actionable policy recommendations.
o Recommendations will include a shared framework that can guide action across
sectors, including the City, other governmental agencies, and community-based
organizations and partners.
o Recommendations will be informed by Phase 1 engagement and a review of
existing policies, programs, and practices. A second round of input from
community and stakeholders will inform priorities for action and
recommendations for policy changes.
Phase One - Community Engagement
From the outset, there has been an effort to have a community-led process that includes extensive
and equitable community engagement. The Team is listening to residents and partners through a
variety of engagement methods, including online and in-person. The Team reviews engagement
efforts and statistics weekly to ensure equitable representation and recalibrates outreach tactics if
needed. TIP is currently in the Listening and Learning phase. Details of engagement efforts are
outlined below:
• City Steering Committee – This committee consists of City staff and includes
representatives f rom various departments to ensure collaboration and impactful policy
development.
• Community Working Group – This 22 -member advisory group was formed to guide
the community engagement process and ensure inclusion, provide input and feedback on
the process design, outreach materials, and draft strategies as they emerge, and serve as
liaisons to groups and organizations in which they are involved. The group has met twice
so far, with notes from the meetings posted here.
• Project Launch Interviews – These confidential one-on-one interviews with 15 key
community representatives helped shape the Team’s engagement strategy and refinement
of the Plan’s goals. Interviews were completed in late Fall 2021 and are summarized
here .
• Public Website and Online Survey – The Thriving in Place website, available in
English and Spanish, was launched in February 2022 to provide educational information
for residents and to serve as an online engagement tool. To date , the website has seen
3,100 visits from 2,600 unique visitors, 46% of which have been via mobile device. An
online survey (English and Spanish) was launched in conjunction with the project website
and to-date has been completed by over 1,000 individuals.
• Intercept (in-person) Surveys – Two CMP classes are conducting in-person “intercept”
surveys at various locations throughout the city , with an emphasis on Westside
neighborhoods. The demographics of these survey respondents tend to be younger, more
diverse, and more likely to be renters than the population that has responded to the online
survey. To date, over 300 interview surveys have been completed. We anticipate over
700 in-person intercept surveys will be conducted.
• Community Liaisons – The project team has hired six community liaisons with
experience and connections in communities of color, non-English speakers, and lower
income neighborhoods to help ensure equitable engagement and input. The liaisons are
conducting in -person engagement with small groups in culturally appropriate formats,
touching on the same themes and questions as the survey but in a more formal way.
While the methodology will not engage as many residents, the value of the input will be
significant.
• Youth Workshops – The CMP classes have hosted numerous engagement activities for
youth to discuss change in their neighborhoods and their perspectives and ideas related to
gentrification and displacement.
• Community Events - The project team has been participating in a variety of community
events (e.g., Neighborhood House Family Fun, tabling with Ventanilla de Salud, and
Sunday Mass at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, among others). They will also be
hosting a mural-painting event at Three Creeks Confluence Park on April 16th.
• Other engagement efforts by the Team to help ensure people are aware of the project
and opportunities for engagement include:
o CMP students discussing TIP at Westside Community Council meetings in
February and March 2022;
o Introducing and discussing TIP at board meeting for University Neighborhood
Partners in March 2022;
o Presenting at Salt Lake City Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Salt Lake
Community Network (SLCN) meetings;
o CMP students distributing hundreds of flyers, door hangers, and sidewalk stencils;
and
o Sending out City Council citywide mailer for housing related efforts to all
residential addresses in Salt Lake City during the first week of April 2022.
Phase Two - Mapping and Data Analysis
Data gathered from the project’s community engagement efforts will be complemented with in-
depth analysis of the city’s neighborhoods through a mapping and analysis led by UDP. UDP is
developing a map using advanced statistical analysis to identify where the highest rates and risk
of displacement are currently occurring in Salt Lake City by analyzing hundreds of variables.
