09/06/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
September 6, 2022 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 326
(See separate agenda)
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: 10:05:31
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 ~ 2:00 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: Equity Update ~ 2:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about various initiatives led by the City's Office of
Equity and Inclusion. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, improving racial
equity and justice in policing. Discussion may also include updates on the City's other
work to achieve equitable service delivery, decision-making, and community engagement
through the Citywide Equity Plan, increased ADA resources, language access, and other
topics addressed in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Commission and the Racial
Equity in Policing Commission.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Informational: Initial Discussion of Legislative Intents for
Fiscal Year 2022-23 ~ 2:50 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will hold the first of three planned briefings on its Legislative Intent
statements for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Legislative Intents are formal requests the Council
makes of the Administration that are adopted along with the annual budget. This briefing
will consist of conversations with the Administration designed to exchange any
preliminary information and feedback needed to clarify each Intent. In addition, the
Council will review and consider staff recommendations for closing some previous years’
intents.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
4.Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund
(EDLF) – Kahve Cafe ~ 3:35 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $50,000
loan for Kahve Café, LLC from the Economic Development Loan Fund. This loan will
assist in the creation of five new jobs in the next year and retention of five current jobs.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022
5.Tentative Break ~ 3:50 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Informational: Water Conservation and Landscaping
Regulations Report ~ 4:10 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the Water Conservation and Landscaping
Regulations Report. The goal of the report is to provide information regarding how the
zoning code regulates landscaping and identify changes that could promote the
conservation of water and increase public awareness of landscaping regulations.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
7.Resolution: Reviewing the Public Benefits Analysis for The Other
Side Village Pilot Project at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and
Considering a Resolution to Authorize the Lease Rate and Term
~ 4:40 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize the Lease Rate
and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project at 1850 West Indiana Avenue. This
would allow the City to enter into a 40-year below-market ground lease agreement with
The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation, in order to facilitate the
construction of a tiny home village with approximately 54 units of affordable housing.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - Monday, August 29, 2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022
8.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Follow-up ~ 5:25 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend the
final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal
Year 2022-23. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect
adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes transportation impact fees for
reconstructing streets, pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the 600 North/700 North
corridor transformation project, Governmental Immunity fund adjustment, and
transferring money from the Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF)
among other things.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 16, 2022 and Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 9, 2022 and Monday, August 29, 2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6 p.m. and
Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 16, 2022 and Tuesday, September 6, 2022
9.Resolution: Creation of Outdoor Business Activity Grant
Program Follow-up Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution creating the Outdoor
Business Activity Grant Program and program guidelines.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 16, 2022 and Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
10.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry,
and Trails (PNUT) Advisory Board – Meridith Benally ~ 5:40 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Meridith Benally prior to considering appointment to the
PNUT Board for a term ending September 6, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
11.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Kelbe
Goupil ~ 5:45 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Kelbe Goupil prior to considering appointment to the Police
Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 1, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
12.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Stephanie
Finley ~ 5:50 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Stephanie Finley prior to considering appointment to the
Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 1, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
13.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Annie
Barton TENTATIVE
5 min
The Council will interview Annie Barton prior to considering appointment to the Police
Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 1, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 6, 2022
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;
•Changes to the November Meetings;
•Travel Question; and
•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 September 1, 2022, 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
September 6, 2022
COVID-19
update
Cases in Utah are down 17% in the last two weeks.
(NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 9/6/2022)current status
summary
Cases in the US are down 13% in the last two
weeks.
(NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 9/6/2022)
Sources: NYT Tracking Coronavirus in Utah , NYT Coronavirus in the US, CDC COVID-19 Integrated County View
COVID-19
Update
booster info
To help contain a possible fall and winter surge of COVID-19, the CDC and
FDA have granted emergency use authorization for updated COVID-19
boosters targeting the newest omicron strain—the dominant strain across
Salt Lake County and the U.S.
Who is eligible for the update COVID-19 booster?
People 18 and older:
•Are eligible for a single dose of the updated Moderna booster IF it has
been at least two months since they completed their primary vaccination
series or have received the most recent booster dose with any booster.
People 12 and older:
•Are eligible for a single dose of the updated Pfizer booster IF it has been at
least two months since they completed their primary vaccination series or
have received the most recent booster dose with any booster.
https://slco.org/health/COVID-19/vaccine/booster
Source: Salt Lake County Health Department
September 6, 2022
August 15, 2022
Source: Salt Lake County Health Department
Source: Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Monkeypox update
Vaccines are not widely available
and are being reserved for
people most at -risk.
Call for appointments & second
appointments.
https://epi.health.utah.gov/monkeypox/
Salt Lake Public Health Center
•610 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT
84111
•(385) 468 -4100
•https://slco.org/health/infectious -
disease/monkeypox/
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Regularly updated with highlighted
ways to engage with the City.
Community Engagement Highlights
Transportation
•Neighborhood Byways
•Sugar House to University, Kensington, Westpointe
•Materials and website expected this week
•www.slc.gov/transportation/neighborhood-byways/
slc.gov/transportation
Public Utilities
•State Street Waterline
•Complete!
•South Temple Storm Drain Rehab
•Nearing Completion!
slc.gov/utilities
Upcoming Events
Event Date Start
Yappy Hour CANCELLED 09/08/22
Downtown Farmers Market (September 10)09/10/22
Avenues Street Fair 09/10/22
Hispanic Heritage Parade and Street Festival 09/10/22
19th Annual Recovery Day Celebration 09/10/22
SLC VegFest 2022 09/10/22
James Street Market 09/10/22
Tomato Sandwich Party 09/10/22
Sugar House Oktoberfest 2022 09/11/22
9th West Farmers Market 09/11/22
They Reminisce 09/16/22
Ballpark Event -Classic Car Show 09/16/22
Downtown Farmers Market (September 17)09/17/22
9th and 9th Street Festival 09/17/22
CHaRM (Collection of Hard to Recycle Materials 09/17/22
Festa Italiana SLC 09/17/22
Spy Hop Block Party 09/17/22
9th West Farmers Market 09/18/22
Utah LGBTQ+ Economic Summit 09/22/22
Groove in the Grove 09/24/22
Marmalade Jam Fest 2022 09/24/22
Downtown Farmers Market (September 24)09/24/22
Afro Utah Festival 09/24/22
UNITY Block Party 09/24/22
9th West Farmers Market 09/25/22
Mayor's Bike to Work Day 09/28/22
Homelessness Update:
Single Adult HRC Occupancy
August 22 –26, 2022
STH -1000 West
Men's HRC
STH -King
Women's HRC
STH -Miller Mixed
HRC Total
Shelter Capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg number of beds occupied/night 283 200 198 681
Avg number of beds unoccupied/night 17 0 2 19
Avg % of beds occupied/night 94.3%100%99%97.3%
Avg % of beds unoccupied/night 5.7%0%1%2.7%
Cooling Centers
SL County Libraries, Recreation Centers
Senior Centers, SL City Libraries
Weigand Center & VBH Storefront.
VOA Outreach
endutahhomelessness.org/salt-lake-valley/cooling-
centers/
SL County Abatements
City Parks
Rapid Intervention
City Parks, Ongoing areas &
Bachman, Jackson Elementary & Horizonte
Schools, Jordan River
Homelessness
Update
Resource Fair:
Friday Sept 9 9:30-12:30
Pioneer Park
Homeless Court
Narcan
Wound Care
Mental Health Tx
Emergency Shelter
Job Opportunities
Kayak Court:Sept 16
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 MEMO
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:September 6, 2022
RE: INFORMATIONAL: INITIAL DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2022-23
On September 6, the Council will have the first of three planned work session briefings on Fiscal Year 2022-23
(FY23) Legislative Intents. Legislative Intents are the Council’s formal requests to the Administration, and they
are adopted as part of the annual budget. This first discussion, which is typically held in September (see
Attachment C1), is envisioned as an informal “post-budget discussion” with relevant department heads and the
Mayor’s Office. The briefing is designed as an opportunity for the Mayor’s Office and department leaders to
provide preliminary information and feedback on the intents, including how any might be refined according to
a department’s previous experience. Because the purpose of this discussion is to clarify the Council’s requests,
the Council may make any desired editing changes to the Legislative Intents for this purpose.
As a reminder, this briefing is not the time to “solve” an issue, or to engage in an in-depth discussion. The idea
is to provide feedback to the Administration, so that they can plan their work on the Legislative Intents most
efficiently. For example:
-A department may explain their ideas for how specific a legislative intent could be refined;
-The department may share relevant information about requested items; or
-If a particular item has been addressed in the months since the budget was adopted, the Council
could indicate that the intent has been completed and no further Administration action is needed.
The list of FY23 Legislative Intents and outstanding Legislative Intents from previous years appears in
Attachment C2. The goal of this briefing is to modify any new Legislative Intents as needed, now that the
pressure of the budget season has passed, and to facilitate the Administration’s work on these requests before
the next briefing, which is planned for March. Council staff will follow up with the Administration and provide
a response to Council Members on anything that will require some time to research.
Page | 2
The second and third briefings include discussion of both FY23 and previous years’ Legislative Intents. They
are more formal discussions, based on written descriptions of progress from relevant departments. The
responses for the second briefing are transmitted to the Council in January or February, and for the third
briefing they are transmitted as part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents
Attachment C2. FY23 New and Outstanding Legislative Intents
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents
Briefing #1: Post-budget discussion
•Transmittal: n/a
•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.
1
Attachment C2. Outstanding Legislative Intents FY15 to FY23
Attorney’s Office
FY23 Boarded Building Fee – It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration for a timeframe
when the Council can consider an updated boarded-building fee, or request that the Attorney’s Office
provide a draft directly to the Council Office.
FY23- Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA) – It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration to ensure that any City loan or grant processes comply with the Open and Public Meetings
Act (OPMA). The Council could request that the City Attorney’s Office develop an ordinance more
specifically codifying this understanding.
FY23- Ordinance Governing Donations to the City - It is the intent of the Council that a new, more
streamlined donation ordinance be developed by the City Attorney’s Office for consideration by the
Council in Fall, 2022. The Council further requests that while this ordinance is being prepared, the
Administration create a tracking sheet for any donations, and work across City departments on a
consistent process to support continued transparency and documentation of donor intents. It is the
Council’s intent to rescind the current ordinance at the earliest opportunity, in order to avoid stifling
opportunities for potential public/private partnerships.
FY21- 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.
Prior Year’s Response - The initial review of City code, which included a law student clerk
and the Prosecutor’s Office, 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.
Communities and Neighborhoods (CAN)
FY23- Free Fare in Winter Months – It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to build
on the success of Free Fare February in 2022, seeking partners to provide funding again next winter and
extending it for three months. The Council would fund the City portion of the cost through a future budget
amendment.
FY23- Expediting Traffic Calming Projects – It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration to evaluate the workflow among CAN and Public Services Divisions that delivers
previously-funded traffic calming projects, identify any bottlenecks in the system, and return to the
Council with suggestions for ways to address them.
FY23- Youth and Family Program Streamlining – It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration to evaluate whether to consolidate all City youth and family programs into the Youth &
Family Division. The purpose would be to increase efficiency and propose options for future budget
discussions. Additionally, the Council would like the Administration to evaluate the City’s role in youth
2
and family programming in relation to other community organizations to identify efficiencies and reduce
duplication, factoring in overall community demand for those services.
FY22- 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.
Prior Year’s Response - The cost analysis related to this Legislative Intent has been finalized.
The program is being developed.
FY22- 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.
Prior Year’s Response - The Transportation Division uses ridership levels and cost-per-rider
data as guides to potential expansion. 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.
FY21- 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.
Prior Year’s Response - The Housing Stability Division continues to administer these loans
and assist the HTF Advisory Board. This year, 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.
Finance Department
FY23- Tenant Ombudsman – It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to explore
adding a tenant ombudsman in the Landlord/Tenant Program (also known as the Good Landlord
Program) to serve the growing number of renters among City residents. The Council requests that the
Administration return with a potential scope of work for one or more FTEs, keeping in mind services
already provided by outside agencies to avoid duplication, and building on work done by the City’s
consumer financial protection analyst.
FY23- Covenants Education in the Landlord/Tenant Program – It is the intent of the Council
that the Administration include training for property owners on Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CCRs) in the City’s Landlord/Tenant Program. This training should clarify the differences between
enforceable CCRs and unconstitutional CCRs, including those which would discriminate against a
federally recognized protected class. The Council also requests that implicit bias training be added to the
program’s education materials.
3
FY23- Consolidated Fee Schedule Holistic Review – It is the intent of the Council to complete a
holistic evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Fee Schedule in conjunction with the Finance Department.
This evaluation would include equity considerations and evaluate whether to increase, reduce, or in some
cases eliminate, City fees.
FY23- Grants and Ongoing Programs – It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to
evaluate the extent to which new City programs have been created through grants whose costs have
continued beyond the life of the grant. The Council will use this information to inform a policy or system
for evaluating when and whether it is appropriate for the City to create new programs with grants.
FY22 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 alternative response model. (Note: The
current definition included Fire and 911 Dispatch since FY2020.)
Prior Year’s Response - The “public safety” allocations have been expanded to include social
workers, park rangers, and MRT (Medical Response Team) crews.
Fire Department
FY23- Fire Department Costs – It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate:
a. options for recouping costs for calls at the University of Utah.
b. the City’s hazardous materials ordinance, and implementation of that ordinance, to assure
that the City is reimbursed from private insurance payments to those responsible for an incident.
c. continue evaluating options for electrified Fire vehicles.
Mayor’s Office
FY23 Evaluating Efficiencies across Diversified Response Teams – It is the intent of the Council
to periodically evaluate the diversified response teams across the City to determine whether there are
opportunities to eliminate redundancies and/or gain new efficiencies.
a. The following programs would be included as part of the “diversified response model”:
i. Fire Department – Community Health Access Team (CHAT), Medical Response Team
(MRT)
ii. Police Department – Social Worker Co-Responders, Civilian Response Team
iii. CAN (in partnership with other entities in some cases) – Downtown Ambassadors
(including expanded areas), Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART), Code
Enforcement
iv. Public Lands – Park Rangers Program
v. Public Services – Community Cleaning Program (CCP), Rapid Intervention Team
vi. 911 Department – partnership with Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT)
b. The Council would like the Administration to provide information in six months and in one
year so that the Council can evaluate these programs:
4
i. Clarify roles of each team and how a call for service is routed from one team to another.
ii. Track as much data as possible to determine which indicators are most important for
future reviews. These would include data such as: number of calls for service; number of
diversions from a police-only response; response times for teams; changes in police
response times; volume of calls by time of day and day of the week; referrals to other
agencies; and other outputs and outcomes.
iii. Find ways to provide this data with the Council and the public in a coordinated way.
iv. Inform the public and other levels of government as these programs are rolled out.
FY23 Importance of Plan Adoption – It is the intent of the Council that City departments and
divisions rely only on plans that have been duly adopted by the legislative body as the basis or building
blocks for additional City policy or budget guidance.
Police Department
FY21 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.
Prior Year’s Responses:
Social Workers - As hiring proceeds to fill the additional nine social worker positions
authorized in the FY22 budget, covering evening and weekend shifts will become easier.
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.
Police Civilian Response Team - The CRT is planned as a response to police-related calls
for service that are categorized as low-hazard and non-emergency. A Police Department
steering committee is working through the logistics of adding this program, like training, job
and duty descriptions, policies and procedures.
FY21 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.
Prior Year’s Response - As a step toward zero-based budgeting, the Police Department
participated in the Administration’s initial efforts to undertake program-based budgeting
during the formulation of the FY23 Mayor’s Recommended Budget. This process cannot get
fully underway until the migration to the City’s new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is
complete.
5
FY21 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.
Prior Year’s Response – Response forthcoming.
Public Lands Department
FY23 Transition to Environmentally Sustainable Weed Control in Public Lands – It is the
intent of the Council to request the Public Lands Department, including the Golf Division, transition to
environmentally sustainable treatments for weeding and pest control in future years, acknowledging that
this may require budget adjustments. This is consistent with an existing Sustainability Department policy.
FY22 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.
Prior Year’s Response - The Public Lands Department is working on an estimate of funding
needs, based on a complex framework that includes full staffing at appropriate wages,
replacement of failing infrastructure, and unfunded responsibilities, including tasks like weed
abatement and tree maintenance.
FY22 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 discuss options for the Golf
Fund. (Note: this item consolidates Legislative Intents from FY21, FY20, and FY19.)
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.
Prior Year’s Response - 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 included the following
information:
-In August of 2021, the contracted concessionaire for 5 of the 6 Salt Lake City golf courses ended
their agreement with the City after 15 months of operations, citing financial losses. These losses
came 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. The course cafes lost a significant amount of revenue while trying to
still provide café services to golf patrons.
6
-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 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.
-The two main obstacles to providing additional food and beverage services 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 reducing the fee structure for potential concessionaires to make
operating a golf course café more profitable. It is also looking into areas of additional
investment within the café spaces to help make the operations more attractive to both
concessionaires and customers.
Public Services Department
FY15 Maintenance of Business Districts - It is the intent of the Council to hold a briefing regarding
the costs of enhanced services provided to the Central Business District, in order to consider: a) revising
how City services are provided and paid for, b) services that may be offered to other established or
developing Business Districts in the City, and c) maintenance of amenity upgrades (such as lighting and
benches). It is also the intent of the Council that this discussion happen in time to incorporate any
changes into the renewal of the Central Business District agreement and Sugar House Business District.
Prior Year’s Response - 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.
Public Utilities Department
FY23 Water Usage by the City – It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate
water usage by the City and make recommendations for water conservation. This includes evaluation of
water savings opportunities for CIP projects.
Redevelopment Agency (RDA)
FY23 New Programs and Capital Accounts Review - It is the intent of the RDA Board in future
budget years to consolidate the budgeting and policy development steps for new programs so that funding
is allocated once the Board has had the opportunity to get a full understanding of the proposal and to
exercise their policy making discretion. It is further the intent of the Council to review by December 2022
all RDA accounts that contain balances to determine whether the appropriations still align with the goals
of the Board.
7
FY23 Prioritize Equity and Variety of Professional Opportunities - It is the intent of the RDA
Board to continue to collaborate with the Administration and prioritize equity and inclusion in the
Board's policy, oversight, and budget decisions. In doing so, the Board intends to request options from the
City Administration and RDA staff that maximize opportunities for meaningful involvement for a wide
array of developers and professionals. Further, it is the intent of the Board to authorize funding for
projects that support walkability and are built at a scale to encourage human interaction and include
architectural interest and variety.
FY22 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.
Prior Year’s Response - The efforts requested in this Legislative Intent are being undertaken
as part of the preparation for the implementation of the new ERP system.
Sustainability Department
FY23 Sustainability Holding Account – It is the intent of the Council to allocate the following items
in the Sustainability Department to a holding account pending further discussion with the Council. The
Council supports these items, but policy guidance from the Council is needed, and extends to the overall
role that the City’s Sustainability Department should play in the community.
a. $214,000 for EV Charging Stations,
b. $300,000 for electrified transportation planning, and
c. $125,000 food equity funding request.
Council-Led Intents
FY23 CAN/RDA/DED Role Clarity – It is the intent of the Council to further clarify the roles of
Community and Neighborhoods, the Redevelopment Agency and the Department of Economic
Development as they relate to housing and commercial development and assistance.
FY23 Rotating Outside Auditing of Each City Department – It is the intent of the City Council to
re-establish its practice of conducting management and performance audits of City departments,
divisions, and functions on a rotating basis in the coming years. These audits are in addition to the
financial audit that the City Council oversees annually. The audits are intended to bring consultants in for
an independent look at existing City services to identify opportunities for improved efficiencies. In
addition to a focus on identifying potential efficiencies, the Council intends to ask the auditors to identify
or evaluate professional best practices, definitions of success for each program, metrics associated with
key functions, and any duplication that exists with other City departments and/or other levels of
government. The Council intends for the audits to inform evaluations of how City services are meeting
residents’ needs while being fiscally responsible with the taxpayer dollars.
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:September 6, 2022
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND TO KAHVE CAFE, AT 57
SOUTH 600 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 Kahve Cafe, at 57 South 600 East. This business is a Turkish style café and wholesaler of
baklavas and Mediterranean dips. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council
approve a $50,000 loan at 7.25% interest over seven years to this business for working capital and staffing. This
loan will assist in the creation of 5 new jobs in the next year and the retention of 5 current jobs.
The application from Kahve Cafe meets the following EDLF program goals:
•Increases employment opportunities;
•Stimulates business development and expansion;
•Encourages private investment;
•Promotes economic development;
•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: September 6, 2022
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: September 20, 2022
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $50,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called Kahve Café, at 57 South 600 East.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.EDLF available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Finance Department reported the
available fund balance at $9,173,985 on June 30, 2022. Outstanding loans totaled $3,201,345 as of July 22,
2022.
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
the number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc.
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
LORENA RIFFO-JENSON
INTERIM DIRECTOR
CITYCOUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 9, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Interim Director, Department of Economic Development
Lorena.riffojenson@slcgov.com
SUBJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Kahve Cafe
STAFF CONTACTS:
Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com
William Wright, Project Manager, William.wright@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval
RECOMMENDATION: The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of a $50,000
loan to Khave Cafe.
BUDGET IMPACT: $50,000 from the Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On August 4, 2022, a loan request from Kahve Cafe was
presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. Kahve Cafe is a Turkish style
café and wholesaler of baklavas and Mediterranean dips.
Basic Loan request
Business Name: Kahve Cafe
Address: 57 S 600 E
Loan Amount Requested: $50,000
Loan Term: 7 years
Interest Rate: 7.25%
Use of Funds: Working Capital, Staffing
Loan Type: Start-up
Department of Economic Development staff recommend approval of Kahve Cafe’s request for a
$50,000 loan.
