05/25/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
May 25, 2023 Thursday 3:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
No Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled
briefing meeting.
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.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:15:18
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24
1.Ordinance: New Five-Year Housing Plan, Housing SLC ~ 3:00 p.m.
60 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the proposed new
five-year housing plan, Housing SLC. The City’s current housing plan, Growing SLC,
expires at the end of the fiscal year, and a new moderate income housing plan is needed
to meet State code requirements and receive priority consideration for State funding
resources.
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 25, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 13, 2023
2.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Sustainability Department and
Refuse Fund ~ 4:00 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Sustainability Department budget
and Refuse Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 25, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
3.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Unresolved Issues Written Briefing
TENTATIVE
The Council will receive a written briefing about unresolved issues relating to the
proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 25, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Standing Items
4.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
5.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
6.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 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 25, 2023, 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.
HOUSING SLCDRAFT PLAN
CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING //MAY 25, 2023
OVERVIEW
Three Goals
•Supported by 18 moderate income housing
strategies
•Supported by 47 unique action items
•Implemented over five years
Guiding Framework
•Preserve affordable housing
•Protect tenants
•Produce new affordable housing
•Expand capacity for tenant support
•Collaborate to maximize impact
•Advocate for tenants and affordable housing
Housing SLC Plan Overview
Housing SLC Plan OverviewHousing SLC Plan Overview
Housing SLC Plan OverviewHousing SLC Plan Overview
Housing SLC Plan OverviewHousing SLC Plan Overview
STATE REQUIREMENTS
Requirements
•Must select at least five strategies (from 24)
•Must include at least six strategies to be eligible for
priority consideration for funds
•Must include strategy V
•Must include at least one of strategies G, H, or Q
•Include an implementation plan
Housing SLC Plan Overview
Housing SLC
✓Includes 18
✓Includes 18
✓Includes strategy V
✓Includes strategies G, H, & Q
✓Includes implementation plan
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TIMELINE
March 2, 2023
•All recognized community organizations sent the 45-day required notice. Other housing stakeholders and members of the community working group were sent 45-day notice.
March 3, 2023
•Announcement of draft plan and 45-day public comment period sent to individuals on Planning Division listserv.
March 2 –April 26, 2023
•Full draft plan and comment form available at www.slc.gov/housingslc. Social media posts, newsletter mailings, and printed fliers at 20 locations throughout the city.
March 8 and March 29, 2023
•Planning commission briefing and work session.
Housing SLC Plan Overview
March 22, March 23, April 5, 2023
•Presentations to two recognized community organizations and one City commission (by request from organizations).
April 14, 2023
•Tabling at Homeless Resource Fair.
April 18, 2023
•Tabling at City Council meeting at Fairpark.
April 20, 2023
•Presentation to Salt Lake Community Network.
April 26, 2023
•Planning Commission public hearing and positive recommendation.
PUBLIC COMMENT FEEDBACK
107 respondents to online comment
form
•59% of respondents identify as owners
Overall positive response to plan
•51% of respondents feel Housing SLC meets
needs of city very well or somewhat well
•~10% neutral responses
•Note: Over 6,000 people participated in plan
development
Themes included
•Desire for increased clarity
•Both support for and opposition to
more/affordable housing expressed
5 email responses received
•Three organizations
•Two individuals
General support for plan
•Two organizations pointed out omission of
physical accessibility
•Multiple comments on ADUs
1 comment at Planning Commission
hearing
•Felt that there were elements of the proposal
missing
Housing SLC Plan Overview
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENT
Where consistent themes emerged or comments expressed a particular
oversight in the original draft,changes were made in response.These
include:
•Addition of action items and language related to physical accessibility
•Comments from two partner organizations highlighted the need to address
physical accessibility, including aging in place, more directly
•Changes in language to improve clarity in the goals and how the
implementation plan addresses the goals
Housing SLC Plan Overview
RECOMMENDATION FROMPLANNINGCOMMISSION
Based on the information presented and discussion, I move that the Commission
recommend that the City Council adopt Housing SLC as the City’s five-year Moderate
Income Housing Plan and as the Moderate Income Housing Element of the City’s
General Plan.
Housing SLC Plan Overview
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Ruedigar Matthes
Policy and Program Manager //
Ruedigar.Matthes@slcgov.com
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(Adopting the Housing SLC moderate income housing plan)
An ordinance adopting the Housing SLC moderate income housing plan as part of Salt
Lake City’s general plan.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a hearing on April 26, 2023
on a petition to adopt Housing SLC to replace the expiring moderate income housing plan that is
part of Salt Lake City’s general plan required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a; and
WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has
determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Adopting the Housing SLC moderate income housing plan. That the
Housing SLC moderate income housing plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is adopted
as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan as required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. The
adoption of this housing plan serves to identify the goals and objectives identified within the
plan, all of which are subject to future budget appropriations.
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 ______________,
2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance adopting Housing SLC MIHP
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
May 23, 2023
EXHIBIT “A”
Housing SLC
moderate income housing plan
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 27, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Housing SLC Draft Plan
STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 801-718-7949,
blake.thomas@slcgov.com
Ruedigar Matthes, Policy & Program Manager, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-415-4701,
Ruedigar.Matthes@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt Housing SLC as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Housing SLC, a proposed new five-year housing plan, has
been drafted, undergone a 45-day public comment period, and received a positive
recommendation from Planning Commission at a public hearing dated April 26, 2023. The City’s
current housing plan, Growing SLC, expires at the end of the fiscal year, and a new housing plan
is needed to meet State code requirements and receive priority consideration for State funding
resources. Housing SLC includes the following three goals:
Goal 1: Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable
housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability.
Metrics:
1. Entitle 10,000 new housing units throughout the city.
a.Minimum 2,000 units deeply affordable (30% AMI or below).
b.Minimum 2,000 units affordable (31% - 80% AMI).
Goal 2: Increase housing stability throughout the city.
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 27, 2023 15:14 MDT)04/27/2023
04/27/2023
Metrics:
1. Track, analyze, and monitor factors that impact housing stability in the city.
2. Assist 10,000 low-income individuals annually through programs funded to increase
housing stability by the City.