These variables include housing markets, property types, population demographics, changes over
time, administrative data, and many other variables (see UDP’s Housing Precarity Risk Model as
an example of this type of modeling). UDP then maps the model’s output values to identify areas
that need the most support and protection. The final map will show four distinct characteristics:
areas with low displacement risk, elevated risk, high risk, and extreme risk.
Timeline and Next Steps
The project is in the final stages of Phase One, Listening and Learning. In May 2022, the Team
will summarize the community input received and connect it with the results of UDP’s mapping
and data analysis. Phase Two , Crafting Collaborative Solutions, includes the Team working with
the Community Working Group and members of the City Steering Committee to share results
and identify key take-aways, as well as identify areas for policy recommendations. Phase Two ,
Craftin g Collaborative Solutions, will run from May through August 2022. A few key dates are
outlined below:
• April 16 - Mural painting at Three Creeks Confluence Park.
• April 18 - Conclusion of Phase One engagement activities.
• April 26 - Student presentations (from the two CMP classes) on outreach efforts at
Glendale Community Learning Center.
• May - Summary of Phase One findings and UDP’s displacement analysis presented to the
Team.
• May/June - Presentation to Planning Commission on TIP.
• May/June - Small group work sessions to distill Phase One findings and agree on
direction for Phase Two (we expect to return to City Council in mid to late June to share
results).
• June/July - Phase Two begins with preliminary policy options and near-term
recommendations.
• July/August - Evaluation of policy options and refinement of recommendations.
• July/August - Presentation to Planning Commission on TIP.
• August/September - Planning Commission and City Council process for TIP.
Housing Loss Mitigation
History
In 1994, the City Council commissioned an independent economic evaluation to analyze the
impact and loss of affordable housing and potential mitigation measures. The impetus of the
study was a substantial shortage of affordable housing in the Central City, University, and
Capitol Hill neighborhoods. The driving forces behind the shortage were the demolition of
housing stock for commercial and institutional purposes or assemblage of land by speculators.
Since inception, the policy has been centered around a land-use transition from residential to
commercial or a petition to expand parking. A Housing Mitigation Plan and Statement is
required before final approval of a parking conditional-use is granted or a zoning change is
approved that would allow commercial use on properties that currently have residential dwelling
units (1995 ordinance does not contemplate land use changes but rather demolition of units). The
initial plan required an analysis of adverse impacts, dwelling units that will be demolished, fair
market value for demolished units, square feet of land to be rezoned, and a mitigation plan that
addresses the loss of residential zoned land, residential units, or residential character. To mitigate
the identified loss, developers can replace the housing within two years of the entitlement
application approval, pay a fee that is the difference between the fair market value and the
replacement cost, or pay a flat fee of $3,000 per dwelling unit to be demolished.
Adopted Ordinance
The c urrent ordinance, Chapter 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss, was adopted in
2012, and states: “The purpose of the chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable housing stock
due to new development with due consideration for vested or protected property rights.” The
ordinance requires a Housing Mitigation Plan for:
• Any application for a demolition permit that will result in a loss of one or more
residential units in a residential zone;
• A request for a conditional use permit to expand parking in a residential or mixed -use
zone; and
• Any petition for a zoning change that would permit a non-residential use of land that
includes residential dwelling units within its boundaries.
A Housing Mitigation Plan and Housing Impact Statement shall be submitted unless the
applicant meets certain provisions such as a non-conforming use, a master plan calling for non-
residential use, or proposed demolition because of health and safety issues. The Housing Impact
Statement must identify adverse impacts on the residential character of the neighborhood, the
address of units targeted for demolition, fair market value and state of repair of units targeted for
demolition, square footage of land that will be impacted, and a mitigation plan to address the loss
of residential zoned land, units, or residential character. Permitted mitigation measures include
replacing the lost housing units or paying a fee to the Housing Trust Fund that equals the
difference between the fair market value of the housing units to be eliminated or demolished and
the replacement cost of building new units of similar square footage.
Adopted Ordinance Constraints
• Affordability - The adopted ordinance does not include an assessment of the loss of
affordable housing in the Housing Impact Statement nor does it require replacement of
affordable units.