Applicants of The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Program go through a thorough
application process consisting of a pre-screening, underwriting analysis, and economic impact
8/11/2022
8/11/2022
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 11, 2022 07:27 MDT)
statement. Only after the loan applicant goes through these processes is the loan recommended to
be reviewed by the Loan Committee members. Upon thorough review by the Loan Committee
members, a recommendation is made before the loan request is transmitted by the Mayor for
Council to receive the recommendation for final approval. Because the Loan Committee review
process must adhere to the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, DED’s staff has worked closely
with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that applicants’ information is protected and at the same
time a public and transparent process is followed.
EDLF loans must meet the goals of the Economic Development Loan Fund as stated in the EDLF
program guidelines. This loan meets the EDLF program guidelines in the following areas:
Increase employment opportunities
Stimulate business development and expansion
Encourage private investment
Promote economic development
Enhance neighborhood vitality
Boost commercial enterprise
This loan will assist in the creation of 6 new jobs in the next year and retention of 6 current jobs.
DED staff brings these loans to the EDLF Committee to provide a recommendation. This loan was
recommended by the EDLF Committee to the City Council for approval.
EDLF Loan Balances
1. As reported from The Finance Department on June 30, 2022, the EDLF cash
balance is: $9,173,985
2. The outstanding loan balance for the EDLF fund as of July 22, 2022:
$3,201,344.94
EDLF Loan Committee
There is a total of nine (9) EDLF Committee members.
City Employees:
Community and Neighborhood Finance
Mayor’s Office
Employee at Large
Housing Stability
Economic Development
Community Volunteers:
Business Advisory Board (BAB) member
Banker
Community Lender
Business Mentor
Attachments: Terms Sheet and Ordinance
LOAN TERM SHEET
Applicant: Kahve Cafe, LLC
Address: 57 S 600 E
Proposed Loan Terms
Loan Amount: $50,000
Loan Terms: 7 Years
Interest Rate Calculation: Prime Interest Rate: 3.25% (at time of application)
EDLF Charge: 8%
Less Discount: 4%
Woman Owned
Final Interest Rate: 7.25%
Use of Funds: Working Capital, Staffing, Payroll
Business Type: Start-up
Collateral and Guarantees: Real Estate, Vehicles, Equipment, Inventory
Personal Guarantees: Elif Ekin
Conditions for Closing: Obtain all City approvals, execute all loan documents as deemed necessary by
City legal counsel and DED staff, such other terms as recommended by City legal counsel and DED staff
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Ordinance approving a $50,000 loan for Kahve Café, LLC from the Economic Development
Loan Fund)
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund
(“EDLF) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment,
enhance neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City.
WHEREAS, the EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development
(“DED”); loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the EDLF
Loan Committee.
WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of the
attached loan term sheet for a $50,000 loan to Kahve Café, LLC, a limited liability company and
a local business located at 57 South 600 East, Salt Lake City, Utah.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that:
SECTION 1. Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term
Sheet attached hereto, subject to revisions that do not materially affect the rights and obligations
of the City hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan
agreement and any other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and incorporating
such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first
publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of
_____________________, 2022.
Dan Dugan, Council Chair
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:
Sara Montoya, City Attorney
August 9, 2022
LANDSCAPING AND WATER CONSERVATION
1.Overview of current regulations
2.Prioritize goals of regulations
3.Receive direction from council
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.Air quality
2.Reduce heat island impact
3.Reduce storm water runoff
4.Reduce impacts from land use
5.Aesthetics
6.General well being
WHY WE HAVE LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS
A typical street with street trees and landscaped front yards.
1.Park strip regulations
2.Yard regulations
3.Buffer regulations
4.Waterwise regulations
5.Parking lots
6.Highway buffer
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
1. Park strip regulations
•Vegetation coverage 33%
•Street trees
•Hardscapes and mulch
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
2. Yard regulations
•Only apply to landscaped
yards
•Front and corner side
yards
•Vegetation coverage 33%
•Street trees
•Hardscapes and mulch
•Driveways and parking
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
What happens when
nonpermeable materials are
used?
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
3. Buffer regulations
•Where zoning districts abut
•Between some land uses
•Requires trees, shrubs, and
ground cover
•Use is limited in required
buffers
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
4. Water wise
•Commercial, industrial, multi-
family, larger residential
subdivisions
•Plants matched to watering
needs
•Watering system
requirements
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
5. Parking Lots
•Lots with more than 15 stalls
•Interior parking lot
landscaping
•Perimeter parking lot
landscaping
•Trees, shrubs, and ground
cover
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
6. Scenic Highway Buffer
•Along Interstates, Bangerter
•20’ in width
•Trees (mix of evergreens),
shrubs, and ground cover
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
6. Other regulations
•Screening of dumpsters
•Auto sales lots
•Height in park strips
•Clear view at driveways
•Specific zoning district
regulations
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
Front yard coverage
ALIGNING GOALS AND REGULATIONS
Complies with front yard requirements Does not comply with front yard requirements
•Park Strip Vegetation Coverage
•This doesn’t comply.
•Tree canopy doesn’t count
•Achieves goals:
•Permeable surface
•Conserves water
•Reduces heat island
ALIGNING GOALS AND REGULATIONS
•Code should be simple to use
•Calculating plant coverage is time
consuming.
•Coverage of every plant needs to
be calculated and totaled to
determine compliance.
•Water zones need to be verified
•Flow rates of each head
ALIGNING GOALS AND REGULATIONS
Non vegetated areas: what should be allowed?
ALIGNING GOALS AND REGULATIONS
Narrow park strips are challenging
to water
Artificial Turf Pavers/outdoor dining Concrete
•What are the priorities?
•Are minimum coverages correct?
•Should artificial turf be allowed?
•How can we reduce administrative costs?
•How can we simplify code?
COUNCIL DIRECTION:
Erin Mendenhall
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations Report
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director, nick.norris@slcgov.com or
801-535-6173; Laura Briefer, Public Utilities Director, laura.briefer@slcgov.com or
801-483-6741
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: Review
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Staff is seeking direction on updating the Zoning Code in
response to the extended drought conditions, rapid population growth, and impacts from climate
change – all of which significantly affects Salt Lake City’s water supply availability. City residents
and businesses are showing an increased awareness and desire to modify their outdoor water use.
This desire sometimes conflicts with the landscaping requirements found in the City’s zoning code,
creating issues between the code and the desire to cut outdoor water use. The goal of the attached
report is to provide city decision makers with basic information regarding how the zoning code
regulates landscaping and identify changes that could promote the conservation of water and
increase public awareness of landscaping regulations.
Specifically, we are seeking direction on whether or not landscaping regulations should focus on
goals of reducing the head island index, reducing storm water runoff, and emphasize the use of
native plant species, and if so, what code changes are appropriate to help achieve these goals.
8/2/2022
8/2/2022
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 2, 2022 12:36 MDT)
Discussion on strategies to further the goals of the landscaping regulations and water conservation
are welcome. Strategies may include:
• Expand and protect urban forest (particularly street trees),
• Avoid increasing nonpermeable lot coverage,
• Use native vegetation (instead of turf) in park strips, front yards, parking lots, and buffer areas,
• Consider different ways to calculate vegetation during plan review and enforcement that is
more objective.
EXHIBITS:
1) Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations Report
1. WATER CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPING
REGULATIONS REPORT
1
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
And
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
June 2022
WATER CONSERVATION AND
LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
2
Landscape Regulations and Water
Conservation in the Salt Lake City
Zoning Code
Introduction
Salt Lake City’s water supply availability is impacted by drought, climate change, and population
growth. Salt Lake City’s water supply and demand forecasting through the year 2060 indicates
additional and sustained water conservation is required now and in the future decades in order to
have a reliable water supply. Additional water conservation will also support maintenance of flows to
Great Salt Lake, which is shrinking.
Collectively, City residents, institutions, and businesses have been successful in water conservation
over the last 20 years, decreasing overall water use by 25% since the year 2000, even though
population grew during this time. The community’s awareness of water scarcity issues is increasing
and contributing to a desire to conserve more through modification of outdoor water use. This desire
sometimes conflicts with the landscaping requirements found in the City’s zoning code, creating issues
between the code and the desire to reduce outdoor water use. This report summarizes the current
landscaping regulations, identifies the conflicts between landscaping requirements and water
conservation, and identifies potential changes that may reduce water consumption in outdoor
irrigation, reduce conflicts, and improved outcomes from administering and enforcing the code that
benefits the residents and business in the city.
Background
The City’s water supply planning dates to its earliest days in 1847 and continues to take a long view to
ensure adequate water is available for current and future generations. Detailed water resource
planning and water conservation planning efforts form a technical basis in which to take action and
set water-related policies. The City has recently completed an updated water supply and demand plan
(2019) through the year 2060 to factor climate change, drought, and growth. The City also recently
adopted a companion Water Conservation Plan (2020) with updated conservation goals and strategies
through the year 2060.
The City’s actions specific to water conservation typically fall into four categories: planning,
incentives, public education, and requirements. The City uses all of these to reduce water
consumption, and has resulted in overall water use reduction of 25% compared to the year 2000.
water conservation savings.
Examples of different types of the City’s conservation strategies include:
• Economic incentive signals embodied in a tiered system of water rates is in place to encourage
water customers to use less water to keep their water bill lower.
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
3
• Participation in water incentive programs such as irrigation efficiency programs and landscape
incentive programs.
• Public engagement and education programs.
• Culinary water regulations, such as those found in City Code Chapter 17.16, including Article 11
of that chapter concerning water shortages.
• Land use regulations concerning landscape, and the recent zoning amendment restricting high
water consuming land uses.
• Building code regulations regarding water efficient appliances.
Water is used outdoors primarily to supplement vegetation. As the city has developed, most of the
vegetation that has been planted in the developed area of the city is not native. Non-native vegetation
is not typically able to survive the hot, dry summers that we experience in the valley. This results in
non-native vegetation needing supplemental water to survive. While outdoor watering is not the only
factor influencing total water consumption during any given year, it is the primary contributor to high
peak water demands during the summer which stresses water supplies and infrastructure. Reduction
of peak demand water use is an critical conservation goal for the City. Reducing outdoor watering is
one of the important ways that individuals are responding to prolonged drought, and is a necessary
long-term strategy for sustaining water resources into the future, as identified in the long-range 2060
plans.
It should be noted that Salt Lake City must meet regulatory and environmental requirements
concerning stormwater runoff quality via a state-issued Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit
(MS4). The MS4 permit requirements are met in part through requiring permeable surfaces and green
infrastructure to slow down runoff flows and filter pollution. Vegetated areas throughout the city are
important for this purpose, especially since the Jordan River, which is the ultimate receiving surface
water body for Salt Lake City’s runoff, is impaired under the Clean Water Act and Utah Water Quality
Act.
Unfortunately, the desire to reduce water can create situations where a property owner inadvertently
violates the zoning code. The zoning ordinance does require vegetation in some situations and
prohibits the use of some materials in others. Property owners are not typically aware that these rules
exist, resulting in frustration when they are trying to conserve water, an endeavor that is supported by
most.
The goal of this report is to provide city decision makers with some basic information regarding how
the zoning code regulates landscaping and identify changes that could promote the conservation of
water and increase the awareness of landscaping regulations.
ZONING REGULATIONS AND
LANDSCAPING
The SLC zoning code (Title 21A of the code of ordinances) regulates landscaping in several ways.
First, the code requires landscaping for park strips. Park strips are the strip of vegetation that is
usually between the street and the sidewalk. They vary in width and the code includes different
standards for different widths. Second, the code identifies some yards, typically front or corner side
yards, that are required to be landscaped. A yard is a space where most buildings are prohibited and
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
4
structures like fences and sheds are limited. Third, the code requires buffer yards which are intended
to reduce the impact between zoning districts and most often apply when non-residential zoning
districts are adjacent to residential zoning districts. Lastly, the code includes landscaping
requirements for parking lots. The requirements are intended to reduce the impact of a parking lot
and to reduce the heat island effect of large, paved areas.
There are several reasons for
requiring vegetation. These include:
• Reduce the heat island effect
caused by our hot, dry
summers and the built
environment absorbing the
heat from the sun;
• Absorbing storm runoff to
reduce the amount of water
entering the storm drain
system and to protect water
quality;
• Aesthetics;
• Habitat and food for animals
and insects;
• Benefits to overall soil health;
• Reduce the impact of noise,
light, and other similar
impacts from adjacent land
uses; and
• Health benefits of being in a vegetated environment.
The first two reasons are objective and provide a direct and more measurable outcome. For example,
the heat island effect is easily measured through temperature readings. The known water absorption
rates of different soils compared to impervious surfaces is also something that can be calculated.
There is also a clear public benefit and justification.
However, the other reasons are much more subjective and will likely mean different things to different
individuals. The public benefit is also more difficult to measure. From a zoning perspective, these are
the types of standards where it is appropriate for the property owner to have discretion.
The zoning regulations are mostly rigid in the requirements. Most of instances where the zoning code
requires landscaping include a prescribed amount of vegetation, usually measured in total area
coverage but also including the number of plants. Vegetation is regulated based on type: ground
cover (which includes sod), shrubs, and trees. In some developments, plants are required to be
grouped based on water need and tied to a sprinkler system that can deliver the appropriate amount of
water.
Aligning the purpose for regulating landscaping with the realities of the local climate should be a
consideration when determining the appropriate level of regulation. Given drought and long term
water supply considerations, the City should consider modifying landscape regulations with more
importance placed on vegetation that is appropriate for our climate, that can help reduce the heat
island effect, and that helps absorb stormwater runoff.
Heavy rains overwhelm the gutter on Kensington Ave (July 2021)
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
5
It is important to remember that the
landscaping regulations reflect the
minimum required. Property owners
often choose on their own to exceed the
minimum required landscaping amounts
and often do so to reap the benefits that
vegetation provide. More and more people
are also turning their yards into outdoor
living spaces and ensuring those spaces
are comfortable, purposeful, and enjoyable
are motivations that should be celebrated.
Growing vegetables and applying
permaculture concepts to landscapes are
also values being applied. Conserving
water and using climate appropriate
vegetation is an equally rewarding
endeavor and the regulations should
support both.
CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS
The landscaping regulations in the zoning code do not have a significant link to the current climate
issues that our region is facing. The code primarily focuses on the amount of vegetation required. It
does not require certain types of vegetation and rarely prohibits specific plants, the exceptions being a
prohibition on sod on steep slopes and native vegetation requirements in the foothill protection zones
and Northwest Quadrant Overlay. The code does require matching plants with watering needs based
on hydrozones in new construction. This is intended to prevent plants with different watering needs
from being overwatered.
This section summarizes the landscaping regulations found in the zoning code by the area regulated.
It is not intended to provide every requirement or standard and is provided for informational
purposes. The length of the summary provides an indication of how extensive landscape regulations
are in the zoning code.
Park Strips
A park strip is the area between the curb and sidewalk. Park strips vary in size, with the more urban
parts of the city not having a defined park strip to some that are 30 feet or more in depth. Park strips
play an important role in the city by providing space for street trees, utilities, access to streets,
absorbing storm water, providing places to store snow plowed from the streets, and many other uses.
The zoning regulations for park strips also vary based on width, as the following chart demonstrates.
Most property owners will choose to exceed the minimum
landscaping requirements
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
6
Size Vegetation
Coverage
Street Tress Paving Allowed Artificial Turf
Less than 24” None One every 30’ 100% No
24”-36” None One every 30’ 100%, must be
pavers
No
36” or greater 33% One every 30’ Pavers, mulch,
carriageways,
outdoor dining,
can cover the rest.
No
In park strips, there are no specific
requirements for type of vegetation, except
plants with thorns are prohibited in the park
strip unless approved by the zoning
administrator. Coverage is measured as the
mature height of the plant. Plant height is
limited to 22” to preserve clear views from
intersection driveways, alleys, and streets, to
preserve line of sights for people, and to
prevent areas that some people may find
unsafe when visibility is blocked. This is
particularly important for people who feel
vulnerable when visibility is blocked.
Areas that are not required to be landscaped can be covered in other materials, such as mulch, pavers,
rocks (over a certain size) and carriageways. Completely covering a park strip in concrete is only
allowed if the park strip is less than 24” in width.
Landscaped Yards
There is a difference between how the zoning code defines “yard” and “landscaped yard.” A yard is the
area where buildings are not allowed, also referred to required setbacks. A landscaped yard is a
required setback that is also required to be landscaped by the zoning code. Vegetation in a front,
corner side, interior side, or rear yard is only required if the code specifically says that it is required.
The chart below summarizes required landscaped yards. Outside of a required landscaped yard, there
are no specific vegetation requirements in a required yard, except for buffer yards (if required) or
parking lot landscaping (if applicable).
Zone Required landscaped yards Vegetation
Coverage
Other
Materials
Allowed
Required
Open Space
Area
Artificial
Turf
All Residential
Districts
Front and Corner Side yards
RO zone: one interior side
yard
33% Yes RMU zones No
Commercial
Districts
SNB: front and corner side
yard
CB: front and corner side yard
CC: 15’ in front and corner
side yard
CG: 10’ in front and corner
side yard
33% Yes TSA zones
CG zone
(when extra
height is
approved)
No
Park strips have traditionally been planted with sod
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
7
Zone Required landscaped yards Vegetation
Coverage
Other
Materials
Allowed
Required
Open Space
Area
Artificial
Turf
Form Based None Yes For some
building
types
(proposed
to be added
in FB-UN2)
No
Manufacturing
Zones
Front and Corner Side yards 33% Yes No
Downtown
Zones
D2: front and corner side
yards (if provided)
33% Yes No
Special
Purpose Zones
RP: all required yards
BP: All or a portion of all
yards
AG2: Front and corner side
yard
AG5: front and corner side
yard
PL: front and corner side yard
PL2: front and corner side
yard
I: all required yards
UI: all required yards
(hospitals exempt)
OS: all required yards
MH: all required yards
EI: all required yards up to
30’
MU: Front and corner side
yards
33% Yes BP: 33% of
open space
area has to
be
vegetation.
No
Buffer Yards:
Buffer yards are yards that are required when a residential district abuts another type of zoning
district. The purpose of a buffer yard is to reduce impacts between land uses. Some of the buffer
requirements only apply to districts that abut a single or two family zoning district, while others apply
to any residential district. The buffer yard requirements include a minimum width that varies based
on the intensity of the nonresidential zoning district and two levels of vegetation: shrubs and trees.
The buffer yards vary based on the intensity of the zoning district. The chart below shows the size of
the buffer required in zoning districts when that district abuts a residential district.
Zoning Districts Abutting Zoning District Size of Buffer
RMF-30, RMF-35,
RMF-45, RMF-75,
RMU-35, RMU-45,
RMU, RO, MU, PL,
PL2, and OS districts
Single or Two Family (FR, R-
1, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A)
10 ‘
CC, CB,CC, CSHBD Any residential district 7’
CS and CG Any residential district 15’
M-1 Any residential, AG-2, AG-5
disticts
15’
M-2 Any residential district 50’
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
8
Zoning Districts Abutting Zoning District Size of Buffer
RP and BP Any residential district 30’
I Any residential district 15’ or equal to the average height
of the building in the I district.
UI Any residential district 15’
MH Perimeter of the park,
regardless of adjacent use
20’
EI and LO Perimeter of the use 30’
TSA districts Abuts an OS, R-1, R-2, SR,
RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45
district
10’
All other non residential
districts
Abuts an R-1, R-2, SR, RMF-
30, RMF-35, RMF-45 District
7’
The following zoning districts do
not require a buffer yard when
adjacent to any other zoning
district:
• Foothill Residential Districts
(3)
• R-1 Districts (3)
• R-2 Districts
• SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3 Districts
• FB-UN1 District
• RB District
The vegetation requirements in the landscape buffer varies by zoning district.
District Shrubs Trees Fence
RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-
45, RMF-75, R-MU-35,
R-MU-45, R-MU, RO,
MU, PL, PL-2 And OS
Districts: In the RMF-30,
RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-
75, R-MU-35, R-MU-45,
R-MU, RO, MU, PL, PL-
2 and OS Districts
Continuous
hedge with a
mature height of
at least 4’
1 shade tree for
every 30 linear feet
6’, but can be combined
with the shrub hedge.
(code does not explain
what this means).
CN, CB, CC, CSHBD Shrubs with a
mature height of
at least 4 feet
1 shade tree for
every 30 linear feet
A solid fence between 4’
and 6’ in height is
required unless waived
(no guidance on when it is
appropriate to be waived)
CS, CG, TSA, M-1, I, UI,
MH, RP, and BP Districts
2 rows of shrubs,
alternatively
spaced along
entire length of
the buffer.
Shrubs must
have a mature
height of at least
4 feet.
1 shade tree for
every 25 linear feet.
Evergreen trees
may be substituted
for some shade
trees (no guidance
in the code for how
to calculate this
substitution)
A solid fence 6’ in height
is required unless waived
(no guidance on when it is
appropriate to be waived)
An example of a buffer yard between a residential zoning district on
the right and a commercial district on the left.
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
9
District Shrubs Trees Fence
M-2 2 rows of shrubs,
alternatively
spaced along
75% of the
length of the
buffer. Shrubs
must have a
mature height of
at least 4 feet.
1 shade tree for
every 20 linear feet.
Evergreen trees
may be substituted
for some shade
trees (no guidance
in the code for how
to calculate this
substitution)
None
EI and LO No specifics,
rather requires a
landscaping plan
showing how it
will mitigate
noise, dust, and
other impacts
No specifics, rather
requires a
landscaping plan
showing how it will
mitigate noise,
dust, and other
impacts
Parking Lot Landscaping:
Parking lots that include more than 7 parking stalls are required to include perimeter landscaping and
interior parking lot landscaping. The perimeter landscaping is required when a parking lot is located
in a required yard (when allowed) or within 20 feet of a property line. The perimeter parking lot
landscaping area is required to be at least 7 feet wide and include trees (every 30 or 50 feet depending
on the yard), one shrub or every 3 feet of perimeter length, and 33% of the ground area must be
covered in vegetation.