3. Dedicate targeted funding to:
a. mitigate displacement;
b. serve renter households;
c. serve family households;
d. increase geographic equity; and
e. increase physical accessibility.
Goal 3: Increase opportunities for homeownership and other wealth and equity building
opportunities for low to moderate income households.
Metrics:
4. Provide affordable homeownership and wealth and equity building opportunities to 1,000
low-income households.
1. State Requirements
The state defines “moderate income housing” as “housing occupied or reserved for occupancy by
households with a gross household income equal to or less than 80% of the median gross income
for households of the same size in the county in which the city is located” (Utah State Code 10-
9a-103). State code section 10-9a-401 requires that municipalities include a moderate income
housing plan as part of the municipality’s general plan.
Utah State Code section 10-9a-403 outlines 24 moderate income housing strategies from which
municipalities can choose, requiring that municipalities with a fixed-guideway public transit
station select at least five strategies. Utah State Code section 10-91-408 states that a municipality
with a fixed-guideway public transit station must include at least six strategies to be eligible for
priority consideration for funding. Of the 24 strategies, Housing SLC addresses 18 strategies to
aid in accomplishing the three goals listed above. These 18 strategies are, in turn, supported by
47 action items that will be implemented over the next five years.
Additionally, Housing SLC includes an implementation plan (Chapter 7 of the Plan), as required
by Utah State Code Title 10-9a-403, to ensure that the City makes progress toward its goals over
the next five years. The implementation plan is ultimately the metric whereby the State
determines whether the City is making sufficient progress. Annual reporting to the State on the
implementation plan is due each year on August 1.
2. Plan Coordination
As part of the General Plan, the moderate income housing plan, Housing SLC, establishes the
City’s foundation for housing policy, program, and funding priorities for the next five years.
Housing SLC’s goals, strategies, and action items are supported by an analytical analysis of
current and future data predictors. The efforts to draft a new housing plan have overlapped
heavily with the Thriving in Place (TIP) efforts, as both have sought to facilitate community
driven processes regarding housing issues. It is the Administration’s intent to integrate the
policies identified through TIP into Housing SLC and include the entire TIP study, once adopted
by the City Council, as an addendum to the plan, providing a central location for all housing
related policies.
While TIP focuses on the effects of and mitigation strategies for displacement in the city, there is
substantial overlap with other housing policies, such as the production of new housing, the
preservation of existing housing, and the protection of tenants. The data collection, engagement,
and analysis performed through the TIP process elucidated issues related to housing in the city,
creating a foundation on which to develop a new housing plan that includes holistic policy,
program, and funding solutions to address the current housing affordability and displacement
crises.
3. Engagement Summary
A January briefing to the City Council included a full report of the efforts to hear from the public
regarding what should be included in both TIP and Housing SLC (Appendix C & D of Housing
SLC). These reports cover all efforts undertaken in 2022. Since that time, the Plan has undergone
a 45-day public comment period. The following is a list of public meetings that have been held,
and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the 45-day public
comment period commenced on March 2, 2023:
• March 2, 2023 – All recognized community organizations in the city were sent the 45-day
required notice. Other housing stakeholders and members of the community working group
were sent 45-day notice. Comments were received from three stakeholder organizations.
• March 3, 2023 – Announcement of draft plan and 45-day public comment period sent to
individuals on Planning Division listserv.
• March – April 2023 – A full draft of the plan was available for review at
www.slc.gov/housingslc along with a comment form. Social media posts, newsletter
mailings, and printed fliers at 20 locations throughout the city advertised the plan and the
comment period.
• March 8 and March 29, 2023 – Planning commission briefing and work session were held
to provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to offer feedback and to inform the
public on the plan.
• March 22, March 23, and April 5, 2023 – Presentations to two recognized community
organizations and one City commission (by request).
• April 14 – Tabling at Homeless Resource Fair.
• April 18 – Tabling at City Council meeting at Fairpark.
• April 20 – Presentation to Salt Lake Community Network.
• April 26 – Public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Since March 2, 107 respondents have submitted comments through the online form and five
comments were received through a dedicated email inbox. Based on the comments received, the
Administration amended the Plan to put more emphasis on physical accessibility and adjusted
language to lend clarity to the Plan, its goals, and its implementation.
4. Recommendation from Planning Commission
On April 26, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding the following
recommendation to the City Council:
Based on the information presented and discussion, I move that the Commission recommend that
the City Council adopt Housing SLC as the City’s five-year Moderate Income Housing Plan and
as the Moderate Income Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.
5. Proposed Next Steps and Timeline
May - June
City Council Public Hearing and Adoption
June
Housing SLC submitted to State by June 30, 2023.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Housing SLC Overview
Attachment 2 – Ordinance Adopting Housing SLC
Attachment 1
Housing SLC Overview
HOUSING SLC at a glance
Goal 1
Make progress toward closing the housing gap of
5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and
increase the supply of housing at all levels of
affordability.
Minimum 2,000 units deeply affordable (<30%
AMI)
Minimum 2,000 units affordable (31%-80%
AMI)
Metrics:
A. Entitle 10,000 new housing units throughout
the city.
1.
2.
Goal 2
Increase housing stability throughout the city.
mitigate displacement
serve renter households
serve family households
increase geographic equity
increase physical accessibility
Metrics:
A. Track, analyze, and monitor factors that
impact housing stability in the city.
B. Assist 10,000 low-income individuals annually
through programs funded to increase housing
stability by the City.
C. Dedicate targeted funding to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Goal 3
Increase opportunities for homeownership and
other wealth and equity building oportunities.
Metrics:
A. Provide affordable homeownership and
wealth and equity building opportunities to a
minimum of 1,000 low-income households.