• Purpose - The purpose statement of the Chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable
housing, but the policy does not analyze or mitigate demolition of affordable units.
• Trigger - The ordinance is triggered by a demolition permit, a parking conditional use
permit, or a zoning amendment from residential to commercial. The trigger does not
address the loss of affordable housing. The Housing Impact Statement is required during
the e ntitlement process which is challenging because a parcel may be rezoned and not see
development or the fee for many years.
• Formula - The formula takes the current fair market value of the building (excluding
land value) from the Salt Lake County Assessor and subtracts the International Code
Council (ICC) square foot replacement costs of the building. The structure of this formula
typically yields a negative number and, therefore, the City is not receiving funding to
mitigate the loss of residential units.
• Process – Currently, an application is submitted to Building Services, then passed to the
Planning Division, which creates the report, and is then reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community and Neighborhoods. There is no clear ownership over the process
as it touches multiple divisions at different stages in the project timeline.
2022 Legislative Requirements
There are two new statutory requirements that are applicable to the establishment of a Housing
Loss Mitigation f und and the City’s ability to require moderate-income housing units in a land
use decision. Those bills are:
• HB 462 Utah Housing Affordability Amendments - authorizes the City to establish a
Housing Loss Mitigation fund to preserve existing, subsidized, and new moderate-income
housing (lines 708-710).
• HB 303 Local Land Use Amendments - states that a city may only require moderate
income housing units as a condition of approval of a land use application if:
o The developer and the city enter into a written agreement (does not specify
development agreement); or
o The city provides incentives that are agreed to by the developer (lines 828-838).
Additionally, HB 303 prohibits a city from approving or denying a land use application based on
a developer’s decision to incorporate moderate-income housing units in their development.
HB 462 and HB 303 define moderate income housing as 80% AMI or below. These two policies
are compatible with the adopted Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance as well as the proposed
Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives, RMF-30, Shared Housing, Parking Reduction, and
Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinances.
Technical Discrepancies
• Section 18.64.050 Residential Demolition Provisions does not align with 18.97
Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss. The City Attorney’s Office has done a legal
analysis and drafted amendments to clean up technical discrepancies between 18.64.050
and 18.97.
• The purpose statement to mitigate the loss of affordable housing in 18.97 does not align
with the policy or the mitigation plan as there is no data collected on affordability of units
nor is there a requirement to replace the demolished housing with affordable units.
• Housing Loss Mitigation touches multiple chapters in the code rather than being
contained within a demolition or development section. HLM could be contained within a
development code, but this would require substantial amendments to various chapters
within the Municipal Code.
• If a payment is collected, ordinance 18.97 directs that payment to the Housing Trust
Fund. The Housing Trust Fund is being moved from Community and Neighborhoods to
the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and is being changed to the Housing Development
Loan Program.
• 18.97.040 requires a report to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB) but
does not give the HAAB authorizing power to deny the report, mitigation plan, or
petition.
• The current formula does not yield a positive number and needs to be amended to
mitigate the loss of residential units. A fee justification study and an amendment to the
consolidated fee schedule to include the HLM will be required.
Policy Considerations
• Is the policy objective to mitigate the loss of all housing or just affordable housing? If the
objective is targeted at affordable housing, the ordinance will need to be amended so the
policy is reflective of that objective.
• Does the fee constitute an impact, linkage, or flat fee? A fee justification study will need
to be conducted to amend the mitigation formula to yield a positive number.
• When should the plan be required and the fee collected? Is it beneficial to have the plan
during the entitlement process for upzoning legislative decisions? HLM is a demolition -
focused ordinance, should this be the policy objective?
• What are the policy objectives of the fee? Should the fee be paid to the Housing
Development Loan Program, held in the RDA, or another funding source that can be used
for the mitigation of displacement?
• Should the amended ordinance require affordable units for an upzone?
• What constitutes naturally occurring affordable housing? Currently the City does not
track affordable housing units unless the units have been subsidized by city, county, state,
or federal funds. Is it the intention of the City Council to start tracking affordable units
through the entitlement process or business license rental application?