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
10
The interior parking lot landscaping is required to be at least 5% of the total area of the parking lot
and requires a shade tree for every 120 square feet of landscaped area; 50% of the ground surface
must be covered in vegetation.
Freeway Scenic Landscaping Setback
The zoning code requires landscaping for land uses that abut an interstate highway, except single and
two family residential districts. The landscaping setback is required to be a minimum of 20 feet in
width, but can be reduced to 10 feet if the reduction is necessary to comply with the minimum parking
requirement. The setback must be planted with the following:
• One shade tree for every 300 square feet of setback area. Evergreen trees can be substituted
for the shade trees if the microclimate conditions support evergreen trees.
• Ornamental trees may be substituted for up to 30% of the shade trees.
• Large shrubs may be substituted for up to 10% of the shade trees.
• Ground cover is required to be native plants, but there is no minimum requirement for ground
cover.
Interior parking lot landscaping is required to include ground cover and trees.
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
11
This section can be waived when the elevation difference between the landscaping and the interstate
would not allow for views of the scenic landscape setback.
Special Landscaping Provisions
Foothill Protection Zone Landscaping Regulations
The foothill protection zone includes a
specific landscaping regulation that limits
the total area of a lot that can be altered from
it’s native state and limits turf grass to no
more than 30% of the disturbed area.
FR-1 and FR-2 Districts
The special provisions require tree
preservation and replacement, slope
revegetation, and erosion protection plans.
CC Commercial District
There are special provisions related to required vegetation in the required front and corner side yards
that include planting shrubs under 3 feet in height for every 2 feet of lot width, one tree planted for
every 25 feet of lot width and any area of the required landscape yard not covered in shrubs or trees
must be maintained as turf or vegetative ground cover.
The Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback is intended to improve the aesthetics of interstates
Some native trees are required to be preserved in Foothill
Zones
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
12
D-1 and D-4 Zoning District
The special standards in this zone requires landscaped areas to be setback at least 2 feet from the curb.
Street trees are required, although the standard includes some vagueness. The code requires shrubs
and ground covers if it is suitable, and says that determining the amount is subject to the
beautification plan. This really means there is no standard and as long as an applicant provides
something, it is acceptable. Vacant lots are required to be landscaped with perimeter landscaped area
that is at least 15 feet wide along the perimeter of the site and requires a shade tree every 30 feet, one
shrub for every 3 linear feet, and 100% vegetative ground cover.
Transitional Overlay
Requires all front and corner side yards to be landscaped. The landscaping required to be planted is
required to be “consistent with the character of the residential neighborhood.” That is fairly vague
and likely unenforceable as written. If the interior side yard is adacanet to a residential use, an 8 foot
wide landscaped area must be provided. A fence is also required in this area and has to be at least 7
feet from the property line. This would bifurcate the required yard, leaving a one foot strip on one side
of the fence. A deciduous shade tree is required to planted at a rate of one for every 30 liner feet of the
side yard. In the rear yard, a sold fence is required, unless the conditions of the lot eliminate the need
for the fence. This is also likely a meaningless regulation.
Northwest Quadrant Overlay Requirements
The NWQ Overlay only permits vegetation that is native the soil types found in the area where the
overlay is mapped, which is generally west of the airport and north of I-80. Street trees are not
required and any required tree that is otherwise required under the landscaping chapter of the zoning
code can be replaced with shrubs.
Issues with Current Regulations
Vegetation Coverage Requirements
The zoning code requires that at least 33% of an area required to be landscaped to be covered in
vegetation. The coverage can be ground cover, including sod, shrubs, and trees. The requirements
apply to park strips, required landscaped yards, landscape buffers, and parking lot landscaping
requirements.
This is also one of the sections of code that is frequently violated. Violations range from removing all
vegetation and replacing it with mulch to covering an entire area with concrete or asphalt. This is
primarily an issue in park strips and in front yards when front yards are required to include
vegetation.
Ground coverage for vegetation is not necessarily difficult to administer on a landscaping plan, but
does consume more resources to enforce depending on the nature of a violation. If all vegetation has
been removed, it is easy to identify and document a violation. However, if someone removes some of
their landscaping and a complaint is received, the civil enforcement officer must determine how much
of the area is covered by landscaping. This would require determining the size of the park strip or
landscaped yard and then measuring the amount of that area that is covered by vegetation. If the
plants are spaced out, the coverage of each plant has to be measured. Estimating the amount of
coverage would not likely hold up to a challenge because the enforcement officer could not, with
complete certainty, determine the coverage.
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
13
This is an area of code that could be modified in several ways.
1. Provide options for calculating the amount
of landscaping required. While the ground
coverage requirement is easy to calculate for
sod, it is difficult for other types of plants.
Using a different metric such as number of
plants required per square foot is much
easier to measure and determine
compliance. For example, a 50 foot by 8-foot
park strip could be covered in 33% ground
cover or include one plant for every x
amount of square feet. This could work
particularly well for nonresidential uses.
2. Allow tree canopy coverage to count
towards vegetation coverage. This could
potentially eliminate the need for any
ground cover type of vegetation, which is
one of the issues that property owners
have when they try to remove sod,
particularly in the park strip. A large
street tree for example may cover an
entire park strip and a significant portion
of the front yard. This achieves both of
the objective standards for regulating
landscaping and the subjective
standards. This could be done by
exempting properties with a shade tree
with a canopy that exceeds a certain
radius from the required vegetation
coverage, which is a simply code change.
3. Eliminate or reduce the vegetation
coverage requirement. This option could
lower or reduce the % of an area required
to include vegetation. It also would
reduce the benefits that landscaping
provide and would likely result in a
hotter environment and increase storm
runoff into the storm water system. For
comparison purposes, the city of Tucson,
which receives an average of 11.3” of
precipitation per year, requires 50% of a
park strip to include vegetation, but does
not appear to require vegetation in
required yards. If vegetation is not
included, the site must be covered with
appropriate mulch.i Las Vegas, NV
Measuring the total vegetation coverage in this yard would be
difficult.
The tree canopy completely covers this park strip and
provides shade and large areas for the trees to absorb
This park strip likely does not comply with the 33%
vegetation coverage requirements.
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
14
requires 50% of a site, park strip that is not otherwise occupied by a building, driveway,
walkway, etc. to be covered with landscaping.ii Las Vegas receives 4.2” of precipitation per
year. Salt Lake City receives more precipitation than both cities, with the amount varying from
around 16” near the airport and nearly 20” near the east bench. While a small sample, the
requirements in SLC are lower than other cities in hotter or drier climates than SLC. Please
note, the info provided here is based on a quick read of those cities landscaping requirements.
There are always nuances to local zoning codes that may produce a different outcome.
Enforcement and Administration
Administering and enforcing codes requires resources. The amount of resource varies based on a
number of factors:
• The extent and scope of the regulations
• The applicability of the regulations
• The number of complaints and violations
• The complexity of the regulation
Extensive requirements require more resource to administer and enforce. For the purpose of this
discussion, administering the code refers to zoning reviews associated with building permits and
landscape regulations. Enforcement refers to addressing violations.
The hydrozone requirements will be used as an example to demonstrate the relationship between
administering a code and enforcing a code. A hydrozone is a landscaped area where plants with
similar watering needs are grouped. The city rules require a landscape plan that shows what plants
are grouped together, the plants watering needs, and appropriate irrigation system for that grouping
of plants. A plan includes the type of plants, the plants watering needs, the number of plants, and the
type of sprinkler heads that will be used. These requirements kick in for some development and
expansions of existing development. They do not apply to the construction of new homes unless the
home is part of a new subdivision that includes more than 10 homes.
The zoning review for this
requirement is extensive. The
zoning reviewer has to check each
plant and grouping of plant to
ensure that each plant in a group
has the same watering needs. This
could require hours of time if the
landscape plan is extensive or the
project has a large area. Some
landscaping plans will include
hundreds of plants and dozens of
hydrozones. This is partly a
function of the landscaping
requirements for landscaped
yards, park strips and parking lot
landscaping. If sod is used, preparing the plans and the permit review is far simpler and much less
time consuming. It literally takes minutes to check a site plan that chooses sod to achieve the 33%
vegetation coverage where it is required because all you are checking is the amount of coverage
required and how it is being achieved. Once the plans are reviewed and approved, the administration
function is nearly complete. The only remaining piece is an inspection. There is not a specific zoning
Reviewing a landscaping plan requires checking every plant to ensure it is
on the correct hydrozone, calculating the landscape area of all plants, and
checking the irrigation system.
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
15
inspection. That inspection is currently done by the building inspector. In summary, there are at least
two people involved in the administration of landscaping requirements: a planner doing the zoning
review and the inspector reviewing the installation. It is also important to note that there are no
permits required to replace vegetation or replace damaged sprinkler heads. This is common and basic
maintenance that is not always done with “like for like” replacements.
Enforcement is typically only involved if a complaint is received. Complaints that are received are
generally regarding weeds, lack of landscape maintenance, and removal of landscaping. Once a
complaint is received, a civil enforcement employee will visit a location to document the violation.
Violations of weeds are fairly straightforward and are typically resolved by the property owner cutting
down the weeds. Maintenance of landscaping is similar, although it is more difficult to enforce
regulations related to perceived lack of maintenance, such as grass that has turned brown. The
removal of landscaping is more time intensive. An inspector will visit the property and determine if
all landscaping has been removed, if the area where it was removed is required landscaping, and if the
removal is a violation. The inspector may have to make judgement calls about how much landscaping
is remaining. When all landscaping is removed a determination is straightforward. However, if
someone removes some of their landscaping and a complaint is received, the civil enforcement officer
must determine how much of the area is covered by landscaping. This would require determining the
size of the park strip or landscaped yard and then measuring the amount of that area that is covered
by vegetation. If the plants are spaced out, the coverage of each plant has to be measured. Estimating
the amount of coverage would not likely hold up to a challenge because the enforcement officer could
not, with complete certainty, determine the coverage. This requires more precise measurement. Our
inspectors use their best judgement with the information they are given to determine compliance with
the regulations. If the vegetation meets the intent of the code, then there will likely not be any further
enforcement activity.
Artificial Turf
There is a growing desire for some to install artificial turf instead of vegetation. The reported benefits
of artificial turf include no mowing, trimming, or edging, less water use for the property owner,
improved aesthetics, and other similar benefits. The zoning code prohibits artificial turn in park
strips, in required landscaped yards, and from counting towards the required vegetation coverage.
The code does allow artificial turfs elsewhere on private property.
There are water-related downsides to the use of artificial turf. These include (1) decreased infiltration
of stormwater runoff due to its impermeability; and (2) increased impacts to water quality due to lack
of filtration as well as the potential for microplastics from artificial turf degradation to be introduced
into river systems.
In addition to water related issues, there are environmental lifecycle costs associated with artificial
turf embedded in its manufacture and disposal that are not present with natural vegetation. Artificial
turf contributes to heat island effects as opposed to mitigation of heat island effect provided by natural
vegetation. The use of artificial turf may damage soils and create a habitat loss for pollinators.
Whether there are actual water savings between the use of artificial turf and other types of vegetation
on a residential scale has not been well studied (in practice, water is applied to artificial turf fields for
cooling and cleaning purposes, for instance).
However, more and more people are interested in installing artificial turf in park strips and on their
property. There have been several enforcement cases that have been appealed to the appeals hearing
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
16
officer and each time the appeals hearing officer has upheld the city’s interpretation of the code. The
code could be improved to more clearly identify where artificial turf can be installed, or if, it should be
prohibited. Recently, West Valley City adopted regulations allowing artificial turf, but it is limited in
how it can be used in lieu of vegetation. One of the key provisions is that artificial turf is mostly
prohibited in park strips with the exception of a few streets and it is only allowed to reduce the city’s
required vegetation from 50% down to 25%. That would only be 8% of the area difference compared
to what Salt Lake City’s zoning code requires for vegetation.
Vague Code Language
There are multiple sections of the landscaping chapter that provide discretion to the zoning
administrator in determining if the requirement should be required. However, the code provides no
direction on how to determine if a requirement should be waived or modified. This creates
administrative issues because if a code does not strictly prohibit or require something, the code has to
be interpreted to favor the property right. These situations should be eliminated due to the inability to
administer or enforce.
There are also multiple sections where the code requires the amount of vegetation to be consistent
with existing character. This is an impossible regulation to be enforced because landscaping is
constantly changing, there are endless landscaping designs, and the choice of vegetation is up to the
desires of the property owner.
Another example of vague language is with the requirements for buffer yards. The hedge
requirements for some zones is vague and does not provide any standard for how many shrubs are
required to be planted and worded differently in each section of the code. The fence provision is also
vague and different in each zoning district, so sometimes it is required and sometimes it is not. The
provisions in the EI and LO districts are also vague and providing any landscaping would probably
have to be accepted.
The parking lot landscaping requirements are also problematic to interpret and administer. For
example, the amount of landscaping increases based on size of the parking lot. As the amount of
landscaping required increases, so do the number of shade trees. However, the area for the trees does
not increase at a rate that provides adequate space for shade trees and the trees end up being
crammed into relatively small permeable spaces and they never fully mature. A better approach to
this issue would be to require a landscaped area for every x number of stalls and require one shade
tree in each landscaped area or if the landscape area is combined, one tree every x feet of length and
width of the landscaped area.
Special Landscaping Requirements
With the exception of specific water wise requirements and tree preservation, mostly in the foothills
and the NWQ overlay, most special landscaping provisions can be eliminated. Many of them are
repetitive to the landscape yard or buffer yard requirements. Often times the special requirements,
landscape yards, and buffer yard requirements overlap and sometimes include conflicting regulations
for types and spacing of vegetation. Replacing the special landscaping requirement with more drought
tolerate requirements would also help reduce the water needed, particularly where there are
duplicative requirements or there are vegetation requirements that result in higher water
consumptions.
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/utilities
17
Potential Regulations
The City could consider adding regulations to help reduce outdoor water use. A common approach
that cities in hot and dry climates are taking is prohibiting non-functional turf. Examples of non-
functional turf is grass in park strips, as ground cover in landscaped yards, and in other places where
the primary value is aesthetics.
i Tucson Landscaping Requirements: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/tucson_az_udc/0-0-0-5895
ii Las Vegas Landscaping Requirements: http://nlasvegas-nv.elaws.us/code/coor_title17_ch17.24_sec17.24.060
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:September 6, 2022
RE: RESOLUTION: REVIEWING THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS FOR THE OTHER
SIDE VILLAGE PILOT PROJECT AT 1850 WEST INDIANA AVENUE AND
CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE LEASE RATE AND TERM
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing on the public benefits analysis and the proposed lease rate and term for a pilot
project to test the viability of The Other Side Village (TOSV), a tiny home community that would offer “recovery
housing” for people experiencing homelessness, particularly those who struggle with substance abuse, mental
health and/or physical disabilities. Its services would be similar to those at permanent supportive housing
developments, and it would be located on eight acres at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and part of an adjacent
parcel, on a portion of vacant land owned by Salt Lake City that was formerly a landfill.
The Other Side Academy (TOSA), a Utah nonprofit corporation would lease the area for 40 years at $1 per year.
TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the site of the pilot project, which includes part of the former
landfill, as well as the costs of development and operation of the pilot project. Any request to lease the remainder
of the City properties for less than fair market value would be submitted later and with a supplemental public
benefit analysis.
The Council will hear public comment on this resolution at the September 20 Formal Meeting. In conjunction
with this project, the Administration has requested the Council consider a zoning amendment for the City
property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed zoning change on October 27,
2021, and the City Council will be briefed on that issue on September 13 with a public hearing also on September
20.
Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis for the pilot project of The Other Side Academy’s
Village and consider authorizing the below-market lease rate and 40-year term.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 6, 2022
Set Date: August 29, 2022
Public Hearing: September 20, 2022
Potential Action: October 4
Page | 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND
A.The Properties and Proposed Lease. Since learning of TOSA’s interest in establishing a “village” of tiny
homes, the Mayor’s Administration has worked with the organization to identify potential sites large enough
for the planned full build-out, which was envisioned as at least 30 acres. Parcels of this size with access to
public transit are not available in most areas of Salt Lake City, but two abutting candidate parcels totaling
approximately 83.5 acres of City-owned property were identified, one at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and the
other at 1965 West 500 South. Parts of these parcels served as a City landfill between 1923 and 1962, and
they will require environmental remediation before they can be used for the TOSV (see section B). In
addition, a fault line runs through the property and the Utah Geological Survey is currently conducting a
trenching study to gather additional information. The fault line and precise locations of environmental
contamination could affect the boundaries and site plan of future phases of the development.
The Public Benefits Analysis in the transmittal states that the 2022 assessed value of the Indiana Avenue
property is about $4.20 per square foot, or $8,230,000 for the full parcel, excluding remediation,
mitigation, and cleanup costs. The City and TOSA agreed to phase in the development, starting with a pilot
project to test its viability (see section D below). The proposal before the Council would allow TOSA to site
the pilot project on eight acres at the southeast corner of the properties. This area is assessed at
approximately $1,460,000. TOSA would not have rights or obligations related to the other areas of these
properties, unless and until another phase of the project is approved by the City. The City would continue to
secure and maintain these areas, and TOSA states that it is committed to ensuring that residents of the Pilot
Site are respectful of the surrounding property and neighborhood.
The Administration proposes a lease term of 40 years at the reduced lease rate of $1 per year, with an option
to renew during the last year of the lease, subject to review and approval by the Council. The below-market
lease terms would be offered as the City’s contribution to TOSA’s effort to provide creative solutions for
people experiencing homelessness. Utah State law provides that a municipality may “authorize municipal
services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the
municipality receives consideration in return,” under certain conditions.
1. The purpose of these services or assistance must be approved by the municipal legislative body and
provide for “the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience
of the inhabitants of the municipality.”
2. A public hearing must be held by the legislative body before the decision is made.
➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration and the Attorney’s Office about some
issues that could be addressed in the terms of the lease agreement, including:
o an operating covenant;
o ensuring that the pledges and guarantees offered in the transmittal are in a form
acceptable to the City; and
o any potential termination of the lease, should TOSV not meet the mutually-
agreed expectations.
B.Environmental Remediation. Under the lease, the City would relinquish any responsibility for
environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the pilot site and project. All of
these would be assumed by TOSA. The organization also would accept full liability for the costs and claims
related to the remediation and mitigation. Current cleanup efforts are limited to the pilot site, which is
believed to be the area where the smallest amount of trash was buried.
Page | 3
The transmittal reports that the City’s Department of Sustainability is already involved with the
identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other agencies to ensure
that requirements are met for site cleanup, remediation, and mitigation. Department of Sustainability staff
plans to work closely with regulators, an environmental consultant, and TOSA through the Utah Department
of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The Sustainability Department
reviews and provides input on sampling plans, reviews findings and recommendations, and coordinates the
implementation of the selected remediation pathway.
UDEQ will examine historical reports and environmental sampling results, and may recommend additional
sampling, depending on the results of the first round. The Sustainability Department estimates one
additional round of sampling and associated reporting by the consultant would cost $70,000, which would
be drawn from the City’s non-departmental environmental fund. This fund was set up to be used for
environmental assessments on City property and received $100,000 in the FY23 budget. The
Administration reports: “Additional budget allocations may be necessary depending on the extent of the
environmental work recommended by UDEQ, the City’s desire to continue participating in the VCP, and
other city properties that require environmental assessments or remediation.”
Once the VCP program is completed, the City would receive a “Certificate of Completion” for the project
area. This indicates that all necessary precautions were taken to protect environmental and public health
and provides liability protection for the City.
The Sustainability Department notes that because the pilot project would be sited in the area where it is
believed the smallest amount of trash was buried, remediation there may be simpler than in other areas of
the property. The Department estimates that sampling and evaluation of remediation options for
subsequent phases could take a year or longer, depending on what is discovered, and the proposed uses of
the property.
➢The Council may wish to request additional information from the Administration
about the extent of the work already completed by the Sustainability Department on
this project, including the cost of any staff time that exceeded services normally
provided for potential City leases.
C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis. Unlike many other cases the Council considers, a formal public
benefits analysis conducted by an outside consultant was not required in this case due to the non-profit
status of TOSA. Still, the Administration requested that the Attorney’s Office conduct an “informal” public
benefits analysis with help from the Department Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) to identify the
potential benefits of the proposed agreement between Salt Lake City and The Other Side Academy (TOSA),
the entity which proposes to develop The Other Side Village (TOSV). These public benefits are identified in
Exhibit C of the transmittal.
1.Benefits to City. The Informal Public Benefits Analysis notes that in exchange for the property
lease to TOSA for the Pilot Project the City and its residents would receive the following benefits:
a. Development, operation, and management of a Pilot Project at TOSV that offers a new
model for supporting people experiencing homelessness, including “a path to secure
housing.”
b. Case management for residents, including help accessing benefits and entitlements;
healthcare; behavioral and mental health services; education and employment supports;
and other community resources.
Page | 4
c. New housing units for households with incomes at or below 30% of Area Median Income,
which in 2022 is no more than $21,510 for a single person. Maximum rents would be set at
25% of the area median income and adjusted annually, which is currently $448 monthly,
including basic utilities. (Tenants would be allowed to increase their income after signing
their leases.)
d. Potentially, reduced costs of public care for unsheltered people who likely use emergency
services; more alternatives to scarce shelter beds and services; reductions of population in
living in encampments.
e. The activation of currently vacant property; mitigation of former landfill space; reduction of
criminal activity in the vicinity of TOSV; additional investments in nearby neighborhoods in
grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit.