Moderate Income Housing Strategies
(C) Demonstrate investment in the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable
housing stock into moderate income housing
(E) Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, internal or
detached accessory dwelling units in residential zones
(F) Zone or rezone for higher density or moderate income residential
development in commercial or mixed-use zones near transit investment
corridors, commercial centers, or employment centers
(G) Amend land use regulations to allow for higher density or new
moderate income residential development in commercial or mixed-use
zones near major transit investment corridors
(H) Amend land use regulations to eliminate or reduce parking
requirements for residential development where a resident is less likely to
rely on the resident's own vehicle, such as a residential development near
major transit investment corridors or senior living facilities
(I) Amend land use regulations to allow for single room occupancy
developments
(J) Implement zoning incentives for moderate income units in new
developments
(K) Preserve existing and new moderate income housing and subsidized
units by utilizing a landlord incentive program, providing for deed
restricted units through a grant program, or, notwithstanding Section 10-
9a-535, establishing a housing loss mitigation fund
(L) Reduce, wave, or eliminate impact fees related to moderate income
housing
(M) Demonstrate creation of, or participation in, a community land trust
program for moderate income housing
(O) Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal
funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of moderate income
housing, an entity that applies for programs offered by the Utah Housing
Corporation within that agency's funding capacity, an entity that applies
for affordable housing programs administered by the Department of
Workforce Services, an entity that applies for affordable housing
programs administered by an association of governments established by
an interlocal agreement under Title 11, Chapter 13, Interlocal Cooperation
Act, an entity that applies for services provided by a public housing
authority to preserve and create moderate income housing, or any other
entity that applies for programs or services that promote the construction
or preservation of moderate income housing
(P) Demonstrate utilization of a moderate income housing set aside from
a community reinvestment agency, redevelopment agency, or community
development and renewal agency to create or subsidize moderate
income housing
(Q) Create a housing and transit reinvestment zone pursuant to Title 63N,
Chapter 3, Part 6, Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act
(S) Create a program to transfer development rights for moderate income
housing
(U) Develop a moderate income housing project for residents who are
disabled or 55 years old or older
(V) Develop and adopt a station area plan in accordance with Section 10-
9a-403.1
(W) Create and allow for, and reduce regulations related to, multifamily
residential dwellings compatible in scale and form with detached single-
family residential dwellings and located in walkable communities within
residential or mixed-use zones
(X) Demonstrate implementation of any other program or strategy to
address the housing needs of residents of the municipality who earn less
than 80% of the area median income, including the dedication of a local
funding source to moderate income housing or the adoption of a land use
ordinance that requires 10% or more of new residential development in a
residential zone be dedicated to moderate income housing
Strategies addressed in Housing SLC are listed below. State Code requires that the City select
a minimum of six strategies, including strategy V and at least one of strategies G, H, or Q.
By the Numbers
3 goals supported by
18 moderate income housing strategies &
47 action items over
5 years
Guiding Framework
Preserve affordable housing
Protect tenants
Produce new affordable housing
Expand capacity for tenant support
Collaborate to maximize impact
Advocate for tenants and affordable housing
Action Items
Increase funding for acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of affordable housing | 1
Incentivize the purchase and conversion of hotels, motels, and other buildings to deed-restricted deeply affordable
and transitional housing | 1
Adopt an adaptive reuse ordinance to facilitate the conversion of historic buildings into housing | 1
Adopt revised Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) ordinance to make the development of ADUs easier and more
widespread throughout the city | 1
Make it easier to build tiny homes as a form of deeply affordable/transitional housing through zoning, funding, and
streamlined plan and design review | 1
Develop a library of pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Unit plans that residents can access | 1
Facilitate the completion of phase one of the Other Side Village pilot program | 1
Incentivize deed-restricted affordable Accessory Dwelling Units across the city with a focus on areas of high
opportunity | 1
Continue increasing density limits in areas next to or near major transit investment corridors, commercial centers, or
employment centers and where high density development is compatible with adjacent land uses | 1
Increase building height limits in compatible areas of the city | 1
Implement parking reduction ordinance | 1
Implement shared housing ordinance | 1, 2
Adopt and implement the Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance | 1, 2
Support projects that allow tenants to build wealth and/or gain equity in their building based on tenure | 3
Provide $6 million in grant funding to develop interim or permanent supportive housing projects to expand housing
solutions for persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness | 1, 2
Continue to reduce and waive impact fees on eligible projects | 1
Continue to manage and expand City's Community Land Trust (CLT) program | 3
Explore the feasibility of issuing home equity conversion mortgages to existing homeowners in return for a deed
restriction, possibly through the City's Homebuyer Program | 2, 3
Work with community development partners to acquire priority properties for permanently affordable housing | 3
Continue to partner with entities that apply for state and/or federal funds to preserve and create low to moderate
income housing through annual funding opportunities, including opportunities for home repairs, accessibility
improvements, and other programs | 1, 2
Continue to release housing funds through Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) Notices of Funding
Availability (NOFA) | 1, 3
Utilize Inland Port Housing Funds (pursuant to Utah Code Section 11-58-601(6)(b) of the Inland Port Act) and other
housing set-aside funds received by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to expand affordable housing options,
including tenant equity opportunities throughout the city, especially on the west side | 1, 3
Develop a financing program for low-income homeowner Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) construction | 1
Promote the development of affordable family-sized housing units with 3+ bedrooms | 1, 2
Strategy C
Strategy E
Strategy F
Strategy G
Strategy H
Strategy I
Strategy J
Strategy K
Strategy L
Strategy M
Strategy O
Strategy P
Establish at least one housing and transit reinvestment zone (HTRZ) in the city | 1
Explore the feasibility of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to allow property owners to transfer
development capacity to other areas of the city in exchange for the preservation of existing affordable housing | 1, 2
As part of the $6 million in grant funding awarded in 2022, Switchpoint was awarded funds to develop a deeply
affordable housing project for seniors | 1, 2
Certify all Station Area Plans (SAPs) within the city, as required by State Code Section 10-9a-403.1 | 1
Adopt and implement Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance | 1, 2
Expand workforce, artist, and essential worker housing, up to 125% AMI, so that these populations can live in the city
in which they serve | 1, 2
Develop electric car-share and/or e-bike -share pilot program(s) co-located with affordable housing | 2