• The current ordinance is focused on the loss of housing and does not contemplate the loss
of local businesses for the development of housing. Is this a policy objective that should
be considered in the amendment to the ordinance?
Next Steps
The Administration understands the frustration of the public to amend the Housing Loss
Mitigation ordinance to preserve and develop affordable housing. The following actions are
recommended:
• The City Council, working in conjunction with the Administration, can assist in the
development of the policy objectives of the new HLM ordinance.
• The City Attorney’s Office has conducted a thorough review of the code and has drafted
proposed amendments to clean up the technical issues. This does not address the policy
considerations outlined above; rather, it cleans up technical inconsistencies. If preferred
by the Council, the technical changes to HLM could be transmitted while the TIP study is
being completed. The Administration recommends waiting to make any policy changes
due to the robust engagement process happening within the TIP Plan.
• The Zions Public Finance study that was conducted in Summer 2021 did not produce a
specific enough outcome for the City to rely on. The Administration is going to go to bid
in Spring 2022 for a consultant to conduct a fee justification study. This study will be
running concurrently with TIP.
• The TIP study that is currently underway is analyzing displacement metrics and will
develop mitigation measures in addition to policy changes to the current HLM ordinance.
These policies will need to be adopted by the City Council after they go through the
engagement process.
• Once the policy considerations are determined, the City Attorney’s Office will draft
amendments to the relevant ordinances.
Housing Loss Mitigation Legal Analysis of Common Questions
• Can the City institute a rent control policy?
o Utah Code Section 57-20-1 prohibits the City from enacting an ordinance or
resolution that would control rents or fees on private residential property unless it
has the express approval of the Legislature. Lease agreements are a contractual
matter between private parties and the City does not have jurisdiction to halt an
eviction.
• Should the City issue a moratorium on development?
o A temporary land use regulation, or “moratorium”, can be imposed by the City
Council to prohibit a development activity if the Council finds a compelling,
countervailing public interest to do so. This is a policy decision that the Council
would have to make. However, the temporary regulation cannot exceed six
months. The purpose of a temporary land use regulation is to halt (or, in some
cases, allow) a development activity immediately for a temporary period while
more permanent regulations are developed, presented to the public and the
planning commission, and transmitted to the Council for action. Prohibiting
development activity while waiting for a study to be produced could possibly be
justified by the Council, but it seems unlikely that land use regulations could be
ready for adoption within the six -month moratorium period, especially when the
findings of the TIP study are not yet known.
• Why is the City not requiring the development of affordable units in all new housing
projects?
o Utah Code Section 10-9a-535 as outlined in HB 303 states that a city may not
require moderate income housing units in the approval of a project unless the
developer agrees to the incentives. This provision does permit cities to adopt
incentive-based policies for the inclusion of moderate-income housing in a new
development, though this cannot be a requirement.
• Does the current h ousing loss mitigation ordinance protect affordable housing?
o The current housing loss mitigation ordinance (18.97.010) states that the “purpose
of this chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable housing stock due to new
development with due consideration for vested or protected property rights.” The
conditions upon which an applicant would need to comply with the HLM
ordinance outlined in 18.97.020 and develop a mitigation plan are when a
residential unit (does not state affordable unit) is demolished to expand vehicle
parking in a residential zone or when a land use transitions from residential. This
ordinance does not prohibit the demolition of affordable housing units but simply
protects against the loss of a residential unit. Additionally, it does not prohibit a
developer from increasing the number of units on a parcel, nor does it consider
the affordability of the existing or new units. These are policy considerations for
the amendments to the new ordinance.
Housing Loss Mitigation Best Practices
There are few analogous ordinances in other municipalities. Most ordinances and fees in other
cities are Housing Mitigation Fees, meaning that they are applied to new developments that do
not include a minimum percentage of affordable units. The most similar policy to Salt Lake
City’s housing loss mitigation ordinance (18.97) is a demolition permit surcharge, which is a
current pilot project in Chicago, Illinois. This surcharge, along with other fees from around the
country, are outlined below.