2.Growing SLC and Council Priorities. The transmittal states that the proposal aligns with both
the City’s 2018-2022 Housing Plan, and the Council’s longtime priorities in the following ways:
a. Offering solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI;
b. Providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations;
c. Creating a net increase in affordable housing units while avoiding displacement of existing
affordable housing;
d. Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
D.The Pilot Project. As the site map in the transmittal’s Exhibit A indicates, TOSA ultimately intends to
expand its operations to cover much of the property on Indiana Avenue and a portion of the 500 South
property. For now, though, it has agreed with the Administration to demonstrate the feasibility of its tiny
home village concept through a pilot project that would extend over approximately eight acres. The focus
would be on “Recovery Housing,” treating people who are considered chronically homeless, that is, those
who have experienced homelessness for at least one year, or repeatedly over several years, and who are
struggling with substance use disorder, serious mental illness, and/or physical disability.
The pilot project would consist of at least 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, six tiny homes for on-site staff who
provide 24-hour coverage, and 25 tiny homes that would be offered as nightly rentals. The homes would
measure between 280 and 400 square feet each. In addition, the pilot project would include community
space, commercial space for income-generating projects, and space for on-site supportive services, as well as
utility serve and related infrastructure, and roads, curbs, and gutters.
All tenants would be required to pay a standardized rental rate, since this project does not have project-
based rental vouchers attached to the units, unlike many other housing developments that serve people who
were formerly homeless or have extremely low-incomes. TOSA states that it is committed to assisting
prospective and actual tenants obtain and maintain a source of income to pay rent, such as employment,
Social Security Disability Insurance, or a Housing Choice tenant-based rental voucher.
Page | 5
1.The Recovery Housing Model. TOSV’s organization and supportive services would conform to
National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standards for “Recovery Housing,” a model designed for
people suffering from substance use disorders who need supportive transitional housing. Recovery
housing provides an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to
participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. The Recovery Housing Model is
recognized and supported by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which
recognizes the importance of providing individual choice to support various paths towards recovery.
This support is outlined in a HUD Policy Brief on the topic.
As described by TOSA:
“In this Policy Brief, HUD states that some people pursuing recovery from addiction express a
preference for an abstinence-focused residential or housing program where they can live
among and be supported by a community of peers who are also focused on pursuing recovery
from addiction–environments that are provided by Recovery Housing programs. HUD defines
“Recovery Housing” as housing in an abstinence-focused and peer-supported community for
people recovering from substance use issues. The Village would meet this definition.
The Policy Brief continues to describe characteristics of “Recovery Housing”, which include
residents choosing to actively participate together in community activities focused on
supporting recovery. The Policy Brief states that: “Many Recovery Housing programs include
a high percentage of staff in all areas of the organization that are in recovery themselves. Not
only does this type of staffing advance the goals of the program through peer support, but it
provides program participants, in some cases, with an opportunity to become employed in a
mission-oriented work environment. This creates an environment that benefits both the
organization and the individual program participants.”
The Village has all of the above components: residents choosing to actively participate in
community to support recovery, staff that are in recovery themselves, and employment
opportunities for residents.”
In response to a staff question, TOSA outlined the process for residents who break their sobriety
commitments:
“The Other Side Village is a sober community following the HUD defined Recovery
Housing Model. TOSA understands that the path to sobriety is challenging and sometimes
involves setbacks. If a resident is found to have violated sobriety commitments, there is
not an automatic eviction, but rather they will be assisted in every way to regain their
sobriety. This could range anywhere from a period of regular drug and alcohol testing
and outpatient support to a requirement to participate in residential treatment. All
residents will be offered the option of returning to the Welcome Neighborhood for some
period of time as a way of restoring sobriety. A resident will be evicted from the Village if
they are unwilling to agree upon a reasonable plan to return to sobriety. These policies
are in alignment with the HUD guidelines in their Policy Brief on Recovery Housing that
was previously mentioned.”
Like other housing providers, TOSA would be required to comply with the Fair Housing Act and
could face regulatory and legal action for any violations.
Page | 6
2.Tenant Selection. To ensure compliance with Federal and State fair housing laws, the term sheet
that accompanies the proposed ordinance changes would require that TOSA:
a. not deny housing to protected classes;
b. not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing;
c. develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include
descriptions of the eligibility requirements;
d. ensure that all applicants to the project go through the coordinated entry process used by
the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency;
e. enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”)
coordinated entry system;
f. give preference to Salt Lake City residents for placement; and,
g. submit annual compliance reports to the City.
In addition, an admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to
sobriety. To be able to afford to pay rent, tenants may be required to have employment or another
source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher. TOSA intends to lease
units on a month-to-month basis, but tenants may remain in their homes indefinitely while they
continue to meet the basic obligations of tenancy.
If no applications from chronically homeless people are received and TOSV homes are available, the
Administration intends to ensure that these are filled with people who are most critically in need of
housing, using the coordinated entry system and intake/assessment tools of the Salt Lake Valley
Coalition to End Homelessness to match the needs of each unique individual and household. This
system generally prioritizes those with longer lengths of homelessness and certain other
vulnerabilities for housing.
3.Programming. The Term Sheet for the proposed lease agreement requires supportive services
including “on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of
services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced
through an agreement” with appropriately licensed providers. These are to be made available on a
“flexible and voluntary basis” and address the following: mental health; substance and alcohol use;
health; case management; independent living skills; employment; peer support; and community
involvement and support. TOSA is still developing partnerships with service providers, so the scope
and scale of on-site health and case-management has not yet been finalized.
Because of widely reported staff shortages in social services, staff requested information about how
TOSA would handle this issue should it occur in the organizations they are preparing to engage. The
reply was as follows:
“It is possible that there could be staffing shortages among the service providers and that those
staffing shortages could lead to a reduction of services for the residents of the Village. If this
were to occur, the Village management would simultaneously pursue two options. One would
be to bring in the services of other service providers. The Other Side Village has already had
discussions with other medical and mental health service providers who are interested in
providing services to the residents of the Village. The other option would be to try to fill the
gaps in service through volunteers. The Other Side Village has a number of doctors and
clinicians who have volunteered to help at the Village.”
Page | 7
Since, in addition to on-site services, TOSA would coordinate access to off-site services, the
organization stated:
“TOSA assumes responsibility to coordinate and facilitate access to both on-site and off-site
services. This will be accomplished by the Village Coaches, the full-time non-clinical case
managers. Each resident will have a Village Coach assigned to them and part of the Village
Coach's responsibilities is to facilitate and coordinate access to services, including arranging
transportation for them for any off-site appointments.”
E.Pilot Project Financing. The financing models include both constructions expenses and operational
expenses and revenue. TOSA currently projects breaking ground on the pilot project in early 2023.
1.Construction Costs. Full buildout of the TOSV Pilot Project was estimated at nearly $13.8 million
at the end of April 2022, approximately $162,000 per unit, not including land costs. This included
environmental remediation, architect fees and building permits, roads and utilities, construction of
homes and other buildings, and landscaping, as shown in the figure below. TOSA believes that most
of these costs will be covered through in-kind contributions and donations. As of July 6, 2022, TOSA
reports having received nearly $2.2 million in cash for this project, with another $3.1 in cash
pledged. The exhibits to the transmittal include letters from various individuals promising in-kind
support and guarantees. The Administration has committed to ensuring that TOSA has adequate
funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease.
➢To increase the likelihood that these pledges are enforceable, the Council
could consider asking the Administration to include a condition on the
ground lease that any pledge or guarantees is in a form acceptable to the City
(this was also noted in an earlier policy question).
TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS
Environmental Remediation $232,500
Permit / Fees $400,000
Civil Work $1,045,440
Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000
Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000
Neighborhood Center $441,000
Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400
Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000
Landscaping $320,000
Architectural Fees $666,744
Total $13,777,084
Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22
Note: Excludes land costs
Page | 8
2.Operations Costs. The primary source of revenue to cover TOSV’s operating costs will be the
“social enterprise” businesses located on-site, which are designed to provide job opportunities for
residents. These include a thrift store, cookie manufacturing, and rental of the 25 purpose-built tiny
homes to the public, including Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. This would be known as the
Community Inn. Rent from TOSV residents would cover approximately 10% of operating costs.
TOSA indicated that the years noted on the pro forma included in the transmittal (Exhibit G) would
shift to reflect that the bulk of revenues and expenses would begin to accrue in 2023, rather than
2022.
In response to staff questions, TOSA provided the following additional information:
“The Other Side Village has had 2 market studies for the cookie production. The two studies
were done independently by University of Utah as well as by Brigham Young University
business and MBA students. Both studies showed a growing cookie market and strong
indicators for a viable cookie production business.
In regards to the Thrift Store, no additional market study was conducted. The Other Side
Village is drawing on the experience of the Academy running the two thrift stores in Millcreek
and Murray, plus their experience of launching and running a Thrift Furniture store in
Denver. There would be a relationship between the Village thrift store and the Academy’s
stores. The most obvious relationship is for the Academy to provide inventory for the Village
store. The Academy has excess inventory available that would be easy to place at the Village
thrift store at little expense or effort.”
➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the strategy to be used in the
event the operational revenues are not sufficient to cover operational costs.
F.Assessment of Pilot Project. The transmittal states that the purpose of the pilot project is to
demonstrate the feasibility of the concept. The Administration would assess this using the following criteria:
1. Financial feasibility, successfully generating sufficient positive cashflow to maintain and grow its
operations.
2. Social outcomes of the target populations, reducing the number of chronically homeless individuals
and improving the well-being of residents.
3. At the neighborhood level, the project’s positive impact on the surrounding community.
➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the assessment process: Which
department or division would be charged with the assessment? Which indicators and
sources of information would be used? What would become of the pilot site and the
construction on it should the pilot not demonstrate feasibility?
➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration how success will be evaluated and/or
confirmed prior to the authorization of future phases.
➢The Council could ask the Administration to consider adding terms to the lease to lay
the groundwork for termination if the Village does not meet operational expectations
and/or cover expenses.
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: August 19, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN)
__________________________
SUBJECT: Informal Public Benefits Analysis for a tiny home village with ~54 units of
affordable housing in exchange for a below-market 40-year land lease of approximately 8 acres
of vacant City property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue.
STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods
801-535-7244, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of the attached resolution allowing the City to enter
into a 40-year below-market ground lease agreement with The Other Side Academy, a Utah
nonprofit corporation, in order to facilitate the construction of a tiny home village with ~54 units
of affordable housing.
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City and the State of Utah are experiencing a
widening housing affordability gap, one of the fundamental causes of homelessness. Resources
at the federal and state level have proven vastly inadequate in addressing the housing crisis. As
such, cities are left to stretch local dollars, implement innovative policy tools, and think outside
of the box with project typologies. Research and experience have overwhelmingly demonstrated
that investment in permanent housing solutions is effective in reducing homelessness. Long-term
housing solutions, particularly solutions that are co-located with supportive services, not only
stabilize lives but have been proven to be more cost effective than emergency shelters and care
facilities.
8/19/2022
8/19/2022
In 2020, the Administration began to explore new, innovative solutions to addressing the
homelessness crisis. At this time, an exploratory partnership was formed between the City and
The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah 501(c)3 non-profit organization, to analyze the
feasibility of a tiny home village that provides housing for chronically homeless individuals.
TOSA brings unique experience with operation of “therapeutic communities” that help those
with long histories of addiction and criminal behavior stabilize their lives. As a result of this
exploratory partnership, a tiny home village for individuals experiencing homelessness has been
conceptualized and is proposed to be located on approximately 40 acres of City-owned property
located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 West 500 South (the “Property”).
The Other Side Village (“TOSV”) is proposed to be a “recovery housing” model that aligns with
National Alliance for Recovery Residence standards and is contemplated to eventually
encompass the Property. Currently, the Administration and TOSA have narrowed the scope to a
pilot project limited to approximately 8 acres (the “Pilot Site”) to demonstrate the feasibility of
the concept, refer to Exhibit A: Site Map. This initial phase of the project will include
approximately 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, 6 tiny homes for staff, 25 tiny homes to be offered
as nightly rentals, community space, commercial space for social enterprise endeavors, and space
for on-site services (the “Pilot Project”).
The Administration and TOSA have negotiated project terms that include a below-market land
lease of $1.00 per year for 40 years to assist in the financial viability of the Pilot Project.
Pursuant to State law, the City shall first hold a public hearing followed by authorization by the
City Council in order to execute a below-market land lease. Highlights of the Pilot Project are as
follows, with additional detail included in Exhibit B: Resolution and Term Sheet and Exhibit C:
Informal Public Benefits Analysis.
I.Project Overview
The Pilot Project is proposed to include the following:
•At least 60 tiny homes to be used as permanent housing
§A minimum of 54 units, or 90% of the total permanent housing units,
shall be deed-restricted as affordable
§Up to 6 units, or 10% of the total permanent housing units, may be used
as staff living quarters
•Up to 25 additional tiny homes may be used as a Community Inn offered as
nightly rentals to generate income for TOSV operations
•A ~ 2,000 square foot Neighborhood Center to house clubhouse type uses for
TOSV residents
•A ~10,000 square foot Social Enterprise Building to house social enterprise
endeavors that generate income for the TOSV operations
•A ~12,000 square foot Community Center building to house multi-purpose
space, and supportive services for TOSV residents including a medical clinic, a
mental health clinic, a social services clinic, administrative offices, and a
security office
•Utility service and related infrastructure; roads and curb/gutter
II.Recovery Housing Model
Utilizing the recovery housing model, TOSA plans to target individuals who are
considered chronically homeless, generally defined as individuals experiencing
homelessness for at least a year, or repeatedly, and struggling with a disabling condition
such as a serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. Similar to
permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary
clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug-
free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a
condition for residency. This social model of recovery helps individuals relearn how to
organize their lives, interact with others, and participate in community-based recovery
activities.
III.Affordable Housing & Tenant Selection
An overview of the affordable housing and tenant selection terms are as follows:
•Units shall primarily be available to persons or families that meet HUD’s
definition of chronically homeless. If there are units available and no applications
from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable
homeless individuals.
•An admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment
to sobriety.
•All applicants shall go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt
Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness.
•Tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such
as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher, to be able to afford to pay
rent.
•Maximum rents shall be set for individuals and households at 25% of the area
median income (“AMI”), adjusted annually for household size. For a single
person based on 2022 HUD income limits, this would equate to $448 maximum
monthly rent including basic utilities.
•Maximum incomes shall be set for individuals and households at 30% of the AMI
and below. Tenants must meet this income threshold, in addition to meeting
homelessness criteria, upon entering into a lease. This equates to a maximum
annual income of $21,510 for a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits.
Tenants will only be required to meet this income threshold upon entering into a
lease and may increasing their income subsequently.
•TOSA intents to provide leases on a month-to-month basis, however, tenants may
live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a
time limitation.
IV.Supportive Services & Programming
The Pilot Project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in
transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as
possible. The scope and scale of on-site health and case-management services is yet to be
finalized, as TOSA is working on building partnerships with service providers - refer to
Exhibit D: Service Providers Letters of Interest for additional information. In addition to
on-site services, TOSA plans to coordinate access to off-site specialty services that are
tailored to unique needs that residents may have. In addition to health-related services,
the Pilot Project will include programming to develop social and life-skills. Employment
training will be available through the on-site social enterprise businesses.
V.Site & Zoning
The Property is currently zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change
the zoning of the Property to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The
Salt Lake City Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning change on
October 27, 2021, with the request currently being considered by the City Council
through a transmittal from the Planning Division. The Property is vacant and will require
significant infrastructure and site improvements to facilitate the Pilot Project.
VI.Environmental Remediation
Parts of the Property were previously used as a landfill. Environmental testing indicates
that various levels of mitigation efforts need to occur in order for the Property to be safe
for residential development. The extent of mitigation will depend on the placement of
land uses and the utilization of environmental controls. The Department of Sustainability
is involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work
with State and other cognizant agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site clean-
up, remediation, and mitigation.
VII.Development Viability
TOSA estimates that the Pilot Project will cost an estimated $13.8 million, excluding
land costs, as follows:
TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS
Environmental Remediation $232,500
Permit / Fees $400,000
Civil Work $1,045,440
Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000
Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000
Neighborhood Center $441,000
Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400
Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000
Landscaping $320,000
Architectural Fees $666,744
Total $13,777,084
Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22
Note: Excludes land costs
The majority of costs will be covered by in-kind work and donations. According to
TOSA, the fund-raising status is as follows as of July 6, 2022:
•Almost $2.2 million in cash has been committed and received
•Another $3.1 in cash has been pledged
•The remaining balance is either committed or expected to be received through in-
kind assets and services - Refer to Exhibit E: In Kind Letters for additional
information
The Administration will ensure that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project
forward prior to closing on the land lease. If fundraising does not meet expectations or
there are gaps in the receipt of charitable funds, Joseph Grenny, TOSA’s Chairman of the
Board, and his wife have made a personal commitment of up to $5,000,000 to cover
shortfalls - refer to Exhibit F: Construction Commitment Letter for additional
information.
VIII.Operating Viability & Social Enterprises
Rent revenues are only estimated to cover about 10% of the annual operating costs – refer
to Exhibit G: Pro Forma. The remaining revenue required to successfully operate the
Pilot Project will be generated by social enterprise businesses that will be located on-site.
These businesses are anticipated to be a motel (Community Inn), thrift store, and cookie-
manufacturing enterprise. In addition to generating revenue to cover operating costs,
these businesses will provide critical job training opportunities for residents. The
Community Inn will include 25 stand-alone tiny homes offered as nightly rentals for the
general public, thereby providing lodging opportunities for Pilot Project visitors and
volunteers. While these businesses are yet to be established, TOSA has considerable
experience with social enterprise businesses and has partnered with the founder of
Lofthouse Cookies to advise on the cookie manufacturing business. If revues fall short,
TOSA has committed to covering up to $1,000,000 annually to cover operating expenses
–refer to Exhibit H: Operating Commitment Letter.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may
“authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit
entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-
2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it
would ordinarily be required to receive for use of City-owned property so long as the municipal
legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the
Administration to enter into the land lease for the below-market lease rates. While a formal
public benefits analysis is not required pursuant to Utah law, an informal public benefits analysis
is provided as Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis to provide an analysis of the public
benefits to be received in exchange for a waiver of the fair-market rents for a land lease.
EXHIBITS:
A.Site Map
B.Resolution and Term Sheet
C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis
D.Service Provider Letters of Interest
E.In Kind Letters
F.Construction Commitment Letter
G.Pro Forma
H.Operating Commitment Letter
EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP
Note: Pilot Site is defined by
the smaller blue boundary.
Site plan is subject to change.
RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022
(Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project
located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City)
WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires
to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial
uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered
population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable
housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny
homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term
Sheet”); and
WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately
8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt
Lake City (the “Pilot Site”);
WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be
individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the
City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake
City; and
WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the
Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground
lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the
conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City,
are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and
EXHIBIT B: RESOLUTION & TERM SHEET
2
WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide
nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or
assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary
assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in
satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the
conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1.The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and
hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver
is appropriate under these circumstances.
2.The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot
Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms
consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and
any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms
and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By: ______________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
By: ___________________________
Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney
EXHIBIT TO RESOLUTION
The Other Side Village Pilot Project Term Sheet
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
I.Unit Requirements
TOSA shall develop and maintain the Pilot Site to include a minimum of 60 tiny home units. Of
the total units:
1.Up to 10% may be unrestricted in rent and occupancy for utilization by staff.
2.A minimum of 90% shall be available and affordable to individuals or families meeting
the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, with a priority on
chronically homeless. These units shall be designated as the “Affordable Units”.
II.Occupancy Requirements
TOSA must place into the Affordable Units individuals and families that meet the HUD-adopted
definition of chronically homeless and homeless, prioritized as follows:
1.TOSA shall first make the units available to persons or families that meet HUD’s
definition of chronically homeless as defined in section 401(2)(A) of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)). In general, to meet this definition,
a chronically homeless person or family’s head of household must be sleeping in a place
not meant for human habitation or living in a homeless emergency shelter or safe haven,
have a disabling condition, as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), and
i.be continuously homeless for a year or more, OR
ii.have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three
years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months.
2.If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals,
TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals, as “homeless” is then-
currently defined by HUD, provided that applicants who have been homeless for the
longest periods of time immediately preceding their application are given priority over
applicants who have been homeless for lesser periods of time.
III.Tenant Eligibility
To determine whether a tenant is eligible, TOSA must verify that the prospective tenant meets
HUD’s definition of chronically homeless or homeless and whose incomes have an aggregate
annual income for all occupants that is 30% and below of the area median income for Salt Lake
City Utah, HUD Metro FMR Area as adjusted for household size.
IV.Tenant Selection
1.The Affordable Units shall be made available pursuant to federal and state fair housing
laws and HUD guidance, including the following:
i.TOSA may establish admission preferences, including a preference for
individuals with a commitment to sobriety, but may not deny housing to
protected classes pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws.
ii.TOSA may regulate the occupancy of units based on unit size but may
not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain
housing.
2.TOSA must develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures
that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements. The Tenant Selection Plan must
include evidence of a contractual partnership with service provider(s) and whether there
is a restriction or preference in the admission of tenants. The restriction or preference
must cite the supporting documentation to ensure inclusion and nondiscrimination in the
selection of tenants.
3. TOSA will ensure that all applicants for housing in the project will go through the
coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to
ensure coordination and efficiency with the current homelessness services system.
4. TOSA also will enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information
System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system.
5. Preference will be given to Salt Lake City residents for placement into the development.
V. Maximum Rents
1. The annualized rent (which includes all required housing costs such as utilities and other
charges uniformly assessed to all Affordable Units, other than charges for optional
services) per unit shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of
the lease, 30% of the annual income limit for individuals and households with a
maximum AMI of 25% AMI for the applicable Unit Type (i.e. studio or bedroom
number).
VI. Tenant Lease Requirements
1. Leases may be provided on a month-to-month basis, with the intent that tenants may live
in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time
limitation.