Establish a Community/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase policy at the City level, which could include technical
assistance, funding opportunities, and other services and resources that would give existing tenants, the
community, or the City/Redevelopment Agency (RDA) the opportunity to purchase before a property goes to
market | 2, 3
Host regular tenant education events | 2
Support community and grassroots organizations that provide displacement assistance, tenant organizing, tenant
mutual aid, legal services, and other resources/efforts that help tenants | 2
Develop a tenant advocate pilot program to help tenants understand their legal obligations and rights, inspect units,
and connect with other resources | 2
Provide funding for programs and/or initiatives that build wealth and/or provide equity sharing opportunities for
residents | 1, 2, 3
Develop a Relocation Assistance Fund for Tenants to help those impacted by new development find and afford
living situations that meet their needs | 2
Adopt a Displaced Tenants Preference policy so that lower income tenants displaced due to new development
or rising rents are given priority for moving into deed-restricted units created on the site or within the area
from which they were displaced | 2
Adopt a Community Benefit Policy to prioritize the preservation or replacement of affordable housing as a
condition of approval for changes to zoning and master plans | 1, 2
Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services, and landlord training to better meet the level of need
and protect tenant rights | 2
Define indicators to track displacement and develop systems to track progress to better know where and how the
City's anti-displacement policies and actions are working | 2
Form a City Implementation Team to oversee and coordinate implementation of the actions in this plan and the
priority actions in the Thriving in Place strategy, monitor progress, engage partners, and identify needed updates and
next steps | 1, 2, 3
Convene a Regional Anti-Displacement Coalition to provide an ongoing platform for cross agency and cross-sector
discussion and collaboration on priority actions, tracking progress, collective problem solving, and responding to
emerging issues and challenges | 2
Continue supporting and expand funding for homeless street outreach programs that connect individuals
experiencing homelessness with critical resources and housing | 2
Convene a physical accessibility working group of internal and external stakeholders | 2
Create a public facing rental database that includes information on accessibility, rent amounts, unit conditions, etc. | 2
Continue to use federal funding for home repair and modification programs that increase accessibility and allow
individuals to age in place | 2
Strategy Q
Strategy S
Strategy U
Strategy V
Strategy W
Strategy X
Goals addressed by the action item appear after description (e.g. | 1, 2, 3)
Bolded items are near-term actions that will be submitted to Council for action
Attachment 2
Ordinance Adopting Housing SLC
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(Adopting the Housing SLC moderate income housing plan)
An ordinance adopting the Housing SLC moderate income housing plan as part of Salt
Lake City’s general plan.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a hearing on April 26, 2023
on a petition to adopt Housing SLC to replace the expiring moderate income housing plan that is
part of Salt Lake City’s general plan required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a; and
WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has
determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Adopting the Housing SLC moderate income housing plan. That the
Housing SLC moderate income housing plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is adopted
as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan as required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a.
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 ______________,
2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance adopting Housing SLC MIHP
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
April 27, 2023
EXHIBIT “A”
Housing SLC
moderate income housing plan
HOUSING SLC
2023-2027
The Department of Community
and Neighborhoods
451 S. State Street, Room 425
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
P.O. Box 145480
www.slc.gov/can
Housing SLC Contents
Chapter 1
Executive Summary
p3
Chapter 4
State & Federal Requirements
p27
Chapter 2
Existing Conditions
p8
Chapter 3
Constraints
p24
Chapter 7
Implementation Plan
p38
Chapter 8
Conclusion
p54
Chapter 9
References
p55
Chapter 5
Thriving in Place
p32
Chapter 6
Goals & Strategies for Action
p35
AMI Area Median Income
CAN Salt Lake City Department of Community
& Neighborhoods
HSD Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division
HUD US Department of Housing &
Urban Development
MIHP Moderate Income Housing Plan
NOAH Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
RDA Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
TIP Thriving in Place
USCB United States Census Bureau
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan 1
Executive Summary
The current housing crisis demands a bold response. This plan, Housing
SLC: 2023-2027 (the “Plan” or “Housing SLC”) envisions a more affordable
city for everyone and prioritizes individuals and households who face the
greatest risk of housing insecurity, displacement, and homelessness.
Housing SLC updates the previous Housing Element of the Salt Lake City
General Plan, Growing SLC: 2018-2022, while making changes to reflect
evolving needs, priorities, resources, and conditions in the city. It also
fulfills the Utah State Moderate Income Housing Plan mandate,
expanding on the State’s basic requirements to promote a city where
housing is ample and affordable, tenants are protected, and historic
patterns of segregation and discrimination are reversed.
The Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) led the effort
to coordinate the Plan; however, many City departments have an
essential role in furthering housing and neighborhood development
goals in Salt Lake City. It requires a network of partners to alleviate
housing instability and create sustainable, mixed-use, mixed-income
neighborhoods with access to jobs, transit, greenspace, and basic
amenities. While these multisector efforts are incorporated into Housing
SLC, government resources and programs alone cannot adequately
address the housing crisis.
Salt Lake City has a strong network of innovative market-rate
developers as well as organizations that are deeply committed to
affordable housing, including nonprofit agencies, mission-driven
developers, community groups, financial institutions, and philanthropic
foundations. This Plan is intended to expand and deepen the City’s
coordination and collaboration with these organizations. Together we
will foster ongoing partnerships to build a more affordable, resilient,
and equitable city for all.
Note: The State of Utah defines “moderate income” housing as housing affordable to
households earning 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or less. This Plan uses
“Affordable” and “Moderate Income” housing interchangeably.
Chapter 1:
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan2 3
Looking Back:
Growing SLC
For the past five years, the City’s efforts on housing were guided by Growing SLC.
The goals included in Growing SLC were:
• Increase Housing Options: Reform City practices to promote a
responsive, affordable, high-opportunity market;
• Affordable Housing: Increase housing opportunities and stability for
cost-burdened households; and
• Equitable & Fair Housing: Build a more equitable city.
A suite of 27 strategies supported these goals, and over the course of the last five
years, all strategies were addressed. In response to legislative changes in 2022,
the City created an implementation plan to make additional progress toward
12 Growing SLC strategies that correspond to strategies outlined in Utah
Code 10-9a-403. The implementation plan covered the final months of Growing
SLC and will be replaced by this plan beginning in July 2023.