Chicago, IL
Demolition Permit Surcharge
• A temporary surcharge (March 29, 2021 - April 1, 2022) in a pilot area.
o Applied in addition to other demolition fees, surcharges, and taxes imposed by
City, State, or other political subdivisions.
o Ordinance requires a written report no later than 150 days prior to expiration
identifying:
The amount of revenue generated through the surcharge;
Its observed effect on development activity in the applicable pilot area;
and
Any other information that the committee reviewing the surcharge’s
impact may require.
• A flat fee of $15,000 for the demolition of detached houses, townhouses, or two-flats.
• A flat fee of $5,000 per dwelling unit for the demolition of multi-unit residential
buildings.
• Exemptions:
o If replacement development designates 50% of units as affordable at 60% AMI or
lower; or
o Demolition is determined to be necessary to remedy conditions imminently
dangerous to life, health, or property.
• Funds from this surcharge are deposited into an Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund.
Somerville, MA
Project Mitigation Contribution or Linkage Fee Program for Affordable Housing
• Requires that linkage fees be collected on any project that:
o Requires zoning relief; and
o Contains a single-use or combination of uses exceeding a square-foot threshold
(30,000 sq ft) set by the Board of Alderman (City Council).
• Project mitigation contributions are made to the Somerville Affordable Housing Trust
Fund for the purpose of the creation of affordable rental and homeownership units.
• The rate per square foot was $10.75 for FY 2021-2022.
• The Project Mitigation Contribution is adjusted on March 1 of each year based on the
change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers over the previous calendar
year.
Berkeley, CA
Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee
• Similar to an inclusionary zoning policy.
• The Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee per unit of market-rate rental housing is $39,746.
o The fee is offset if affordable units are included in the project and is waived if at
least 20% of units in a project are affordable.
50% of affordable units must be affordable at 30% AMI with the
remaining affordable units affordable at 50% AMI.
Avon, CO
Employee Housing Mitigation Linkage Fee
• The purpose is to create housing for workers generated by new development.
• Applies to new multi-family residential (3+ units), commercial, accommodation units,
industrial, and other non-residential development within the Town.
• A formula is used to calculate the fee. The fee is based on the number of workers
required per square foot of new space.
Aspen, CO
Affordable Housing Impact Fee
• A 2012 study suggested calculating the fee for their program by taking the difference
between the market price of housing and the price that is affordable to households at
targeted income.
Seattle, WA
Affordable Housing Incentive Program (Chapter 23.58C)
• Ordinance applies to development in Seattle that requests extra floor area and includes
dwelling units in the following cases:
o new construction;
o addition to existing structure that increases number of units;
o alterations within an existing structure that increases total number of units; and
o change of use that increases the total number of units.
• In return for extra floor area, ordinance provides a performance option (directly
supplying affordable housing units as allowed by code) or a payment option.
Performance option must satisfy median income requirements listed in the ordinance.
• Payment option includes a fee per square foot (SF) of new construction (units). Fee
amount varies by zoning code of the construction. Fee amounts are listed in tables in the
ordinance and range from $5.50/SF to $20.75/SF in the downtown zones and from
$7.00/SF to $32.75/SF in certain zones outside of downtown.
• Payments are deposited into an account managed by the Seattle Director of Housing to
support the development of affordable housing.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Briefing
EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1 – Zions Public Finance Study
One South Main Street, 18th Floor, Salt Lake City UT 84133-1904 Telephone: 801.844.7373 Fax: 801.844.4484
23 September 2021
Angela Price
Policy and Project Manager
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Salt Lake City Corporation
Re: Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis
Zions Public Finance (ZPFI) examined a sample of 207 properties in and around Salt Lake City and compared
the market value determined by the Salt Lake County Assessor to asking prices as currently listed on various
real estate services. Results indicate that list prices on for-sale properties are significantly higher than
assessed values on the Assessor’s tax rolls.