2. TOSA shall comply with local, state, and federal laws, including the federal fair housing
act, when approving applicants as tenants, evicting, terminating a lease, or providing a
notice to quit.
3. TOSA must incorporate specific provisions into the lease agreement for each eligible
tenant of the Affordable Units that establish the tenant's obligation to provide accurate
information regarding household income and composition.
VII. Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements
1. Upon execution of a lease, TOSA must verify and document the tenant’s annual (gross)
income.
2. TOSA must re-examine the income and household composition of tenants on an annual
basis.
3. TOSA must submit annual compliance reports to the City. These reports shall document
the occupancy and show whether TOSA is in compliance with tenant eligibility
requirements.
4. TOSA must provide the City a written certification of compliance when the project
reaches initial compliance and then with each annual report.
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
The pilot project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from
homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to enable homeless persons to live as
independently as possible. Supportive services will include on-site case coordination or management that
ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by
professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement. Services shall be made available on a
flexible and voluntary basis and may address the following: mental health, substance and alcohol use,
health, case management, independent living skills, employment, peer support, and community
involvement and support. Physical and mental health providers shall have the appropriate licenses, which
other services may be provided by those with appropriate training and following industry best practices.
PROGRAMMING
The pilot project will include programming that includes peer mentoring and the life skill development.
This will include opportunities for residents to obtain employment experience by working in a social
enterprise to the best of their ability. While participation in these employment activities shall be
encouraged, it is not a condition of living in the pilot project.
TERM
The term of the lease will be forty (40) years with an option to renew the lease within the last year of the
lease subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Council for the reduced lease rate.
LEASE RATE
The lease rate for the property will be $1 per year for the term of the lease.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by The Other Side Village’s Small
Home Project in Exchange for a Below-market Ground Lease of Property
INTRODUCTION
Salt Lake City (the “City”) owns real property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana
Avenue, Salt Lake City, consisting of approximately 45 acres (the “City Property”). The Other
Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation (“TOSA”) desires to develop a community of small
homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing
and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population (the “Project”). This informal
public benefits analysis is only for the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”), which is
intended to be a lease of approximately 8 acres of the City Property (the “Pilot Site”) and
development of approximately of 54 tiny homes that shall be deed restricted as affordable and
co-located with supportive services and social enterprise uses.
While the City’s primary interest in development of the Pilot Site is affordable housing and
supportive services, TOSA intends to develop other uses including community space, social
enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals. Prior to
development, the Pilot Site may require environmental remediation and/or mitigation to allow
for residential uses. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the Pilot Site and to
develop and operate the Pilot Project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City Property for
less than fair market value will be submitted to the City Council at a later time for a
supplemental public benefit analysis.
In exchange for the remediation, operation, and management of the Pilot Project, TOSA is
seeking a discounted lease rate for a 40-year ground lease of the Pilot Site (the “Ground Lease”).
Though a formal analysis of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for the benefit
provided to TOSA is not required under Utah Code ⸹10-8-2, this informal analysis has been
prepared to help assist the City Council’s evaluation of the recommended action.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal
services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the
municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a
nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to
receive for use of the City Property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public
hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the Ground Lease at
the below-market lease rate.
Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds
as “for any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the
safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the
EXHIBIT C: INFORMAL PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS
2
inhabitants of the municipality.” The factors that must be considered in determining the propriety
of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a
nonprofit entity as set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). Here, it may be helpful to consider
the same factors:
(1)The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in
return for the arrangement;
(2)The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the
safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the
residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and
(3)Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the
reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job
creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job
preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public
purpose.
BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AND CITY PROPERTY
As an overview of the entire Project, to be named The Other Side Village, TOSA anticipates
developing a community that will be a secure and self-reliant neighborhood designed to serve the
most vulnerable of the City’s unsheltered individuals, particularly those that meet the definition
of chronically homeless. The home sizes may range from approximately 280-400 square feet.
The Pilot Project is anticipated to have onsite services similar to those provided with permanent
supportive housing, such as onsite medical, dental, and mental health services. In addition,
TOSA is proposing that the community will have a garden and gathering spaces to serve
residents. TOSA plans to implement social enterprises so that the Project can support itself
financially and allow residents to gain employment experience.
TOSA’s purpose for the Project is to create a community for unsheltered residents of Salt Lake
City following the recovery housing model. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery
housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that
recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents
to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. TOSA’s intent is to instill a peer
accountability model to keep the community safe, clean, and orderly, to run social enterprises
within the non-profit so that the organization can eventually be operationally self-sufficient and
not be dependent on the government or donors.
The Administration worked with TOSA to identify a parcel suitable for development of the
Project, which ideally requires at least 30 acres, access to public transportation, and reasonable
proximity to services. There are very few parcels of sufficient size and geography available
within Salt Lake City boundaries. The City Property was identified as one that will allow the
community to be established and potentially expand as a diverse type of deeply affordable
housing and accessible services.
3
The City Property was historically used as a landfill between 1923 and 1962. It is currently
vacant property and requires significant environmental remediation/mitigation and cleanup of
refuse prior to development of residential uses. TOSA is working with the City’s Sustainability
Department and the State of Utah to determine the scope and scale of the efforts, and TOSA has
agreed to pay for the entire cost and to accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the
remediation/mitigation.
Before committing to lease the entire City Property to TOSA for the Project, the City and TOSA
agreed to phase the Project, starting with the Pilot Project using the Pilot Site for the
development of a minimum of 60 tiny homes to be utilized as housing (the “Housing Units”). Of
the anticipated 60 Housing Units, a minimum of 54, or 90% of the total Housing Units, will be
available and affordable to individuals and/or households that align with fair housing occupancy
standards who have experienced homelessness and have incomes at or below 30% of Salt Lake
County’s average median income (“AMI”), the (“Affordable Units”). The remaining 6, or up to
10% of the total Housing Units, will be available for Pilot Project staff to live on-site to help
provide 24-hour staff coverage. In addition to the Housing Units, TOSA plans to construct and
utilize up to 25 tiny homes as nightly rentals (the “Community Inn”). The Community Inn will
also function as a social enterprise to provide job training and revenue for TOSV operations.
TOSA shall construct and operate supportive services for the residents to assist homeless persons
in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible.
Finally, TOSA intends to construct community space and social enterprise buildings to provide
job training and revenue for the Pilot Project’s operations. The Ground Lease will include the
affordability requirements for the Pilot Project, as well as other requirements.
The Pilot Project is anticipated to include development of the buildings, Housing Units, related
infrastructure (curb and gutter), and will also include the related amenities. TOSA desires to
eventually develop the entire City Property for the Project and anticipates submitting a separate
request to lease the additional City Property after meeting certain metrics, including occupancy
and confirmation that the Pilot Project does not have a negative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood. If TOSA requests to lease the remaining City Property, it will accept full
responsibility for the costs and liability to remediate and/or mitigate the additional City Property
to standards for residential development.
TOSA is requesting that the City approve the Ground Lease of the Pilot Site in exchange for the
public benefits TOSA will be providing with the homeless services, environmental remediation,
development, and operation of the Pilot Project. The Council has been asked to consider a
zoning amendment for the City Property concurrent with consideration of the proposed below-
market lease rate to allow development of the Pilot Project.
TOSA intends to construct and operate the Pilot Project through donations from foundations,
corporations, and private citizens. Eventually, TOSA hopes to obtain self-sufficiency through
revenues generated from social enterprises, including the Community Inn.
4
TERMS OF THE GROUND LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED
I.Terms of Ground Lease; Costs to the City
Under the proposed Ground Lease between the City and TOSA, the City will maintain
ownership of the Pilot Site and the Pilot Project will be owned and developed by TOSA, or a
non-profit entity approved by the City. The Ground Lease will be structured to require a $1.00
dollar per year payment over the 40-year lease term. The Ground Lease will require that the Pilot
Site will be used solely for the development and operation of the small home community.
The 2022 assessed value of the City Property is approximately $4.20 per square foot, which
equates to about $8,230,000 for the City Property or $1,460,000 for the Pilot Site property,
excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. Remediation and mitigation of the Pilot
Site acres of City Property will allow it to be utilized for residential purposes. The below-market
lease terms are being offered as the City’s contribution to providing solutions for homeless
services. The City will not have any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction,
operation, or maintenance of the Pilot Site and Pilot Project.
II.Public Benefits Provided by the Pilot Project.
The Pilot Project as planned provides numerous benefits to the City and promotes the City’s
reasonable goals of objectives to increase the availability of affordable housing, job training, and
supporting the City’s unsheltered population on a path to secure housing. A wide array of
affordable housing options is needed to create a path from shelter to housing. By the City
maintaining ownership of the Pilot Site but leasing it to TOSA, the City will facilitate the
development of housing and services for underserved populations in our City that need it most.
Residents of the Pilot Project will have the opportunity to work with case managers and may
receive support in the following areas: sober living; tenant responsibilities and housing stability;
access to benefits and entitlements; access to healthcare providers; access to behavioral health
services; access to education and employment supports; access to mental health services and
medications; information and referral to community resources (including but not limited to food
pantries, legal services, faith-based organizations, additional housing options); and other relevant
services and supports. Regular engagement in case management services will assist tenants in
developing and fine-tuning life skills. Further, the on-site social enterprise endeavors will
provide job skill development for residents of the Pilot Project.
The Pilot Project will help lower the cost of public care of unsheltered individuals by providing
housing for people who likely have a history of utilizing emergency services within Salt Lake
City. Once housed, residents will free up shelter beds and services for others in the community to
access and help alleviate capacity restraints at the homeless resource centers. In addition,
accessible housing may alleviate encampments within the city that require tremendous City and
County resources to maintain the health and safety of the unsheltered individuals and the public.
Some residences will be earmarked as deeply affordable recovery housing to provide needed
assistance to the most vulnerable population in our community. These are greatly needed
community benefits.
5
The unsheltered population typically have limited access to healthcare and may rely on
emergency services for care. Connecting residents to accessible medical, dental, and mental
health care within the community will allow for preventative care, reducing the need for
emergency room visits and hopefully providing better health outcomes. Alleviating the current
burden on emergency medical services and hospitals to provide continuing care for unsheltered
individuals will benefit both the individual users and the public.
III.Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents.
Through the services mentioned above, the Pilot Project aims to serve formerly unsheltered
individuals through housing, healthcare, social enterprise, and community. By helping serve the
needs of these individuals, it is anticipated that the impact to the City can be measured through
improvement of life skills and health outcomes, reduction in area criminal activity, and new or
increased employment of clients served by the Pilot Project.
The neighborhood surrounding the Pilot Project may also benefit by activation of the currently
vacant and former landfill space. Increasing the number of residences in the area may encourage
additional investments in the neighborhood such as grocery and other retail stores, recreation,
and transit. In addition, TOSA is committed to ensuring that the Pilot Project does not become a
strain on the City’s public safety infrastructure and does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhoods.
IV.Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals.
The construction and operation of the Pilot Project is in line with the City’s Housing Plan,
Growing SLC: a Five Year Housing Plan, 2018-2022. Growing SLC includes solutions to
address housing for incomes below 40% AMI providing housing and services to the City’s most
vulnerable populations. Growing SLC strongly encourages supporting residents living in poverty
and making $20,000 per year or less. To do that, the plan sets the following actions items for the
City:
(1)Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as construction
methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form, function, and maintenance.
(2)Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing such as land discounts and
primary financing options.
(3)Work with housing partners and government entities to continue supporting and
enhancing service models that meet the needs of the City’s most vulnerable households.
The plan also adopts the City Council’s 2017 guiding principles for evaluating and appropriating
City funds for housing. The priorities relevant to the Pilot Project are as follows:
(1)Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: (i) Avoiding displacement
of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and (ii) Retaining and expanding the
diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
(2)Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes.
6
(3)Include collaboration with community and private sector partners to enable
opportunities for in kind contributions, creative financing, and service delivery models.
(4)Utilize city-owned land whenever possible.
(5)Enable residents’ success to maintain housing through partnerships with providers
of supportive services.
(6)Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing
types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as … innovative housing
types.
The Pilot Project accomplishes several of the City’s goals and priorities by providing
predictable, affordable housing and supports needs of its residents.
CONCLUSION
The development of the Pilot Project by TOSA will be a benefit to residents of the City.
Providing a below-market Ground Lease for the Pilot Site is an appropriate use of City resources
to achieve the City’s “reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic
development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development,
job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property.” Further, the Pilot Project
helps to achieve the City’s goals by creating a net increase in affordable housing stock while
providing long-term housing services for very low-income residents who have experienced
homelessness.
4460 S Highland Dr.
Salt Lake City, UT 84124
888.949.4864
ValleyCares.com
July 1, 2022
The Other Side Village
667 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
To Whom it May Concern:
It is my pleasure to provide this letter of support on behalf of Valley Behavioral Health,
Inc (Valley). Valley has worked closely with The Other Side Village leadership team to
create the Welcome Neighborhood which will temporarily house and prepare individuals
experiencing chronic homelessness to transition from the street to Village life and
connect them to resources and services needed, including mental health treatment,
supportive housing, medication management, and targeted case management.
Valley collaborates on the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and the
Housing Core Function Group. In addition, Valley’s homeless outreach program,
Storefront, works closely with the three Homeless Resource Centers and the Midvale
Family Shelter by providing regular outreach and connecting those staying at these
centers to various community housing programs.
We support The Other Side Village initiative and plan to provide onsite mental health
services to the residents of the Village on a regular basis when it is operational. We look
forward to continuing our combined efforts to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-
recurring in our capital city by lifting individuals out of chronic homelessness through
community and connection.
Sincerely,
Preston L. Cochrane
Valley Behavioral Health, Inc
Vice President of Housing & Support Services
EXHIBIT D: SERVICE PROVIDERS LETTERS OF INTEREST
June 17, 2022
Mr. Tim Stay
The Other Side Village
Executive Director
Dear Mr. Stay,
On behalf of Fourth Street Clinic, I am pleased to provide this letter of interest for The Other
Side Village, a.k.a Tiny Village, as you move forward in your planning and approval phase to
begin construction. Fourth Street Clinic is committed to providing high quality integrated health
care services to those in our community experiencing homelessness. We believe that housing is
a critical component of achieving and maintaining good health, and we are pleased to be
included in the conversation on how we can partner to support those experiencing homelessness
as they transition into housing.
We look forward to continuing conversations as you embark on the planning process to discuss
expand funding opportunities, defining and understanding the scope and timelines of the project,
and engaging with additional partners to support our work. As community partners, we are
keenly aware that partnerships are essential to extend and strengthen vital programs that ensure
the health and well-being of those experiencing homelessness.
Located in downtown Salt Lake City since 1988, Fourth Street Clinic has been the primary
provider of health care services in Salt Lake County and its surrounding area. In 2021, 4,672
individuals received care at our downtown clinic as well as through our Medical Street Team and
our Mobile Clinic. Fourth Street Clinic stands ready to look at ways in which our organizations
can work collaboratively to maximize resources and to improve the health care for our homeless
community.
Fourth Street Clinic values the partnership of our organizations and applauds the work of The
Other Side Village to address the many challenges of homelessness. I look forward to ongoing
discussions and clarity on the Tiny Village project as plans are solidified. I can be reached
directly at 801-364-0058 ext 1383 or janida@fourthstreetclinic.org.
Sincerely,
Janida Emerson
CEO
July 3, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
Attn: Tim Stay
667 E 100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84120
RE: THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE
Dear City Council:
The purpose of this letter is to document the commitment of Sego Homes to help with the
funding and construction of the The Other Side Village. Sego Homes, along with their
vendors and trade partners, has provided support to several charitable organizations over
the past few years such as Operation Underground Railroad to whom we donated
$121,000 and Hopes for Hope to whom we donated $101,000. We anticipate providing
a similar level of support to The Other Side Village by building and donating several of the
tiny homes proposed for this community.
We respectfully request that the City Council approve this proposed community and
facilitate the successful development of this innovative and much needed community.
Sincerely,
SEGO HOMES
Wayne H. Corbridge
CEO
wayne@segohomes.com
(801) 362-6228
EXHIBIT E: IN KIND LETTERS
June 24, 2022
ATTN: Mr. Tim Stay
The Other Side Academy
667 E 100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Dear Tim,
As you know, HomeAid is a 501(c)3 organization with 32 years experience in partnering with the
homebuilding industry to provide discounted and in-kind construction and renovation services
to organizations serving people experiencing homelessness.
The HomeAid Utah affiliate has been in operation over 3 years and has enjoyed tremendous
support in our fight to help alleviate human suffering within our community. We are supported
by some of the largest homebuilders and industry associates locally, regionally and nationally.
We are aware of and eager to participate in your new tiny home community project in Salt Lake
City, The Other Side Village. Our sister affiliate, HomeAid Austin, has been very successful in
their efforts at the Community First Village in Austin, Texas and will have completed 36
tiny-homes by the end of 2023.
HomeAid Utah anticipates we can facilitate the construction of approximately 15-20 tiny homes,
possibly an entire sub-village within the initial phase of the community. It is our goal that once
completed and additional phases become available, we can be an ongoing contributor over the
duration of the total project buildout facilitating the construction of several more homes.
We are very much looking forward to participating with you on this worthy initiative.
Sincerely,
Don Adamson
Executive Director, HomeAid Utah
Cc: Nate Shipp, Affiliate President, HomeAid Utah
t 801.595.6400 e4harchitecture.com |833 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
July 1, 2022
The Other Side Village
Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Re: Support for the Other Side Village Project
Dear Tim,
At your request, I am writing to summarize our support to date for the Other Side Village project. Our
architectural firm, E4H Environments for Health Architecture, is dedicated to improving the wellness of
our communities including physical health, mental health, equality, and basic human needs. The
charitable wing of our organization, E4Hcares, has been providing full architectural services for the
Other Side Village project for well over a year. Our Salt Lake firm partner, David Dixon, has orchestrated
the development of the site plan, buildings, and homes by leading a host of other design professionals,
schools, and individuals in the planning of the Village while he fills in the gaps.
To date, David has contributed well over 400 hours to this effort. At our standard billing rate of
$250/hour for our firm partners, this would equate to a donation of over $100,000 in design services.
We would estimate he and others in our firm will spend another equal amount of time seeing the
project through to completion.
We firmly believe the Other Side Village will be the best program anywhere for caring for our homeless
neighbors and helping them to lead more productive lives. The leaders of the Village effort have a
proven track record with the Other Side Academy and we hope the City will continue to offer their full
support to bring this to fruition as quickly as possible.
Best regards,
David J. Dixon, AIA
EXHIBIT F: CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENT LETTER
45
OPERATIONAL 15-YEAR PROFORMA FOR VILLAGE PILOT PHASE
EXHIBIT G: PROFORMA
667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 TheOtherSideAcademy.com
July 1, 2022
To Whom it May Concern :
The board of The Other Side Academy has agreed to cover any operational shortfalls in funding
from the operations of The Other Side Village in an amount up to $1 million per year. I also
confirm that The Other Side Academy has the financial means to provide these funds if needed.
Respectfully,
Tim Stay
CEO
The Other Side Academy
tim@theothersideacademy.com
801-362-8998
EXHIBIT H: OPERATING COMMITMENT LETTER
THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE
PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS -DISCOUNTED LAND LEASE
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION • 9/6/2022
HOMELESSNESS &HOUSING OUTCOMES
PERCENTAGE OF SUCCESSFUL HOUSING OUTCOMES
The length of time in emergency
shelter increased from 66.19 days in
2017 to 85.16 in 2022
30.46%of total returns to
homelessness on 2021
Source: 2022 Utah Annual Data Report on Homelessness
PILOT PROJECT
•~8 acres
•Housing
o 54 restricted as affordable
o 6 units used as staff living quarters
•Community Space & Supportive Services
o • ~12,000 square foot Community Center –Supportive Services
o • ~ 2,000 square foot Neighborhood Center -Clubhouse
•Social Enterprise
o 25 tiny homes offered as nightly rentals
o ~10,000 square foot Social Enterprise Building -Cookie Manufacturing and Thrift Store
PROJECT OVERVIEW
A TINY HOME VILLAGE THAT INCLUDES RECOVERY HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR HOUSEHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY HOMELESSNESS, AND SOCIAL ENTERPRISE ENDEAVORS THAT PROVIDE JOB TRAINING AND REVENUE GENERATION.
Photo credit: www.sltrib.com
Photo credit: www.sltrib.com
HOUSING & SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
HOUSING
•Units will primarily be available for chronically homeless individuals and households
•Maximum Income: 30% AMI –currently $21,510 / month
•Maximum Rents: 25% AMI –currently $448 / month
•A preference for sobriety may be established but must comply with federal fair housing laws
•Tenants will be required to have a source of income to pay rent
•Coordination with the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness
•TOSA intends to provide leases on a month-to-month basis
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
•Onsite and offsite supportive services will be available
•”Village Coaches” will provide non-clinical case management
•TOSA is in discussions with multiple service providers
FINANCIAL VIABILITY -DEVELOPMENT
PILOT PHASE -CAPITAL COSTS
Environmental Remediation $232,500Permit / Fees $400,000Civil Work $1,045,440Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000Neighborhood Center $441,000Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000Landscaping$320,000Architectural Fees $666,744Total$13,777,084
PILOT PHASE -CAPITAL SOURCES
The majority of costs will be covered by in-kind work and donations. As of July 6, 2022, TOSA reports the fundraising status as follows:
•Almost $2.2 million in cash has been committed and received
•Another $3.1 in cash has been pledged
•The remaining balance is either committed or expected to be received through in-kind assets and services
SOURCE: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 AS provided to City staff on 6/24/22NOTE:Excludes land costs
By 2026, TOSA TOSA ANTICIPATES THAT THE VILLAGE WILL BE FINANCIALLY SUSTAINABLE ANDABLETOOPERATEWITHOUT DONATIONS
•$2.9 million in total revenue
o 10% Housing Rent
o 14% Cookie Revenue
o 41% Thrift Boutique
o 35% Community Inn
•$2.87 million in operating expenses
FINANCIAL VIABILITY -OPERATING
SOURCE: 2026 revenues and expenses from a TOSA proforma
OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS & ASSURANCES
OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS
•Environmental remediation
•Activation of underutilized property
•Economic development
ASSURANCES & COMMITMENTS
•Financial Commitment for Development Cost Shortfall: up to $5,000,000
•Financial Commitment for Annual Operating Shortfall: up to $1,000,000 per year
BELOW-MARKET LAND LEASE
•Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v)A municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity,
whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.”