Housing SLC expands on previous work with an eye toward creating a city where
everyone belongs and can live affordably. To that end, many strategies included in
Growing SLC are carried forward into Housing SLC. These include zoning changes
to increase housing stock, providing services to vulnerable households, and
growing the City’s community land trust, among others.
Key Findings
Over the course of 2022, Salt Lake City engaged the public and collected both
quantitative and qualitative data for analysis. Six key findings emerged that will
guide the City’s efforts over the course of this Plan. The key findings are:
1. Rental vacancy rates are low and home sale prices are unaffordable
to most residents, putting strain on existing rental housing and
causing rents to rise dramatically.
2. Despite a housing construction boom, housing prices suggest a
shortage of housing supply overall, but especially housing that is
deeply affordable (affordable to renters earning 30% of AMI or less),
with demand for housing outpacing supply.
3. Salt Lake City is majority renter, and half of all renters are cost
burdened, spending more than 30 percent of their income on
housing costs. Residents are concerned about renter’s rights and
resources.
4. According to a survey of city residents, affordable housing and
behavioral health services are preferred over additional
emergency shelters and homeless resource centers as solutions for
homelessness.
5. There is a mismatch between the types of housing the market is
producing and the needs of the community. Residents perceive
that most new housing is “luxury” while many desire more
affordability throughout the city. Additionally, residents want more
“missing middle” housing and more family-sized housing.
6. Wages have not kept pace with cost of living, especially housing-
related costs, and residents are feeling increased stress about
everyday expenses.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan4 5
GOAL 1
Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500
units of deeply affordable housing and increase
the supply of housing at all levels of affordability.
Metrics: A Entitle 10,000 new housing units throughout the city.
1. Minimum 2,000 units deeply affordable (30% AMI or below)
2. Minimum 2,000 units affordable (31% - 80% AMI)
GOAL 2
Increase housing stability throughout the city.
Metrics: A Track, analyze, and monitor factors that impact housing
stability in the city.
B Assist 10,000 low-income individuals annually through programs funded
to increase housing stability by the City.
C Dedicate targeted funding to:
1. mitigate displacement
2. serve renter households
3. serve family households
4. increase geographic equity
5. increase physical accessibility
GOAL 3
Increase opportunities for homeownership and other
wealth and equity building opportunities.
Metrics: A Provide affordable homeownership and wealth and equity building
opportunities to a minimum of 1,000 low-income households.
Goals
From these key findings, the City developed three goals, each of which is
supported by a series of action items, and which, as accomplished, will
help alleviate the current crisis in housing affordability.
The pages that follow discuss the context from which these goals
emerged and detail the strategies and actions to accomplish them,
descriptions of which can be found in Appendix A. Additionally, an
implementation plan is included to ensure accountability and
transparency in accomplishing the goals and strategies outlined.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan6 7
The data analysis is a congregate of U.S. Census Bureau
(UCSB), Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, and metrics
collected by the City. Multiple data sources are
aggregated to tell a comprehensive story of the housing
needs and market in Salt Lake City. A full discussion of
the findings can be found in Appendix B.
HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Salt Lake City is growing. Over the decade between 2010
and 2020, Salt Lake City’s population increased by 7.1
percent, from 186,440 to 199,723 residents. This growth was
almost solely attributable to adult in-migration (Kem C.
Gardner Policy Institute, 2022, p. 3). This increase in
population was significantly larger than the population
increase between 2000 and 2010 (2.6 percent)
(USCB, 2001, 2011, 2021a).
Over the course of 2022, Salt Lake City engaged
the public and collected both quantitative and
qualitative data for analysis. The data collected
presents a story of existing conditions within
the city and points to areas where the City can
take action in order to help alleviate the crisis
in affordability.
Chapter 2:Existing Conditions
Looking to the future, a linear model of population growth suggests that
Salt Lake City is projected to gain over 6,000 new residents in the next five years
See Appendix X, p.X. With an average household size of just over two people
(USCB, 2022a), roughly 3,000 new housing units will be needed to accommodate
this growth.
Population and Projected Population, Salt Lake City, UT, 2000-2030
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, 2020 Decennial Census, American Community Survey (ACS)
1-year estimates, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division
2000
181,743
2005
182,670
2010
186,440
2015
192,660
2020
199,723
2025
205,306
2030
211,510
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Population Projection
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, 2020 Decennial Census, American Community
Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates, HSD
Population by Age Cohort, 2021
Salt Lake City Utah
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
0%2%4%6%
Male
0%2%4%6%
Male
0%2%4%6%
Female
0%2%4%6%
Female
85+
80 to 84
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan8 9
Salt Lake City has a declining proportion of family households, decreasing from 56
percent in 2000 to 43 percent in 2021 (USCB, 2001, 2022). Among regional peer cities,
Salt Lake City has the lowest percentage of family-sized housing units (3+ bedrooms)
with only 41 percent of all units. For comparison, the Salt Lake City Metro has 67
percent of its housing units sized for families, and Boise (first among peer cities) has
61 percent of its housing sized for families. Additionally, Salt Lake City’s percentage of
households with children under 18 years of age is 17.8 percent (USCB, 2022a).
Most of these new units are rental housing, which has caused a shift in household
tenure over the last two decades. In 2000, 49 percent of households rented
(USCB, 2001). By 2010, that number had shifted to 52 percent (USCB, 2011). That
proportion has held steady through 2021, but with for-rent developments outpacing
for-sale developments significantly, the trend is toward an increasing share of
renter households.
While the first half of the 2010s saw slow residential construction as society
emerged from the Great Recession, construction of new housing has seen a
dramatic uptick since 2017, with 10,135 new housing units receiving a Certificate of
Occupancy between January 2017 and November 2022, compared with 3,807 new
units from January 2010 to December 2016. Between 2017 and 2022, the average
number of new units coming online each year approached 1,700 units. This increase
in construction was a response to demand and was facilitated by zoning changes
that allowed more units to be built.