The computed difference seems higher than most would expect. Traditionally, assessors tend to value
homes at somewhere between 90 and 110 percent of market value and prefer the lower end of this
range. In the graph below, that would be in the first column representing only a small percentage of
homes, where the listed value is 11 percent higher than market value. However, market values overall are
currently a lot higher than expected.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Number of HomesAmount Above Assessed Market Value
Homes Above Assessed Market Value
2
Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021
Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah
Recent migration to Salt Lake County, among other factors, has contr ibuted to a substantial housing
shortage, prompting many owners to try to sell for significantly more than prices seen a few years ago.
Due to the lack of housing inventory, buyers were more willing to buy at high prices.
Additionally, many of the listed homes that ZPFI studied had been on the market for some time. This is
evidence that the sellers priced their homes much higher than what the actual market value would be.
The assessor’s database is based off the 2020 tax year, where officials likely calculated market value
during the year 2019. In 2020, realtors at slrealtors.com report that home prices increased by 11.8
percent. In 2021, Deseret News reported an increase of 17 percent. Together, this represents a potential
increase of 30.8 percent since the 2020 tax roll was calculated. As a comparison, if the tax rolls were
thirty percent higher, many of the houses sampled fall in the range expected.
ZPFI has calculated that the average house on the market is listed $268,701 higher than its assessed value.
This translates to a 70.8 percent markup on assessed values. The increase in selling price varies by house
price – for homes listed at less than $250,000, listings are at a 58 percent premium. For houses above $1
million, the premium increases to 103 percent above assessed value. Between $250,000 and $1 million,
there is a gradual increase from 58 to 103 percent. The following three graphs show the distribution of
homes listed at between $250,000 and $500,000, between $500,000 and $1,000,000, and those homes
listed above $1 million.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of HomesAmount Above Assessed Market Value
Homes Above Assessed Market Value
Listed Between $250,000 and $500,000
3
Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021
Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Number of HomesAmount Above Assessed Market Value
Homes Above Assessed Market Value
Listed Between $500,000 and $1,000,000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Number of HomesAmount Above Assessed Market Value
Homes Above Assessed Market Value
Listed Above $1,000,000
4
Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021
Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah
Other noteworthy findings include that the difference is much smaller for condos, which are on average
47 percent more expensive compared to the 75 percent increase in price for non-condos (including
townhomes and single-family homes). Additionally, larger homes are priced 74 percent higher than the
assessor’s database while smaller homes (less than 1500 square feet) are priced 63 per cent higher.
Despite the difference, larger homes are listed at $120 higher per square foot compared to the database
while the increase is $140 for smaller homes.
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: 3/8/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Human Rights Commission.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Everett Bacon as a member of
the Human Rights Commission.
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
March 8, 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 Human Rights
Commission.
Everett Bacon - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 30, 2026, 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
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: 3/8/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Human Rights Commission.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Everett Bacon as a member of
the Human Rights Commission.
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
March 8, 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 Human Rights
Commission.
Everett Bacon - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 30, 2026, 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
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
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 3/8/2022
Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jeffery Kenyon as a member of
the Accessibility and Disability Commission.
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
March 8, 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 Accessibility and
Disability Commission.
Jeffery Kenyon - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 28, 2026,
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
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
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 3/8/2022
Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Margo Thurman as a member of
the Accessibility and Disability Commission.
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
March 8, 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 Accessibility and
Disability Commission.
Margo Thurman - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 28, 2026, 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
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
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 3/8/2022
Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Nate Crippes as a member of
the Accessibility and Disability Commission.
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
March 8, 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 Accessibility and
Disability Commission.
Nate Crippes- to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 28, 2026,
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
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: 3/8/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability
Commission.
DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Scott Browning as a member of
the Accessibility and Disability Commission.
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
March 8, 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 Accessibility and
Disability Commission.
Scott Browning - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 28, 2026,
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
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
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 3/8/2022
Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Stephen Persinger as a member
of the Accessibility and Disability Commission.
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
March 8, 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 Accessibility and Disability
Commission
Stephen Persinger - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 28, 2026,
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