•Public Hearing & City Council AuthorizationThe City Council may waive fair-market rental rates but must first hold a public hearing.
•Informal Public Benefits AnalysisWhile a formal public benefits analysis is not required, an informal public benefits analysis has been provided that analyses the public benefits to be received in return for the waiver of fair-market rents for a land lease.
ZONING CHANGE
•Rezone of the Property to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District).
•The Salt Lake City Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning change on October 27, 2021.
•The request currently being considered by the City Council through a transmittal from the Planning Division.
PUBLIC PROCESS
Item B4
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY23
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:September 6, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number One FY2023
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT REMAINING ITEMS
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2023
final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on
the motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are
listed for reference. On August 16, the Council approved items A-4 and D-2.
A-1: Bridge to Backman Community Open Space Donation ($20,000 from Salt Lake Education
Foundation to CIP Fund)
A-2: Purchase of Vehicles for New Community & Neighborhoods Department ($120,000 from General
Fund Balance to Fleet Fund)
A-5: Allocate Transportation Impact Fees for Street Reconstruction Projects ($3,111,335 from CIP Fund
for Nine Projects)
A-7: Rail Spur Removal ($205,000 from General Fund Balance)
D-1: UTA Contribution to 200 South Transit Corridor and Complete Street Improvements ($1,314,900
from UTA to CIP Fund Holding Account)
D-3: Dee Glen Tennis Surety Company Reimbursement ($705,016 to CIP Fund)
D-4: Re-appropriate FY2022 Fleet Vehicle Purchases ($3,891,360 from Fleet Fund Balance to Fleet
Vehicle Replacement Fund)
D-5: UDOT Contribution to Foothill Sunnyside Intersection Partial Reconstruction (Northeast corner
Foothill Dr./Sunnyside Ave.) ($91,000 from UDOT to CIP Fund)
D-6: UTA Contribution to Orange Street Mobility Hub ($1 million from UTA to CIP Fund Holding
Account)
D-7: Rescope Allen Park Renovation and Facilities Roofing Project ($331,342 Bond Funding)
D-8: Streets Reconstruction Bond Adjustments ($693,411 from Reconstruction Projects Completed
Under Budget to 900 South Reconstruction Project) Local Streets Project
E-1: Utah Dept. of Transportation 600/700 North Active Transportation Improvements ($2,400,000
from CIP Fund)
I-1: CIP True Up ($191,540 from General Fund Balance to CIP Fund)
I-2: FY2023 Additional Funding for CIP Projects ($81,000 from General Fund Balance and $799,563
from Parks Impact Fees to CIP Fund)
I-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant ($2,749,584)
I-4: Governmental Immunity Fund Adjustment ($2 million from Insurance Payment)
I-5: Transfer Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program Funds to the General Fund ($100,000 from
EDLF to General Fund)
MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 3 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY23
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:September 6, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number One FY2023
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW INFORMATION
On August 16, the Council held the first briefing and a public hearing, then closed the public hearing and adopted
two items: A-4: GO (General Obligation) Bond Public Education ($150,000 from General Fund Balance), and D-2:
CIP Transfer for General Fund Security ($1,200,000 from CIP Fund to General Fund). There are two new Council-
added items since the first briefing. In order to add the two new items to Budget Amendment No. 1, on August 29,
the Council will reconsider the motion to close the public hearing on August 16th and set a continued hearing date
for September 6th.
During the August 16 briefing, the Council received an update on item I-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State
Grant. The Administration confirmed receipt of final grant award notification from the State. The award is just
under $2.75 million. Ongoing costs of $2.2 million are anticipated to be requested from the same grant funding in
future years. See Attachment 1 for details on the 13 new grant funded FTEs, and the subaward to Volunteers of
America. Council Members discussed the importance of performance metrics to show how the funds are making a
positive impact and to support the City’s application next year.
New Council Added Items:
I-4: Governmental Immunity Fund Adjustment ($2 million from Insurance Payment)
The Administration has asked the Council to adjust the Governmental Immunity Fund budget in recognition of a $2
million insurance payment. This item would recognize the revenue and expenditure within the Governmental
Immunity Fund.
I-5: Outdoor Business Activity Grant Pilot Program Transfer ($100,000 from the EDLF to General
Fund)
The Administration indicates that the one-time funding for the Outdoor Business Activity Grant program is
currently residing in the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). The funding needs to be transferred to the
General Fund because forgivable loans are not permitted by the EDLF guidelines. The Council held a briefing on
August 16 about the proposed pilot program guidelines. The program would provide up to $5,000 for outdoor
dining/retail costs or $10,000 for costs incurred in hosting an “Open Streets” event. The Council’s requested
changes to the guidelines are listed below. At the time of publishing this staff report the Administration was
working to update the guidelines to incorporate the Council’s policy feedback.
1. The Council requested a reporting mechanism, once applications close, to be included in a transmittal for a
written briefing. The transmittal will include details of the applicants, such as their location, size, whether
Project Timeline:
Set Date: August 9, 2022
1st Briefing: August 16, 2022
Public Hearing & Partial Adoption: August 16, 2022
2nd Briefing: September 6, 2022
Public Hearing & Potential Vote: Sept. 6, 2022
Page | 2
all of the available funding was awarded to grantees. Future analytics would include how well the
businesses performed; was it a fruitful investment?
2. The Council would like the grant funding to be made available to businesses to use for prior purchases as
well as future expenses.
3. The Council would like to ensure that businesses which received the reduced leases be included in the
notification process for the grant program.
This information below was previously provided by the 8/16/22 briefing. It is provided again for convenience.
Budget Amendment Number One includes sixteen proposed amendments and requested changes to four funds.
Total expenditures coming from fund balance are $600,000. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund
Balance would be $16,278,448 or 16.83% above the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY2020.
Revenue for FY2023 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for Fiscal Year 2023. As this is the first
budget amendment of the new fiscal year, there are no revenue projection updates to report at this time.
Fund Balance
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures.
Page | 3
Impact Fees Update
The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of
unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of July 1, 2022. As a result, the City is on-
track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all FY2023 and FY2024. The Administration reports
work is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan. The transportation section
was updated last year. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified. Note that the Council is currently
considering impact fee eligible projects as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,156,234 More than a year away -
Parks $15,216,578 More than a year away -
Police $846,150 More than a year away -
Transportation $8,061,854 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items
(note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items)
Page | 4
A-1: Bridge to Backman Community Open Space Donation ($20,000 from Salt Lake Education
Foundation to CIP Fund)
Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to allocate a $20,000 donation from the Salt Lake Education
Foundation specifically to the Backman Open Space project, currently ongoing. Salt Lake Education Foundation
received a $10,000 Governor's Office of Outdoor Recreation grant specifically for the Backman Community Open
Space Project, which was matched with $10,000 by the Tony Finau Foundation. The desire is now for these funds to
be donated to the City to be used for the project. To fulfill the requirements of the grant, the donation will have to be
used for this specific project.
Background - The Backman Community Open Space Project is developing a piece of Public Lands owned property
just west of Backman Elementary and the Jordan River, at approximately 600 N. and 1500 W. This project follows
the installation of a bridge between the Community Open Space and Backman Elementary, providing direct access
to the school from a nearby nonprofit housing development. The open space, which is currently unutilized as park
space and is overtaken by invasive vegetation, will be developed into an outdoor classroom that is also open to the
public as a park. This project is projected to be completed in Fall 2022. The full scope of this project will not be able
to be fulfilled without this donation, and to maximize efficiency of funding and construction, the project team sees
great benefit in completing this project in one phase.. The Council approved over $1.1 million for the bridge and
adjacent open space project.
A-2: Purchase of Vehicles for New Community & Neighborhoods Department ($120,000 from
General Fund Balance to Fleet Fund)
Three vehicles that are requested are for the three new positions added in the 2023 budget. Two positions are for
Building Inspections and one position is for Civil Enforcement. These vehicles were requested by CAN but not
transferred into the original budget request. The numbers that have been provided are estimates due to the
continual increase in cost and the lack of availability.
Estimated cost for 3 vehicles (from Fleet) Inspections: $45,000 ea. x2 = $90,000 (4 wd needed) (2) Ford Hybrid
Civil Enforcement: $30,000 - (1) Chevrolet Volt Total: $120,000
A-3: WITHDRAWN
A-4: GO (General Obligation) Bond Public Outreach and Engagement ($150,000 from General Fund
Balance)
The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment of $150,000 to hire a consultant to provide public
engagement efforts related to the general obligation bond, or GO bond, to be voted on by Salt Lake City residents on
the November 2022 ballot. The City may spend funds promoting the proposed GO bond by providing factual
information about the proposition, delivering a voter information pamphlet, with neutral encouragement to get SLC
residents out to vote. Public Lands is seeking engagement assistance to educate the public about how the GO bond
will meet current and future open space, air and water quality needs of the City as well as relating the benefits to the
Reimagine Nature Master Plan.
Engagement Methods (Must be bilingual):
1. Online survey, project web page, FB Live(s), Community Council presentations, event tabling, intercept surveys in
parks, business group presentations, stakeholder meetings, op-eds, board and commissions messaging
2. Video/Social on value of Public Lands
3. Ads, signage, paint stencils, logo, social media hashtag
The Department identified $46,000 of unspent funds from a prior bond effort which could also be used for public
education about the proposed GO bond.
Staff note: The Council could consider closing the public hearing and voting to adopt this funding the same night
on August 16 given the short time remaining between potentially placing the GO bond on the ballot and when vote
by mail ballots are delivered to voters in October.
A-5: Allocate Transportation Impact Fees for Street Reconstruction Projects ($3,111,335 from CIP
Fund for Nine Projects)
The following road projects are included in Engineering's six-year plan and are primarily funded by the $87 Million
Page | 5
Road Bond. These road segments are all eligible for Impact Fees and are included in the amendment to the Impact
Fee Facility Plan (IFFP) adopted by Council in the fall of 2020. The impact fees will help to supplement the projects
as they exceed their original budget. Following is a list of the projects along with the eligible amount as listed in the
IFFP and the percentage of the project that is eligible for use of Impact Fees.
Project Name Eligible Amount Percent
200 South $ 915,151.oo 9.00%
300 North $ 154,739.00 8.00%
1100 East/Highland Drive $ 500,728.00 7.00%
Virginia Street $ 141,663.00 9.00%
1300 East $ 812,805.00 7.00%
West Temple $ 338,633.00 7.00%
900 South $ 171,944.00 6.00%
1700 East $ 158,570.00 7.00%
2100 South $ 660,410.00 8.00%
Subtotal $3,854,643.00
Less Existing Cost Center 8420125 $ (743,308.00)
TOTAL REQUEST $3,111,335.00
The Engineering Division is reviewing the eligibility for the street reconstruction projects to confirm the proposed
budgets maximize the allowable use of transportation impact fees. If additional eligibility is identified, then the
Division indicates a request will be included in a future budget opening. This may be the last batch of street
reconstruction projects to use matching transportation impact fees with funds from the 2018 voter-approved $87
million General Obligation Bond. Note that some of the listed projects have funding gaps such as 900 South
reconstruction with a nearly $2 million gap. Funding requests to cover the gaps are anticipated in future budget
openings and CIP cycles. Existing Class C (gas tax) funding may also be used to fill the gaps.
A-6: PULLED PRIOR TO TRANSMITTAL
A-7: Rail Spur Removal ($205,000 from General Fund Balance)
The rail spur at 600 West and 500 South was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial
consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, operate, and maintain a railroad spur and
associated facilities. Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year, the City is contractually obligated to
remove it. There have been a couple similar rail spur removals in recent years. The Administration stated this is
believed to be last rail spur removal in the area.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: UTA Contribution to 200 South Transit Corridor and Complete Street Improvements
($1,314,900 from UTA to CIP Fund)
Salt Lake City is reconstructing 200 South in 2022 (Phase 1: 900 East to 200 East) and 2023 (Phase 2: 200 East to
400 West). UTA has participated in the planning and design activities of the project and has agreed to support the
project by providing direct financial reimbursement to SLC for construction expenses that UTA has requested to
include in the Project, such as installation of conduit/junction boxes for electric power and fiber optic
communication to the bus boarding platforms. The contribution from UTA to cover these added expenses is
estimated to be $1,314,900. As the current Interlocal is not yet signed, we would like to request Council post
budgets to a holding account if the agreements are not signed by the time the budget amendment is reviewed by
Council.
Page | 6
The Administration states a draft interlocal agreement is currently being reviewing by the City and UTA. If the
funding is placed in a holding account, then the Council would need to act in a future budget opening to release the
funding.
D-2: CIP Transfer for General Fund Security ($1,200,000 from CIP Fund to General Fund)
As part of the budget adoption the City Council used funds that were transferred to CIP in BA#7 of FY22 for
Building security. The transfer from the CIP fund back to the general fund was not included in the budget adoption.
This amendment is to correct that.
D-3: Dee Glen Tennis Surety Company Reimbursement ($705,016 to CIP Fund)
In the Summer of 2020 the City hired Pine Tree Construction (Pine Tree) to build the Dee Glen Tennis Center. The
project was funded by a grant from Salt Lake County. The City had to terminate their contract with Pine Tree in the
Fall of 2021 as it became apparent that Pine Tree would no longer be able to fulfill their contractual obligations. The
City immediately notified the Surety, Western National Mutual Insurance Company (WNMIC), holding the
performance bond, as it intended to file a claim on the bond. Working with WNMIC, the claim was approved in
early-2022. WNMIC, via their Consultant, J.S. Held, facilitated a bidding effort to identify a replacement
contractor. Bids were received on April 28, 2022, and WNMIC recommended the City proceed to enter into a
contract with Paulsen Construction (Paulsen). WNMIC, via a Tender Agreement with the City, provided this
additional funding to the project to pay the City for the additional cost to have Paulsen complete the project as well
a compensation the City for a few, minor expenses incurred by the City as a direct result of the Pine Tree
termination. At the time of this budget amendment submittal, the City is nearly complete with the Paulsen
agreement, and will use what exists in the remaining project funding to partially award the contract to Paulsen. This
additional money received from WNMIC will be used to fund the remaining contract with Paulsen as well as pay for
the remaining soft costs associated with the project.
D-4: Re-appropriate FY2022 Fleet Vehicle Purchases ($3,891,360 from Fleet Fund Balance to Fleet
Vehicle Replacement Fund)
The Public Services Department is requesting the Council re-appropriate funds originally appropriated in FY2022
for vehicle purchases. These vehicles were unavailable to source before the end of FY2022 because of supply chain
issues and limited ordering windows offered by vehicle manufacturers. The vehicles are still needed. If the re-
appropriation is approved, then the vehicles would be ordered as soon as they become available.
D-5: UDOT Contribution to Foothill Sunnyside Intersection Partial Reconstruction (Northeast
corner Foothill Dr./Sunnyside Ave.) ($91,000 from UDOT to CIP Fund)
Salt Lake City is partnering with UDOT and the University of Utah (Research Park) to reconstruct the northeast
corner of Foothill Drive/ Sunnyside Avenue intersection. We are completing this project to improve pedestrian
comfort and safety at this critically important location. This area is currently part of the Sunnyside Trail and will be
part of the 9-Line trail in the future. UDOT has committed to contribute funding towards this project as
demonstrated in the attached cooperative agreement. This budget amendment item is intended to reimburse our
trails funding source for the portion of the project that UDOT contributed to. Note: After the transmittal was
received, the City and UDOT signed an interlocal agreement for this contribution.
D-6: UTA Contribution to Orange Street Mobility Hub ($1 million from UTA to CIP Fund)
The Orange Street Mobility Hub is being constructed by Salt Lake City to support several frequent east-west bus
routes that City Council identified as top priorities from the Transit Master Plan. The facility provides a location for
buses to lay over for electric charging, operator breaks and to reverse direction, as well as for passengers to transfer
between bus routes and other modes, such as the Westside On-Demand service and GreenBike. UTA has agreed
verbally and via email to a contribution of $1 million for the facility, and we have been working with them in earnest
to finalize a cost-sharing agreement. This amendment will accept that contribution into the City's budget. As the
current Interlocal is not yet signed, the Administration would like to request Council post budgets to a holding
account if the agreements are not signed by the time the budget amendment is reviewed by Council. The
Administration states a draft interlocal agreement is currently being reviewing by the City and UTA. If the funding
is placed in a holding account, then the Council would need to act in a future budget opening to release the funding.
The mobility hub would support implementation of the Frequent Transit Network which is part of the Funding Our
Future initiative.
Page | 7
D-7: Rescope Allen Park Renovation and Facilities Roofing Project ($331,342 Bond Funding)
This budget amendment requests a funding source rescope for two CIP projects; the Allen Park Renovations Project
(8321404) and the Parks Building Roofing Project within the Facilities Capital Renewal fund (8322700). This
budget amendment requests a change to project funding sources from bond funds to general funds to better align
project deadlines with funding deadlines on these projects. Changing the funding source will allow the bond funds
to be spent before the final bond expiration period. The amendment proposes to move the Facilities Parks Building
Roofing Project funding to bond funding. This project is beginning and will be able to meet the time critical portion
of the bond funding. The project has been determined to be bond eligible. The Allen Park Renovations Project will
then be moved from bond funding to general funds allowing for the necessary time to complete the project in FY23.
The Allen Park Projects in process include structural assessment of critical structures, roof repair of failing historic
structure(s), and design and construction of water lines to provide critical irrigation, water and sewer, and fire
suppression to the site.
The bond funds proposed to be rescoped must be spent by October 2022. The proposed rescope to fully use the
remaining bond funds on the Parks Building roof replacement will meet the deadline as the project has already
begun construction. Note that the rescope request and existing bond funds are separate from the proposed $80
million GO Bond for Parks and Public Lands projects.
D-8: Streets Reconstruction Bond Adjustments ($693,411 from Reconstruction Projects Completed
Under Budget to 900 South Reconstruction Project)
Local Streets Project - Cost Center 8320205 - These local street projects are complete and there are
remaining funds in the amount of $178,623.04 in the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds
to the 900 South cost center 8320209 so they can be used on that project specifically.
900 East Project - Cost Center 8320207 - This project is nearing completion and does have remaining bond
funds in the amount of $13,274.42 in the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds to the 900
South cost center 8320209 so they can be used on that project specifically.
100 South Project - Cost Center 8320208 - This project is nearing completion and does have remaining bond
funds in the amount of $501,513.01 in the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds to the 900
South cost center 83202109 so they can be used on that project specifically.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Utah Dept. of Transportation 600/700 North Active Transportation Improvements ($2,400,000
from CIP Fund)
Salt Lake City Division of Transportation nominated 600/700 North Active Transportation Improvements (2200
West to 300 West) for $2,400,000 from the TIF: Transit Projects funding. The project installs four mid-block
pedestrian crossings, curb extensions at three intersections, and raised separated bicycle lanes. This grant has a
match requirement of $1,600,000. The match will be funded through the cost center 83-22627 earmarked for the
reconstruction project. Total funding for the project will be $4,000,000. A public hearing was held February 18,
2020 for the original grant application for this award.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3
(None)
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: CIP True Up ($191,540 from General Fund Balance to CIP Fund)
This is a housekeeping item. After reviewing old CIP accounts, the Finance Department identified several items
which did not correctly account for interfund transfers between the General Fund and the CIP Fund. As a result,
$191,541 is being transferred from the General Fund Balance to CIP which will make the CIP Fund whole.
I-2: FY2023 Additional Funding for CIP Projects ($81,000 from General Fund Balance and
$799,563 from Parks Impact Fees to CIP Fund)
This is the budget step to implement the Council’s CIP project specific funding decisions. During the July and
Page | 8
August CIP briefings, the Council decided to fund projects with parks impact fees and General Fund dollars. Those
additional funds needs to be transferred into CIP for the specific projects since the funding was not part of the
FY2023 annual budget adoption. This funding will be used for three projects:
- $81,000 to study and create designs for improvements to the intersection of 1000 West 500 North
potentially including a traffic circle (Project #27 on the CIP Funding Log)
- $300,000 to add lighting to the northeast baseball field at Riverside Park (Project #94 on the CIP Funding
Log)
- $499,563 to create the Gateway Triangle Park (Project #69 on the CIP Funding Log)
I-3: PLACEHOLDER: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant
The Council closed the public hearing, added this grant to the Grant Holding Account Batch No. 2 and approved as
part of the consent agenda on August 9, 2022. This item will close out the last step in the budgetary process to
receive the grant funds. See Attachment 1 for the staff report about the grant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Staff Report from August 9 Council Meeting
ACRONYMS
CAN – Department of Community & Neighborhoods
CCJJ – Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
GO Bond – General Obligation Bond
IFFP – Impact Fee Facility Plan
TIF – Transportation Investment Fund
UTA – Utah Transit Authority
WNMIC – Western National Mutual Insurance Company
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERINMENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETHTHOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITYCOUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:Budget Amendment #1 - Revised
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT:John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY2022-23 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 0.00)$ 475,000.00
FLEET FUND 120,000.00 4,011,360.00
DONATION FUND 20,000.00 20,000.00
CIP FUND 5,530,916.00 9,842,251.00
TOTAL $ 5,670,916.00 $ 14,348,611.00
8/2/2022
8/2/2022
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 2, 2022 15:08 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2022-23 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2023.