Average Household Size, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
2.81
2.56 2.56
2.37 2.36
2.19 2.17 2.14
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Salt Lake
Metro
Las Vegas Sacramento Reno Boise Portland Salt Lake
City
Denver
Average Household Size
Family Sized Units v. Family Households, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
67%
61%61%60%
54%52%
46%
41%41%
67%
59%61%
57%
57%55%
48%
47%43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
M
e
t
r
o
Bo
i
s
e
La
s
V
e
g
a
s
Alb
u
q
u
e
r
q
u
e
Sa
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
Re
n
o
Po
r
t
l
a
n
d
De
n
v
e
r
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
% 3 or more bedrooms % Family Households
Number of Housing Units in Buildings that Received Certificate of
Occupancy, Salt Lake City, UT, 2010-2022
Source: Salt Lake City Building Services Division
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Source: Salt Lake City Building Services Division
Household Tenure, 2000-2021
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake City
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake County
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan10 11
In 2021, 29% of housing units were mid-to high rise apartments, second highest
among peer cities in the region, with that percentage likely to increase based on
current construction trends.
Salt Lake City is at the forefront of multi-family housing construction in the state,
with nearly half (43 percent) of all apartment units along the Wasatch Front
receiving building permits located in Salt Lake City (13,400 units), and 24 percent of
all permits located in the Downtown area (7,500 units) (Eskic, 2022a, p. 6). Over half
(54 percent) of all apartment units in Salt Lake County under construction are in
Salt Lake City (Eskic, 2022a, p. 1).
The construction of multifamily housing is limited to certain areas of the city,
however. Large swaths of the city are undevelopable due to sensitive ecology
including wetlands and foothills or proximity to the Salt Lake City International
Airport, and over one third of the land zoned for residential use is limited to single-
family developments. Most of the City’s developable land is already built out. This
scarcity has increased land values in areas where high density is allowed (near the
Downtown core, for instance), making it difficult for private, for-profit developers to
build affordable housing.
Despite this tremendous increase in new housing
construction, Salt Lake City is still experiencing a
shortage of housing, especially housing that is
affordable. An analysis of Census data from the
2021 American Community Survey shows Salt
Lake City has a shortage of 5,507 units that are
affordable to households earning less than 30
percent of the area median income (AMI). This is
a significant gap, or mismatch, between housing
cost and household incomes, and leads many
people to be cost-burdened.
Cost burden is defined as a
household spending more than 30
percent of their income on housing
costs (rent, utilities, etc.). Severe
cost burden is when a household
spends more than 50 percent
of their income on housing costs.
Housing Units by Building Type, 2021
33%
29%
23%
14%13%12%11%10%8%
24%24%23%
32%
24%24%26%
28%26%
43%
47%
54%54%
63%64%63%62%
66%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Denver Salt Lake City Portland Reno Salt Lake
Metro
Albuquerque Sacramento Las Vegas Boise
% Mid- to High-Rise Apartments % Middle Housing % Single Family, Detached
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, HSD
Residential Zoning in Salt Lake City
Source: Salt Lake City Planning Division
Note: Foothills Protection District has a 16-acre minimum lot size for single-family housing
Nonresidential
Foothill Protection District
Single-Family Permitted
Multi-Familt Permitted
City Boundary
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan12 13
In 2021, nearly 24,000 renter households, roughly half of the 47,158 renter households
in Salt Lake City, were cost-burdened (USCB, 2022a).
Many of these cost-burdened households have extremely low incomes (30 percent
AMI or below). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
estimates that from 2015-2019 nearly half of cost-burdened renters in Salt Lake City
had extremely low incomes (2022).
Additionally, housing price increases have outpaced wage growth since 2005.
While median wages increased 19 percent and median household income
increased 29 percent between 2005 and 2021, median rent increased by 38 percent
and median home values increased 83 percent (when adjusted for inflation)
during the same period. It is also important to note that the minimum wage ($7.25/
hour) has not increased since 2009, meaning that for individuals and households
on the low end of the earning scale, housing costs are untenable.
Surplus/Deficit of Rental Units by Income Range, Salt Lake City, UT, 2021
!
!
-5507
9325
4739
-1119 -1946
-5493
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Unit Gap
< 30 %
30 % -50 %> 125 %
50 % -80 %
80 %-100 %
100 % -125 %
| Marign of Error at 90% Confidence
!
!
Income Range Maximum Affordable!
Monthly Rent
Households in
Income Range
Rental Units
at that Price
Surplus/
Deficit of Units
Less than 30% AMI
($27,870) $697 13,860 8,353 -5,507
30%-50% AMI
($27,870-$46,450) $1,161 8,803 18,128 9,325
50%-80% AMI
($46,450-$74,320) $1,858 10,338 15,078 4,739
80%-100% AMI
($74,320-$92,900) $2,323 4,755 3,637 -1,119
100%-125% AMI
($92,900-$116,125) $2,903 3,318 1,372 -1,946
125% AMI
(> $116,125) > $ 2,903 6,084 591 -5,493
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, HUD 2021 Annual Income Limits for Salt Lake City, UT
MSA, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division
!
!
!
!
!
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, HUD 2021 Annual Income Limits for Salt Lake
City, UT MSA, HSD
Cost-Burdened Renter Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates
Note: 1-year estimates were not published in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
Cost Burdened Renter Household Percent Cost Burdened Renter Households
Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates
Note: 1-year estimates were not published in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic
Households by Income by Cost Burden, Salt Lake City, UT, 2015-2019
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019 5-year estimates
6,645
1,430
290
8,365
1,600
4,110
2,065
400
170
8,345
1,900
2,145
6,070
4,235
9,020
23,370
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Less than 30%
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-100%
More than 100%
Total
Severely Cost Burdened Cost Burdened Unburdened
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019
5-year estimates
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan14 15
Between 2020 and 2022 alone, monthly rents in Salt Lake
County increased by an average of $321 dollars (all unit
types), nearly as much as increases over the preceding
two decades combined (2000-2020, $409) (Eskic, 2022a,
p. 1). These increases (11 percent annually) in for-rent
housing are due, in-part, to the fact that as of spring 2022,
71 percent of Utah households were priced out of the
median-priced home, shrinking the opportunity for
homeownership (Eskic, 2022a, p. 1). Coupled with the
federal interest rate increases, most for-sale homes are
out of reach for most households, increasing demand for
rental housing.
Collectively, the data present a story of housing in Salt
Lake City and, when combined with the stories heard
throughout the engagement period, lead to key findings
that inform the goals and action items outlined in this Plan.
It is important to note that Salt Lake City is not alone in its
experience. While the data analyzed here are specific to
Salt Lake City, housing shortages and rapid price
increases are affecting the entire Wasatch Front. Creating
a more affordable housing system will require
government intervention, including subsidies, land-use
policies, and regional collaboration. The crisis we are
currently facing has been decades in the making and
extends beyond the municipal boundaries of the city,
reaching across the county, the state, and the nation. It
will take collaboration across governmental, non-profit,
community, and private partners to work through this
housing crisis.
Engagement Summary
Throughout 2022 Salt Lake City staff and consultants
sought feedback from residents on their experiences with
housing in Salt Lake City. Through surveys, focus groups,
in-person events, and stakeholder meetings (among
other methods), Salt Lake City heard from over 6,500
people. This engagement was divided between Thriving in
Place (TIP) efforts (Appendix C) and engagement specific
to Housing SLC (Appendix D) with some efforts also
supporting an update to the City’s Consolidated Plan for
funds from the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
We heard from residents with a wide range of
backgrounds and in various life circumstances, through
surveys, focus groups, in-depth interviews, workshops, and
pop-up and other events. For a full discussion of
engagement see Appendix C & D.
Net Percent Change in Income & Housing Costs from 2005 Baseline,
Salt Lake City, UT
Source: USCB, 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division
-15%
5%
19%
-3%
8%
29%
7%
12%
38%
21%
20%
83%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2010 2015 2021
Median Earnings Median Household Income Median Rent Median Home Value
Source: USCB, 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division
-15%
5%
19%
-3%
8%
29%
7%
12%
38%
21%
20%
83%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2010 2015 2021
Median Earnings Median Household Income Median Rent Median Home Value
Source: USCB, 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, HSD
6,893
People
(Total)5,981
Surveys
Paper & Online
912
In-Person
Engagement
Engagement Participation Summary
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan16 17
Main Themes
Affordable Housing
Homelessness
Tenant rights and protection Rent control
Eviction protections
Ownership opportunities
Rental assistance Help for at-risk populations
More housing options Family housing
Frequent Themes from Engagement:
Survey Response
Yes
No
No
Yes
New
Affordable
Housing Other
1 Lack of Affordable Housing
contributes to gentrification and
displacement: 74.6% Yes 26.4% No
2 What Neighborhood improvements
would you like to see? 61.5% New
Affordable Housing, 38.5% Other
3 Concerned about Gentrification and
displacement 93% yes and 7%no
1
2
3
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan18 19
Participants also expressed the desire for increased opportunities for ownership,
which seems increasingly out of reach for many.
While housing was the key focus of all engagement, respondents to surveys, focus
groups, and other in-person engagement opportunities discussed housing-
adjacent topics as well, including desires for increased community belonging and
greater affordability in all aspects of life. See Appendix Y for a full discussion of
responses and non-housing themes.
Across the board more affordable housing was seen as a particular need
and a priority.
This emphasis carried beyond selection choices and into open-ended comments
and in-person engagement. In these forums, respondents expressed a need for
affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents, especially families,
seniors, and students, expressing concern that there is simply not enough
affordable housing available for low to moderate income people. Many
respondents also voiced concern that much of the recent development in the
city appears to not meet the needs of existing residents. Rather than perceived
“luxury” units, respondents wanted affordable housing co-located with other
amenities, especially public transit. They also expressed a desire for increased
ownership opportunities and housing choice.
During multiple in-person engagement events, participants were asked to
select where in the city they would like to see various amenities. An analysis of
the data points show that people want affordable housing throughout the city,
including in their neighborhoods. At these in-person events as well as focus
groups, participants often expressed questions such as, “do you know of any
affordable places to rent?” or “do you know where I can look to find affordable
housing?”, suggesting that residents are unable to find affordable housing that
meets their needs.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Response Options
Total Precentage
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Response Options
Total Precentage
Which of the following Housing services should be Salt Lake City’s top priority?
1 New affordable housing for low-income individuals
2 Housing for people experiencing homelessness
3 Access to home ownership
4 Preserve existing affordable housing
5 Renter protections, programs, and services
6 Rent and utility assistance
7 Housing support for seniors
8 Housing repair programs
1 Would Like to own a home but unable to afford 38.5%
2 City Should Prioritize Programs Providing Access to homeownership 40%
38.5%
40%
Programs for
Homeowership
Unable to Afford
38.5%
Unable to Afford
40%
Programs for
Homeowership
1 2
Respondents want affordable housing throughout the City
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan20 21
Key Findings
From this data emerged six key findings that will guide the City’s efforts over the
course of this Plan. The key findings are:
1. Rental vacancy rates are low and home sale prices are unaffordable
to most residents, putting strain on existing rental housing and
causing rents to rise dramatically. At the end of 2021, rental
vacancy rates were as low as 2.5 percent (USCB, 2022b). While
vacancy rates increased to 4.6% (July-September 2022) (USCB,
2022b), the low rates have caused upward pressure on rents.
Between 2020 and 2022, median rents increased 11 percent annually,
leading to an average increase of $321 per month ($3,852 annually)
in Salt Lake County (Eskic, 2022a, p. 1). With median home sale prices
at $490,000 (2021), 72 percent of Salt Lake City households are
unable to afford to purchase a home in the City, resulting in more
people renting (HSD, 2022, p. 25).
2. Despite a housing construction boom, housing prices suggest a
shortage of housing supply overall, but especially housing that is
deeply affordable (affordable to renters earning 30% of area
median income (AMI) or less), with demand for housing outpacing
supply. Since 2017, 10,135 units have become available to rent in Salt
Lake City. However, there are severe shortages of housing
affordable to households earning more than 80 percent AMI and
households earning less than 30 percent AMI (8,557 units short and
5,507 units short, respectively) (HSD, 2022, p. 23).