Because of the timing of this budget amendment no updates for fiscal year 2023 projections are
available. The City has begun closing out fiscal year 2022 and will provide updates to Council as
the audit progresses.
In
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
f
o
r
B
A
#
1
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
f
o
r
F
Y
2
0
2
3
:
Ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
t
1
6
.
8
5
%
.
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $5,670,916.00 of revenue and
expense of $14,348,611.00. The amendment proposes changes in four funds, with no new FTEs.
The amendment also includes the use of $475,000.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The
proposal includes fifteen initiatives for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2022
(First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022 and Ending
June 30, 2023.
In June of 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2022, and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2022.
Published: ___________________.
Approved As To Form
___Jaysen Oldroyd________
Jaysen Oldroyd
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
/
N
a
m
e
F
u
n
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
Am
o
u
n
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
Am
o
u
n
t
On
g
o
i
n
g
o
r
O
n
e
-
ti
m
e
FT
E
s
1
Br
i
d
g
e
t
o
B
a
c
k
m
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
1
Br
i
d
g
e
t
o
B
a
c
k
m
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
CI
P
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
2
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
f
o
r
N
e
w
C
A
N
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
G
F
-
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
2
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
f
o
r
N
e
w
C
A
N
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
F
l
e
e
t
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
3
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
G
F
-
-
O
n
-
G
o
i
n
g
-
4
G
O
B
o
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
G
F
-
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
5
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
f
o
r
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
C
I
P
-
3
,
1
1
1
,
3
3
5
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
6
P
u
l
l
e
d
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
-
-
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
7
R
a
i
l
S
p
u
r
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
G
F
-
2
0
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
1
20
0
S
o
u
t
h
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
a
n
d
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
CI
P
1
,
3
1
4
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
1
,
3
1
4
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
2
C
I
P
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
f
o
r
G
F
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
C
I
P
-
1
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
3
De
e
G
l
e
n
T
e
n
n
i
s
S
u
r
e
t
y
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
CI
P
7
0
5
,
0
1
6
.
0
0
7
0
5
,
0
1
6
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
4
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
F
Y
2
2
F
l
e
e
t
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
F
l
e
e
t
-
3
,
8
9
1
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
5
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
S
u
n
n
y
s
i
d
e
C
I
P
9
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
6
UT
A
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
O
r
a
n
g
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
Hu
b
CI
P
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
7
Re
s
c
o
p
e
A
l
l
e
n
P
a
r
k
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
R
o
o
f
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
CI
P
-
-
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
8
R
o
a
d
B
o
n
d
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
C
I
P
-
-
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
Se
c
t
i
o
n
E
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
N
o
N
e
w
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
1
Ut
a
h
D
e
p
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
6
0
0
/
7
0
0
N
Ac
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
CI
P
2
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
n
e
T
i
m
e
-
-
Co
n
s
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
d
a
#
To
t
a
l
o
f
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
I
t
e
m
s
5
,
6
7
0
,
9
1
6
.
0
0
1
4
,
3
4
8
,
6
1
1
.
0
0
-
-
-
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
#
1
Co
u
n
c
i
l
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Se
c
t
i
o
n
I
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
d
e
d
I
t
e
m
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
A
:
N
e
w
I
t
e
m
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
D
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
Se
c
t
i
o
n
F
:
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
G
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
n
s
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
-
G
r
a
n
t
A
w
a
r
d
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
C
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
N
e
w
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
B
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
1
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
#
1
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
/
N
a
m
e
F
u
n
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
Am
o
u
n
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
Am
o
u
n
t
On
g
o
i
n
g
o
r
O
n
e
-
ti
m
e
FT
E
s
To
t
a
l
b
y
F
u
n
d
C
l
a
s
s
,
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
#
7
:
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
GF
-
4
7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
-
-
-
Fl
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
Fl
e
e
t
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4
,
0
1
1
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
-
-
-
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
-
-
-
CI
P
F
u
n
d
CI
P
5
,
5
3
0
,
9
1
6
.
0
0
9
,
8
4
2
,
2
5
1
.
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
To
t
a
l
o
f
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
I
t
e
m
s
5
,
6
7
0
,
9
1
6
.
0
0
1
4
,
3
4
8
,
6
1
1
.
0
0
-
-
-
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
B
u
d
g
e
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
l
y
FY
2
0
2
1
-
2
2
B
u
d
g
e
t
,
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
FY
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
Ad
o
p
t
e
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
BA
#
1
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
#
2
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
#
3
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
#
4
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
#
5
T
o
t
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
1
0
)
42
5
,
5
3
7
,
4
0
8
-
42
5
,
5
3
7
,
4
0
8
.
0
0
Cu
r
b
a
n
d
G
u
t
t
e
r
(
F
C
2
0
)
3,
0
0
0
3,
0
0
0
.
0
0
DE
A
T
a
s
k
F
o
r
c
e
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
4
1
)
1,
7
6
2
,
5
6
0
1,
7
6
2
,
5
6
0
.
0
0
Mi
s
c
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
(
F
C
4
6
)
1,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
(
F
C
4
8
)
4,
3
0
2
,
2
2
2
4,
3
0
2
,
2
2
2
.
0
0
Wa
t
e
r
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
1
)
10
8
,
1
9
6
,
3
6
8
10
8
,
1
9
6
,
3
6
8
.
0
0
Se
w
e
r
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
2
)
19
6
,
6
3
0
,
9
0
7
19
6
,
6
3
0
,
9
0
7
.
0
0
St
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
3
)
13
,
4
7
6
,
7
3
3
13
,
4
7
6
,
7
3
3
.
0
0
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
4
,
5
5
,
5
6
)
30
2
,
2
6
8
,
6
0
0
30
2
,
2
6
8
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
Re
f
u
s
e
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
7
)
21
,
4
5
8
,
1
0
5
21
,
4
5
8
,
1
0
5
.
0
0
Go
l
f
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
9
)
11
,
5
6
0
,
6
7
6
11
,
5
6
0
,
6
7
6
.
0
0
E-
9
1
1
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
6
0
)
3,
9
2
5
,
0
0
0
3,
9
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Fl
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
6
1
)
28
,
8
2
6
,
9
9
2
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
28
,
9
4
6
,
9
9
2
.
0
0
IM
S
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
6
5
)
30
,
5
2
3
,
1
6
7
30
,
5
2
3
,
1
6
7
.
0
0
Co
u
n
t
y
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
C
e
n
t
S
a
l
e
s
T
a
x
f
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
C
6
9
)
9,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
9,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
CD
B
G
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
7
1
)
4,
6
7
0
,
5
1
7
4,
6
7
0
,
5
1
7
.
0
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
G
r
a
n
t
s
(
F
C
7
2
)
34
,
1
5
8
,
9
1
8
34
,
1
5
8
,
9
1
8
.
0
0
Ot
h
e
r
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
(
F
C
7
3
)
30
0
,
0
0
0
30
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
7
7
)
2,
9
2
0
,
2
5
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2,
9
4
0
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
L
o
a
n
s
&
T
r
u
s
t
(
F
C
7
8
)
16
,
2
1
7
,
0
0
0
16
,
2
1
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
8
1
)
32
,
0
3
7
,
9
8
9
32
,
0
3
7
,
9
8
9
.
0
0
CI
P
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
8
3
,
8
4
&
8
6
)
35
,
4
6
0
,
3
8
7
5
,
5
3
0
,
9
1
6
.
0
0
40
,
9
9
1
,
3
0
3
.
0
0
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
(
F
C
8
5
)
3,
9
6
4
,
5
2
3
3,
9
6
4
,
5
2
3
.
0
0
Ri
s
k
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
8
7
)
54
,
6
7
9
,
0
0
0
54
,
6
7
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
o
f
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
I
t
e
m
s
1
,
3
4
4
,
1
8
0
,
3
2
2
5
,
6
7
0
,
9
1
6
.
0
0
-
-
-
-
1,
3
4
9
,
8
5
1
,
2
3
8
.
0
0
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
#
1
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
B
A
#
1
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
#
2
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
#
3
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
#
4
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
#
5
T
o
t
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
1
0
)
42
5
,
5
3
7
,
4
0
8
4
7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
42
6
,
0
1
2
,
4
0
8
.
0
0
Cu
r
b
a
n
d
G
u
t
t
e
r
(
F
C
2
0
)
3,
0
0
0
3,
0
0
0
.
0
0
DE
A
T
a
s
k
F
o
r
c
e
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
4
1
)
1,
7
6
2
,
5
6
0
1,
7
6
2
,
5
6
0
.
0
0
Mi
s
c
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
(
F
C
4
6
)
1,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
(
F
C
4
8
)
5,
7
5
7
,
8
2
5
5,
7
5
7
,
8
2
5
.
0
0
Wa
t
e
r
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
1
)
13
2
,
7
5
2
,
8
1
5
13
2
,
7
5
2
,
8
1
5
.
0
0
Se
w
e
r
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
2
)
25
5
,
9
1
4
,
5
8
0
25
5
,
9
1
4
,
5
8
0
.
0
0
St
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
3
)
18
,
6
9
9
,
7
2
2
18
,
6
9
9
,
7
2
2
.
0
0
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
4
,
5
5
,
5
6
)
38
4
,
6
8
1
,
6
7
1
38
4
,
6
8
1
,
6
7
1
.
0
0
Re
f
u
s
e
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
7
)
24
,
9
5
2
,
6
7
2
24
,
9
5
2
,
6
7
2
.
0
0
Go
l
f
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
5
9
)
14
,
7
2
6
,
0
1
6
14
,
7
2
6
,
0
1
6
.
0
0
E-
9
1
1
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
6
0
)
3,
8
0
0
,
3
8
5
3,
8
0
0
,
3
8
5
.
0
0
Fl
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
6
1
)
30
,
4
2
6
,
0
3
2
4
,
0
1
1
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
34
,
4
3
7
,
3
9
2
.
0
0
IM
S
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
6
5
)
30
,
5
2
3
,
1
6
7
30
,
5
2
3
,
1
6
7
.
0
0
Co
u
n
t
y
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
C
e
n
t
S
a
l
e
s
T
a
x
f
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
C
6
9
)
9,
4
5
8
,
7
4
8
9,
4
5
8
,
7
4
8
.
0
0
CD
B
G
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
7
1
)
4,
9
5
8
,
4
3
3
4,
9
5
8
,
4
3
3
.
0
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
G
r
a
n
t
s
(
F
C
7
2
)
26
,
6
1
4
,
1
5
3
26
,
6
1
4
,
1
5
3
.
0
0
Ot
h
e
r
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
(
F
C
7
3
)
30
0
,
0
0
0
30
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
7
7
)
28
7
,
2
5
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
30
7
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
L
o
a
n
s
&
T
r
u
s
t
(
F
C
7
8
)
25
,
7
7
9
,
2
5
3
25
,
7
7
9
,
2
5
3
.
0
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
8
1
)
33
,
6
5
8
,
5
5
8
33
,
6
5
8
,
5
5
8
.
0
0
CI
P
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
8
3
,
8
4
&
8
6
)
35
,
4
6
0
,
3
8
7
9
,
8
4
2
,
2
5
1
.
0
0
45
,
3
0
2
,
6
3
8
.
0
0
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
(
F
C
8
5
)
3,
1
6
9
,
7
6
7
3,
1
6
9
,
7
6
7
.
0
0
Ri
s
k
F
u
n
d
(
F
C
8
7
)
54
,
6
7
9
,
0
0
0
54
,
6
7
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
-
T
o
t
a
l
o
f
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
I
t
e
m
s
1
,
5
2
5
,
6
0
3
,
4
0
2
1
4
,
3
4
8
,
6
1
1
.
0
0
-
-
-
-
1,
5
3
9
,
9
5
2
,
0
1
3
.
0
0
Bu
d
g
e
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
An
a
l
y
s
t
,
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
3
Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1:Bridge to Backman Community Open Space
Donation Allocation CIP $20,000.00
Donation $20,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kat Maus, Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Kristen Riker, Gregg Evans, Kat Maus
Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to allocate a $20,000 donation from the Salt Lake Education Foundation
specifically to the Backman Open Space project, currently ongoing. Salt Lake Education Foundation received a $10,000
Governor's Office of Outdoor Recreation grant specifically for the Backman Community Open Space Project, which was
matched with $10,000 by the Tony Finau Foundation. The desire is now for these funds to be donated to the City to be
used for the project. To fulfill the requirements of the grant, the donation will have to be used for this specific project.
The Backman Community Open Space Project is developing a piece of Public Lands owned property just west of Backman
Elementary and the Jordan River, at approximately 600 N. and 1500 W. This project follows the installation of a bridge
between the Community Open Space and Backman Elementary, providing direct access to the school from a nearby
nonprofit housing development. The open space, which is currently unutilized as park space and is overtaken by invasive
vegetation, will be developed into an outdoor classroom that is also open to the public as a park. The project includes
installation of irrigation to allow for native plantings and trees, a looped path connecting the site to access points to the
park, an outdoor, naturalized gathering and seating area with a shade structure, and associated amenities such as benches
and picnic tables. This project is projected to be completed in Fall 2022. The full scope of this project will not be able to be
fulfilled without this donation, and to maximize efficiency of funding and construction, the project team sees great benefit
in completing this project in one phase.
Public Lands has done due diligence and finds no reason to reject this donation proposal and specifically allocate the
funding to the Backman Community Open Space project.
A-2: Vehicles for New CAN Positions GF $120,000.00
Fleet $120,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Ken Thomas/Brent Beck
For Questions Please Include: Blake Thomas, Brent Beck, Ken Thomas
The three vehicles that are requested are for the three new positions we received in the 2023 budget. Two positions are for
Building Inspections and one position is for Civil Enforcement. These vehicles were requested by CAN but not transferred
into the original budget request. The numbers that have been provided are estimates due to the continual increase in cost
and the lack of availability.
Estimated cost for 3 vehicles (from Fleet)
Inspections: $45,000 ea. x2 = $90,000 (4 wd needed) (2) Ford Hybrid
Civil Enforcement: $30,000 (1) Chevrolet Volt
Total: $120,000
A-3: Forestry Director Reclassification GF $0.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Kristen Riker, Gregg Evans
Department of Public Lands is requesting a FY23 a $0 housekeeping budget amendment to reclassify the current Forestry
Division Director to an appointed position (grade 35). Public Lands will reallocate existing budget to fund this item. The
Forestry Division Director is a crucial position that manages all aspects of the City's urban forest growth and preservation
needs.
Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
The Urban Forestry Division Director manages a multi-million dollar budget and team of skilled trade professionals that
provide individualized customer service to thousands of city residents every year. The position requires expertise in a
specialized biological science and the ability to apply and relate that knowledge to diverse city priorities and challenges.
Aside from working directly and regularly with numerous other City Departments and Divisions (including Public Utilities,
Building Services, Planning, Public Services and Engineering) on City projects and priorities, the Urban Forestry Director
must see to the delivery of professional grade productivity and quantifiable residential service.
The combination of skills, productivity, publicity attached to the Urban Forestry Division Director position should merit a
compensation class consistent with Division Directors throughout
and Public Lands Departments.
A-4: GO Bond Public Outreach and Engagement GF $150,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristen Riker/Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Lisa Shaffer, Kristen Riker, Gregg Evans
The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment of $150,000 to hire a consultant to provide public
engagement efforts related to the general obligation bond, or GO bond. This general obligation bond, is a municipal bond
to raise money for City Parks projects to be voted on by Salt Lake City residents on the November 2022 ballot. The terms
of the GO bond will be to repay the entire funded amount in 20 years through a tax on residential properties and business
owners. The City may spend funds promoting the proposed GO bond by providing factual information about the
proposition, delivering a voter information pamphlet, with neutral encouragement to get SLC residents out to vote.
Public Lands is seeking engagement assistance to advocate and educate the public about how the GO bond will meet
current and future open space, air and water quality needs of the City as well as relating the benefits to the Reimagine
Nature Master Plan. The efforts of this engagement will create City-wide understanding and talking points around the
bond, why it is important and the benefits the bond will bring to residents. This project will help mitigate any confusion
about why the City is interested in a bond and our intentions in how the funds will be spent.
Engagement Methods (Must be bilingual):
1. Online survey, project web page, FB Live(s), Community Council presentations, event tabling, intercept surveys in
parks, business group presentations, stakeholder meetings, op-eds, board and commissions messaging
2. Video/Social on value of Public Lands
3. Ads, signage, paint stencils, logo, social media hashtag
Requested funding amount mirrors the Funding our Future effort with an adjustment (reduction in $$) to the time
available to complete education engagement efforts. Approximately $400,000 was spent to assist the City with education
about Funding our Future tax dollars.
A-5: Allocate Impact Fees for Road Project CIP $3,111,335.00
Department: Prepared By: Dustin Peterson
For Questions Please Include: Jorge Chamorro, Dawn Valente, Dustin Peterson
The following road projects are included in Engineering's six-year plan and are primarily funded by the $87 Million Road
Bond. These road segments are all eligible for Impact Fees and are included in the amendment to the Impact Fee Facility
Plan (IFFP) adopted by Council in the fall of 2020. The impact fees will help to supplement the projects as they exceed
their original budget.
Following is a list of the projects along with the eligible amount as listed in the IFFP and the percentage of the project that
is eligible for use of Impact Fees.
Project Name Eligible Amount Percent
200 South $ 915,151.00 9.00%
300 North $ 154,739.00 8.00%
Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
1100 East/Highland Drive $ 500,728.00 7.00%
Virginia Street $ 141,663.00 9.00%
1300 East $ 812,805.00 7.00%
West Temple $ 338,633.00 7.00%
900 South $ 171,944.00 6.00%
1700 East $ 158,570.00 7.00%
2100 South $ 660,410.00 8.00%
Sub Total $ 3,854,643.00
Less Existing
Cost Cemter 8420125 $ 743,308.00
TOTAL REQUEST: $ 3,111,335.00
A-6: Pulled Prior to Submission $0.00
A-7: Rail Spur Removal GF $205,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Shellie Peterson/Tammy Hunsaker
For Questions Please Include: Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, Shellie Peterson, Brent Beck
The property on which this rail spur is located was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial
consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, operate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated
facilities. Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Easement and Boundary Line Agreement, executed on July 3, 2000, the
easement shall terminate if the City ceases to use the rail spur for more than one year, and that the City shall remove the
xpense. Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year, the City is contractually
obligated to remove it.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: 200 South Transit Corridor and Complete Street CIP $1,314,900.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck
For Questions Please Include: Blake Thomas, Brent Beck,
Salt Lake City is reconstructing 200 South in 2022 (Phase 1: 900 East to 200 East) and 2023 (Phase 2: 200 East to 400
West). UTA has participated in the planning and design activities of the project and has agreed to support the project by
providing direct financial reimbursement to SLC for construction expenses that UTA has requested to include in the
Project, such as installation of conduit/junction boxes for electric power and fiber optic communication to the bus
boarding platforms. The contribution from UTA to cover these added expenses is estimated to be $1,314,900.
As the current Interlocal is not yet signed, we would like to request Council post budgets to a holding account if the agreements are not
signed by the time the budget amendment is reviewed by Council.
Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
D-2: CIP Transfer for GF Security CIP $1,200,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
As part of the budget adoption the City Council used funds that were transferred to CIP in BA#7 of FY22 for Building
security. The transfer from the CIP fund back to the general fund was not included in the budget adoption. This
amendment is to correct that.
D-3: Dee Glen Tennis Surety Company
Reimbursement CIP $705,016.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Peterson
For Questions Please Include: Jorge Chamorro, Dustin Peterson, Dawn Valente
In the Summer of 2020 the City hired Pine Tree Construction (Pine Tree) to build the Dee Glen Tennis Center. The project
was funded by a grant from Salt Lake County. Unfortunately, Pine Tree struggled from the beginning of the project. The
City put forth their best effort to help Pine Tree succeed on the project, but unfortunately the City had to terminate their
contract with Pine Tree in the Fall of 2021 as it became apparent that Pine Tree would no longer be able to fulfill their
contractual obligations. The City immediately notified the Surety, Western National Mutual Insurance Company
(WNMIC), holding the performance bond, as it intended to file a claim on the bond. Working with WNMIC, the claim was
approved in early-2022. WNMIC, via their Consultant, J.S.Held, facilitated a bidding effort to identify a replacement
contractor. Bids were received on April 28, 2022, and WNMIC recommended the City proceed to enter into a contract with
Paulsen Construction (Paulsen). WNMIC, via a Tender Agreement with the City, provided this additional funding to the
project to pay the City for the additional cost to have Paulsen complete the project as well a compensation the City for a
few, minor expenses incurred by the City as a direct result of the Pine Tree termination. At the time of this BA submittal,
the City is nearly complete with the Paulsen agreement, and will use what exists in the remaining project funding to
partially award the contract to Paulsen. This additional money received from WNMIC will be used to fund the remaining
contract with Paulsen as well as pay for the remaining soft costs associated with the project.
D-4: Remaining FY22 Fleet Vehicle Purchases Fleet $3,891,360.00
Department: Public Services (Fleet) Prepared By: Dustin Peterson/Denise Sorenson
For Questions Please Include: Jorge Chamorro, Nancy Bean, Dustin Peterson, Denise Sorenson
Public Services Fleet is requesting for encumbrance rollover funds for FY22 vehicle purchases. These vehicles were
unavailable to source in FY22 due to supply chain issues. Vehicles are still needed and will be ordered as soon as they
become available.
D-5: Foothill Sunnyside CIP $91,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Lynn Jacobs/Brent Beck
For Questions Please Include: Blake Thomas, Lynn Jacobs, Brent Beck
Salt Lake City is partnering with UDOT and the University of Utah (Research Park) to reconstruct the northeast corner of
Foothill Drive / Sunnyside Avenue intersection. We are completing this project to improve pedestrian comfort and safety
at this critically important location. This area is currently part of the Sunnyside Trail and will be part of the 9-Line trail in
the future. UDOT has committed to contribute funding towards this project as demonstrated in the attached cooperative
agreement. This budget amendment item is intended to reimburse our trails funding source for the portion of the project
that UDOT contributed to.
As the current Interlocal is not yet signed, we would like to request Council post budgets to a holding account if the agreements are not
signed by the time the budget amendment is reviewed by Council.
Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
D-6: UTA Contribution to Orange Street Mobility
Hub CIP $1,000,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Julianne Sabula/Brent Beck
For Question Please Include: Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, Julianne Sabula, Brent Beck
The Orange Street Mobility Hub is being constructed by Salt Lake City to support several frequent east -west bus routes
that City Council identified as top priorities from the Transit Master Plan. The facility provides a location for buses to lay
over for electric charging, operator breaks and to reverse direction, as well as for passengers to transfer between bus routes
and other modes, such as the Westside On-Demand service and GreenBike. UTA has agreed verbally and via email to a
contribution of $1 million for the facility, and we have been working with them in earnest to finalize a cost-sharing
agreement. This amendment will accept that contribution into the City's budget.
As the current Interlocal is not yet signed, we would like to request Council post budgets to a holding account if the agreements are not
signed by the time the budget amendment is reviewed by Council.
D-7: Rescope Allen Park Renovation and Facilities
Roofing Project CIP $0.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans/Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Kristen Riker, Gregg Evans
This budget amendment requests a funding source rescope for two CIP projects; the Allen Park Renovations Project
(8321404) and the Parks Building Roofing Project within the Facilities Capital Renewal fund (8322700). This budget
amendment requests a change to project funding sources from bond funds to general funds to better align project
deadlines with funding deadlines on these projects. Changing the funding source will allow the bond funds to be spent
before the final bond expiration period.
The amendment proposes to move the Facilities Parks Building Roofing Project funding to bond funding. This project is
beginning and will be able to meet the time critical portion of the bond funding. The project has been determined to be
bond eligible. The Allen Park Renovations Project will then be moved from bond funding to general funds allowing for the
necessary time to complete the project in FY23. The Allen Park Projects in process include structural assessment of critical
structures, roof repair of failing historic structure(s), and design and construction of water lines to provide critical
irrigation, water and sewer, and fire suppression to the site.
D-8: Road Bond Adjustments CIP $0.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Peterson
For Questions Please Include: Jorge Chamorro, Dawn Valente, Dustin Peterson
Local Streets Project - Cost Center 8320205 - These local street projects are complete and there are remaining funds in the
amount of $178,623.04 in the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds to the 900 South cost center
8320209 so they can be used on that project specifically.
900 East Project - Cost Center 8320207 - This project is nearing completion and does have remaining bond funds in the
amount of $13,274.42 in the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds to the 900 South cost center
8320209 so they can be used on that project specifically.
100 South Project - Cost Center 8320208 - This project is nearing completion and does have remaining bond funds in the
amount of $501,513.01in the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds to the 900 South cost center
83202109 so they can be used on that project specifically.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Utah Dept. of Transportation, 600/700 N
Active Transportation Improvements
CIP $2,400,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Ann Garcia
Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
For Questions Please Include: John Vuyk, Mary Beth Thompson, Ann Garcia, Melyn Osmond
Salt Lake City Division of Transportation nominated 600/700 North Active Transportation Improvements (2200 West to
300 West) for $2,400,000 from the TIF: Transit Projects funding. The project installs four mid-block pedestrian crossings,
curb extensions at three intersections, and raised separated bicycle lanes.
This grant has a match requirement of $1,600,000. The match will be funded through the cost center 83-22627 earmarked
for the reconstruction project. Total funding for the project will be $4,000,000.
A public hearing was held 02/18/2020 for the original grant application for this award.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees Summary Confidential
Data pulled 07/01/2022
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 846,150$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,156,234$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 15,216,578$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 8,061,854$ D
25,280,816$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2024 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
TotalCalendar
Month
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 07/01/2022 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ -$ -$ 21,639$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 100,842$ 237,606.45$
Grand Total 2,276,217$ 14,068$ 2,002,903$ 259,246$
A
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Fire Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Fire Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8422200 483,233$ -$ 483,233$ -$
Grand Total 1,045,105$ 3,021$ 985,995$ 56,089$
B
Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
AppropriationValues
Description Cost Center
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ -$ 49,752$ -$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 261,187$ 837,577$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 92,027$ 130,574$ 1,646$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ 4,433$ 6,398$
FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
9line park 8416005 21,958$ 855$ 2,692$ 18,411$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ -$ 1,905$ 56,109$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 12,803$ 101,112$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 374,573$ 39,040$ 110,276$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 116,388$ 480,599$ 125,933$ C
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 12,423$ 28,477$ 154,145$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 16,762$ 117,939$ 253,777$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ 105,861$ 319,139$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ 24,953$ -$ 406,047$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 29,235$ 35,098$ 425,355$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 44,362$ -$ 465,638$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$
Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ -$ 700,000$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 33,364$ 47,318$ 1,013,749$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 86,260$ 179,148$ 3,078,497$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ 17,400$ 22,152$ 3,160,449$
Grand Total 17,281,123$ 1,174,504$ 2,142,322$ 13,964,297$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Street Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 68,924$ 83,576$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 12,768$ 82,180$ 705$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ -$ 73,893$ 22,744$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ 13,090$ -$ 31,310$ D
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 18,154$ 181,846$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ 53,713$ 9,608$ 238,732$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 396,873$ 1,470,038$ 383,309$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ -$ 221,238$ 450$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 77,706$ 222,294$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ 67,474$ 19,589$ 787,937$
Grand Total 5,967,404$ 840,578$ 2,220,710$ 2,906,116$
Total 26,566,261$ 2,032,171$ 7,348,343$ 17,185,748$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
$1,156,234
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
8484001
846,150$
25,280,816$
8484002
8484003
8484005
15,216,578$
8,061,854$
Item F1
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:September 6, 2022
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
The Council may consider the following motions:
Motion 1 – Adopt Resolution and Revised Guidelines
I move that the Council adopt a Resolution Creating the Outdoor Business Activity
Grant Program and Guidelines as shown in Exhibit A.
Motion 2 – Not Adopt.
I move that the Council not adopt and move to the next item.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: Aug. 16,2022
Written Briefing: Sept. 6, 2022
Potential Action: Sept. 6, 2022
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget and Policy Analyst
DATE: August 16, 2022
RE: Briefing: Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program Resolution and Program Guidelines
________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
In response to a request from the Council during FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment No. 4 discussions, the
Administration has forwarded a transmittal which includes guidelines for the Outdoor Business Activity Grant
Program. This briefing gives the Council the opportunity to review the program guidelines and discuss policy
issues, and, if desired, make adjustments to the resolution to increase transparency in this, and other city grant
programs. The Resolution for Council consideration creates the Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program and
the program guidelines. Additionally, the Administration will need to transfer the $100,000 in grant funding
from the Economic Development Loan Fund account to the Economic Development Housing and Loan fund
account.
As Council Members may recall, the Outdoor Business Activity grant program was created to help restaurant
and retail businesses expand their services and outdoor operations (for example, outdoor retail, dining and bar
operations on public and private property) and reimburse businesses for costs related to outdoor business
expansion to serve more customers during the pandemic. The table below provides a synopsis of grant program
guidelines as defined in the transmittal.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: August 16, 2022
Action: September 6, 2022
Page | 2
Eligibility Criteria – Businesses must:
•Have a fixed business location within city limits
•Have a current city business license
•Be defined as in-person retail, restaurant or bar
•Request reimbursement for costs accrued as of April 1, 2021
(Economic Development chose the April 1, 2021 date to assist businesses in anticipation of the City’s
Emergency Proclamations that expired in May 2021, which waived certain requirements for outdoor dining.
Businesses are still experiencing the impacts of COVID-19, and costs and fees for outdoor dining are a barrier
for struggling businesses.)
Qualifying Expenses must be related to outdoor business activities (dining and retail):
•Outdoor dining/retail furniture, fixtures & equipment
•Personal protective equipment (PPE)
•City fees related to outdoor dining (including temporary business permits, building permits, fire operational
permits, special event permits, encroachment permits)
•Open Streets event costs (up to $10,000) or Outdoor Business Activities (up to $5,000)
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (developed and approved by Mayor’s Office of Equity and Inclusion)
•20% of funds ($20,000) will be set aside for businesses located west of I-15.
•Applications will be provided in multiple languages.
•Online and paper applications will be accepted.
•Department staff and International Rescue Committee members will be available to translate and assist in the
application process.
Grant Criteria – Applicants will provide the following:
•Applicant/Business name, fixed business address and Council district
•Demographic information (optional)
•Amount of request ($100 - $10,000)
•Business description (type of business)
•Proof of current city business license
•Project description (if Open Streets events were hosted, include date and description of event, participating
artists/vendors, what types of arts activities were offered, and how grant funds were used.)
•Receipts/proof of purchase, including an outline of costs associated with the event.
•Application deadline: September 30, 2023 – Incomplete applications will not be considered
Additional information:
1)The amount of the grants will depend on the number of eligible proposals.
2)The full amounts requested by businesses are not guaranteed to be funded.
3)Matching funds are not required.
4)Grants will be awarded on a first come, first served basis, and based on funding availability.
POLICY ISSUES
1) Delegation of Authority to Review Applications and Award Grants
As indicated in the transmittal, grant applications will be reviewed by the Grant Administrator using
the guidelines to ensure applicants meet the criteria and approved use of funds. The City Attorney
indicates that the Administration may believe that these relatively small dollar grants (between $5,000-
$10,000, with a total budget of $100,000) combined with the goal of expeditiously getting the money to
the businesses justifies the staff-level approval process.
Some Council Members may be interested in adding more transparency to the approval process. The
Attorney’s Office indicates that the Council can request additional review/approval processes. For
instance, the Business Advisory Board could be asked to review or make recommendations on the grant
requests and could either approve the requests or forward them to the Council. The Council could also
request notification of the issuance of grants by adding a reporting requirement after grants are
Page | 3
awarded.
➢The Council may wish to discuss whether the current process meets their
expectations of openness and transparency, and whether the Council wishes to
continue delegating authority to Administrative staff, or choose other options
mentioned above, such as asking the Business Advisory Board to review or make
recommendations.
➢The Council may also wish to consider a (total grant program) dollar value or
threshold which would trigger the Council to request additional reporting
mechanisms.
➢The Council may wish to request notification of the grants by adding a reporting
requirement after the grants have been awarded.
➢The Council may wish to consider whether any changes to the resolution for this
grant program could be applied to other grant programs administered by the City.
➢The Council may wish to request additional details on the methods being used to
alert businesses of this program and funding opportunity.
➢Finally, the Council may wish to ask if alternatives to the first come first serve
method have been considered, such as a lottery system.
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
LORENA RIFFO JENSON
INTERIM DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 2, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Lorena Riffo -Jenson, Interim D irector, Department of Economic Development
SUBJECT: Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program Resolution and Program Guidelines
STAFF CONTACTS: Peter Makowski, Project Manager, peter.makowski@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Written Briefing
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution creating the Outdoor Business Activity Grant
Program and approve program guidelines
BUDGET IMPACT: $100,000 – General Fund (allocated in Budget Amendment #4)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In response to the City Council’s request for updates to the Outdoor Business Activities Grant
Program guidelines, presented to City Council on August 9, 2022, the Department of Economic
Development is providing a written briefing and the following program guideline updates:
•The Council requested a reporting mechanism, once applications close, to be included in a
transmittal for a written briefing. The transmittal will include details of the applicants, such
as their location, size, whether all of the avail able funding was awarded to grantees. Future
analytics would include how well the businesses performed; was it a fruitful investment?
•The Council would like the grant funding to be made available to businesses to use for
prior purchases as well as future expenses.
•The Council would like to ensure that businesses which received the reduced leases be
included in the notification process for the grant program.
9/2/2022
9/2/2022
Lisa Shaffer (Sep 2, 2022 12:19 PDT)
Attachments:
A.Resolution
B.Draft Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program Guidelines (Updated)
RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2022
Creation of Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program
WHEREAS, beginning in March 2020, and continuing to the present, Salt Lake City’s
small business economy has been severely and adversely impacted by the global outbreak of
COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the “City”) desires to support small businesses
located in Salt Lake City during this outbreak by creating a grant program referred to as the
Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program (the “Grant Program), to be administered by the City’s
Department of Economic Development (the “DED”); and
WHEREAS, DED recommends creating the Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program
using the grant criteria and process set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein (the “Program Guidelines”).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
1. The Council approves the creation of the Grant Program, to be administered pursuant to
the Program Guidelines.
2. The Grant Program may operate until September 30, 2023, at which time it will be
reviewed by the Council to determine if it is meeting its objectives and whether it shall
continue.
3. The Council hereby authorizes the Mayor or her designee to negotiate and execute
any documents required to effectuate the Grant Program and any individual grant to a
qualifying business on the terms outlined in the Program Guidelines, and incorporating
such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of _________, 2022.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
___________________________________
Dan Dugan, Chair
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
__________________________
ACTING CITY RECORDER
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Sara Montoya
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: September 1, 2022
EXHIBIT A
OUTDOOR BUSINESS ACTIVITY GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES
The Outdoor Business Activity Grant Progra m, administered by Salt Lake City Corporation ’s
(“City”) Department of Economic Development (“DED”) is designed to assist restaurant and
retail businesses expand their services and operations outdoors by providing funding for or
reimbursing costs associated with “outdoor business activities.” These activities include outdoor
retail, dining and bar operations, on both public and private property, that allows businesses to
serve more customers during surges in the pandemic or as part of ongoing econo mic recovery
from the pandemic .
Grant funding will reimburse be used to cover costs for items such as outdoor patio materials,
furniture, fixtures, equipment and City -related fees. Applications will be reviewed and scored to
determine whether the grant application meets grant guideline requirements and funding
availability. Businesses are required to define a clear description of their business operations,
pro ject description, and documentation detailing how the grant funds will be used as
reimbursement.
1.Definitions
Fixed Business Location: A permanent place of doing business in this state, such as an office,
warehouse, storefront, or similar location owned or controlled by an employer.
Open Streets: An event that closes a City street to cars, allowing pedestrians to use the street and
businesses to u tilize the sidewalk for Outdoor Business Activities.
Outdoor Business Activities Any retail, or restaurant activity, include retail sales, retails services,
or outdoor dining, that would typically occur insi de a building or structure but is operating
outside and adjacent to the anchor business.
Qualifying Business: A business that meets the Eligibility Criteria described in Section 2.A
herein and that has applied for grant funding for one or more Qualifying Use(s) of Funds, as
described in Section 2.C herein.
Temporary Business Permit: A temporary permit, issued by Real Estate Services, which offered
a prorated, monthly fee to businesses leasing City right-of -way for outdoor dining and retail.
This permit was created in response to the COVID -19 pandemic under City Emergency
Proclamation and expired in May 2021 .
2.General
A.Funding
The City has allocated $100,000 which will be used to directly fund qualifying businesses. The
funding amounts available for each project are as follows:
•Outdoor Business Activities: up to $5000
•Open Streets events: up to $10,000
Grant funds will be issued to fund or reimburse the grantees costs associated with Outdoor
Business Activities and Open Streets events. The applicants are required to submit bids, quotes,
invoices, receipts, or proof of purchase before being issued grant f unds. Funding is dependent
on meeting application criteria, approved use of funds, and availability of funds.
B.Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible for the Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program a business must:
•Be located within Salt Lake City limits: Review Salt Lake City boundaries here:
https://www.slc.gov/council/find -your-council-member/
•Have a current Salt Lake City Business License
•Operate out of a Fixed Business Location
•Be defined as in -person retail, restaurant, or bar
•Request reimbursement/funding for c osts, including Temporary Business Permits,
accrued as of April 1, 2021
C.Qualifying Use of Funds
Grant funds must be used to fund or reimburse costs associated with Outdoor Business
Activities, including dining and retail. These uses will be reflect ed in the Budget section of the
application. The following uses of funds qualify for reimbursement grant funding:
•Outdoor dining/retail furniture, fixtures and equipment (tables, chairs, barrier/patio
building materials)
•Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
•City fees related to outdoor dining (i.e. Temporary Business permits, Use and Fire
Operational permits, Outdoor Revocable permits, Building Permits, Special Events
permits, encroachment permits)
•Open Streets event costs
D. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
To ensure the grant program is available to all potential applicants, DED has instituted the
following measures to ensure the program is equitable, transparent and inclusive:
•20% of funds ($20,000) is set aside for businesses located west of I-15.
•Application materials will be provided in multiple languages.
•Online and paper applications will be accepted.
•Application assistance will be provided by DED and The International Rescue
Committee for applicants in need of translation or other specific needs.
These measures were developed and approved by the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office of Equity and
Inclusion are aligned with the SLC Citywide Equity Plan.
D.Outreach and Engagement
To promote the grant program within the community and to ensure engagement and access to
all qualified businesses, DED will take the following measures:
•Provide physical promotional materials i.e., flyers, paper applications
•Host online promotion and applications on the department website
•Social media engagement
•Promotion through community partners and business associations
•Multilingual promotional materials and applications distributed through culturally -
diverse partner organizations
•Promotion to all businesses that accessed City permits for Outdoor Business Activities
after April 1, 2021
3.Grant Criteria
A.Application Information
The following information will be required for each grant application:
General:
•Applicant/Business Name
•Business Location address
•Demographic Information (optional)
•Amount requesting ($100 – $10,000)
Business Description : Provide a summary of the type of business, and their general operations,
applying for the grant. Description must include:
•Address of business’ Fixed Business Location
•Proof of current Salt Lake City Busin ess License
•Number of employees
Project Description : Describe the project for which grant funds are requested. I f applicant
previously hosted an Open Streets Event, please i nclude a description of participating artists,
where and when the project took place, what types of arts activities were offered, and how the
requested grant funds were used.
Use of Funds : Outline the costs associated with the project . Applicants must prov ide the
following:
•Vendor
•Qualifying Use of Funds type (building materials, furniture, fixtures, equipment, and
permits)
•Invoices, quotes, bids, receipts and/or proof of purchase
B.Application Deadline
APPLICATIONS ARE DUE BY SEPTEMBER 30, 202 3
Applications must be complete to be considered for funding. Incomplete applications will not be
considered. Qualifying applicants will be approved for funds on a first -come, first-served basis,
provided the City has grant funds available.
C.Review Process
Applications will be reviewed by the Grant Administrator (the “Administrator”). The
Administrator is Salt Lake City Corporation staff; the Administrator will meet to review grant
applications on a first come, first serve basis.
The Administrator will review applications and award grantees provided the completion of the
three sections of the application described in Section 4.A., herein. Once the application is
complete the Administrator will conduct a review to confirm the applicant meets eligibility
criteria and approved use of funds. Funds are limited and grant s will be awarded based on
application requirements being met and the availability of funds. Grantees will be notified upon
final approval.
4.Grant Funding
A.Grant Funding Requirements
The following is required to receive grant funding. Checks will be issued once all requirements
are met:
•Each applicant must complete and sign the Grant Agreement
•Use of funds are supported by invoices , receipts, and/or bids
•Issuance of permit(s) (if applicable)
5.Grant Reporting
A.Applicant Reporting Requirements
Once the application period closes, or funds are no longer available, DED will provide the
following reports to City Council by January 1, 2024:
•Applicant information
o Business Location
o Demographic Data
o Number of employees (business size)
o Funding Type (outdoor dining/retail or Open Streets)
o Funding amount
B.End -of-Program Reporting Requirements
In order to measure the impact of grant funding on participating businesses , DED will provide
the following data analysis by Sep tember 2024 to demonstrate the impact of the grant funds on
the grantee business operations .
•Sales Tax/Revenue Analysis
o Sales Tax percentage increase for participating businesses
o Sales data provided by grantees (optional)
•Business Testimonials
o Provided by grantees (optional)
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: 8/12/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/12/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/12/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Meridith Benally as a member of
the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board.
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
August 12, 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 Parks, Natural Lands, Urban
Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board.
Meridith Benally to be appointed for a three year term, 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: 8/12/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/12/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/12/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Kelbe Goupil as a member of
the Police Civilian Review Board.
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
August 12, 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 Police Civilian Review
Board.
Kelbe Goupil to be appointed for a three year term ending the first Monday in September 2025
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: 8/12/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/12/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/12/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Stephanie Finley as a member of
the Police Civilian Review Board.
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
August 12, 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 Police Civilian Review
Board.
Stephanie Finley to be appointed for a three year term ending the first Monday in September 2025
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: 8/12/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/12/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/12/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Annie Barton as a member of
the Police Civilian Review Board.
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
August 12, 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 Police Civilian Review
Board.
Annie Barton to be appointed for a three year term ending the first Monday in September 2025
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
City Council Announcements
September 6, 2022
For Your Information
A.Changes to the November 2022 Meetings.
The meetings for November have been updated due to Election Day and the
Board of Canvassers. The meetings for November will be November 15 this will
consist of a work session and formal meeting, and November 22 this will consist
of an RDA, work session, formal and board of canvassers meeting.
Information Needed
B. Victoria Travel for the Inland Port (UIPA) Board Meeting
Victoria is seeking the Council’s approval to travel for the Inland Port (UIPA)
Board meeting in Cedar City October 12th. Chair agrees it is in SLC’s interest for
the SLC Board Member to attend in person. Victoria would like to take this
opportunity to reach out to the local elected officials in Cedar City to help bridge
the communications gap that sometimes exists between SLC and cities outside of
the Wasatch Front.
Per Council policy, Council Members must seek consent from their peers to
travel to an event outside of the annual approved travel. If approved, based upon
flight availability, Victoria would fly to Cedar City directly or to St George and
rent a car, in addition to per diem.
➢Does Council approve this travel?