3. Salt Lake City is majority renter, and half of all renters are cost
burdened, spending more than 30 percent of their income
on housing costs (USCB, 2022a). Residents are concerned that there
are few rights for and resources available to renters. Around 52
percent of all households in Salt Lake City rent (USCB, 2022a), and
this number is likely to increase over time as more for-rent
housing is built in the city. In 2021, nearly 24,000 renter households,
half of all renters, were cost burdened, with estimates that nearly
50 percent of cost-burdened renters have extremely low incomes
(HSD, 2022, p. 24).
4. According to a survey of city residents, affordable housing and
behavioral health services is preferred over additional emergency
shelters and homeless resource centers as solutions for
homelessness. Two-thirds of survey respondents selected housing
for homeless individuals in their top three homeless services
priorities, while only 41 percent (fourth out of six options) selected
homeless resource centers and emergency shelters on
the same question.
5. There is a mismatch between the types of housing the market is
producing and the needs of the community.Residents perceive
that most new housing is “luxury” while many desire more
affordability throughout the city. Additionally, residents want more
“missing middle” housing and more family-sized housing. When
asked where they would like to see more affordable housing built,
respondents expressed desires to have affordability throughout the
city. Additionally, 62 percent of survey respondents selected
creating new affordable housing for low-income residents as one of
their top three housing priorities and 55 percent selected housing
for individuals experiencing homelessness in their top three housing
priorities. At each point of engagement (survey, in-person, Reddit
AMA, focus groups, etc.) residents expressed concern that “all” new
developments were luxury housing, with many wondering where
they can find affordable housing and who the new housing is for.
6. Wages have not kept pace with cost of living, especially
housing-related costs, and residents are feeling increased stress
about everyday expenses. Between 2005 and 2021, median wages
increased by 19 percent and median household income increased
by 29 percent (HSD, 2022, p. 18). During that same period, median
rent increased by 38 percent and median home values increased
by 83 percent (all values adjusted for inflation) (HSD, 2022, p. 18).
The minimum wage ($7.25/hour) has not increased since 2009. In
survey responses, residents prioritized affordable and healthy food,
affordable medical and dental clinics, and affordable childcare in
their community at much higher rates than recreational and
community amenities, and they selected free transit over road
safety and better/more biking and walking paths. Taken together,
these responses demonstrate a strong desire for increased
affordability for everyday expenses.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan22 23
Along with strategies for action and principles to guide such strategies, it
is important to understand constraints. Listed below are constraints the
City currently faces in addressing the housing affordability crisis. These
constraints may change over the course of the next five years, or the
duration of this Plan.
Chapter 3:Constraints
A RENT CONTROL
Cities in Utah are prevented from enacting rent
control ordinances by Utah State Code 57-20-1.
B EVICTION & OTHER LANDLORD TENANT LAWS
Laws governing evictions and other tenant protections
are set at the state level. Cities can provide resources
and incentivize voluntary landlord actions but are
limited in the mandatory requirements that landlords
must meet. Landlord-Tenant laws are scattered
throughout Utah State Code, including Title 57 and
Chapter 78B-6, Parts 8 & 8A.
C INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Cities in Utah are prevented from enacting mandatory
inclusionary zoning ordinances by Utah State Code
10-9a-535. Inclusionary zoning is a policy tool that
requires the inclusion of affordable units (or payment
toward the creation of those units elsewhere) into new
developments. Cities are allowed to enter voluntary
agreements with developers.
D FUNDING
Building housing and keeping people housed is
expensive. The City has a limited budget, which is used
to run a number of programs and services. Finding
ways to increase the funding for housing is part of the
strategy for this Plan.
E MARKET CONDITIONS
The current housing affordability crisis is larger than
Salt Lake City. It extends along the Wasatch Front and
throughout the state and nation. Variables such as
federal interest rates, local unemployment rates, and
state and local laws and regulations all impact the
market conditions for housing. Efforts made in Salt
Lake City are crucial and will make housing more
stable and affordable for many, but they are not
sufficient to end the crisis completely. Because
housing markets extend beyond municipal
boundaries, we need efforts across jurisdictions to
address the issues.
F DEVELOPABLE LAND
Salt Lake City has limited buildable land. Some of the
land on the western end of the city boundaries is
wetland and/or is limited in the type of building that
can occur due to Federal Aviation Administration
regulations. Most other areas of the city are already
built out or are zoned for single family housing.
Finding ways to increase density and allow for more
housing in the existing built environment are included
in the strategies.
G SHORT-TERM RENTAL ENFORCEMENT
Short-term rentals are a small, but important,
consideration. Companies such as Companies such
as Airbnb and VRBO create a platform that facilitates
the conversion of usable housing into short-term
vacation rentals. While Salt Lake City does not deal
with as many vacation rental issues as resort towns
like Moab or Park City, there are still 1,358 short-term
rental units in Salt Lake City that could otherwise be
used as housing for people in need (Gardner Policy
Institute, 2022 (STR), p4). Cities in Utah are limited in
their ability to enforce on non-compliant short-term
rentals by Utah State Code 10-8-85.4.
H SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
A growing population and an increase in multifamily
housing creates additional pressures and challenges
on water resources and the infrastructure system.
As the city continues to grow, continued commitment
to maintaining and building resiliency in our critical
infrastructure will be required to meet the challenges
that we face in order to protect and sustain our
vital water resources for both residential and
commercial customers.
Salt Lake City also faces significant air quality
challenges that have the potential to be exacerbated
by a growing population as transportation- and
housing- related emissions increase. Mitigating the
potential negative consequences of population
growth on our air quality will require smart policies
and programs that improve efficiencies. Salt Lake City
is committed to protecting the public health and
safety of its residents, including ensuring access to
clean air, clean water, and a livable environment.
I EXPIRATION OF RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS
When affordable housing developments are built, they
are often associated with a deed restriction requiring
the housing unit to remain affordable at an
established income level for a set duration. These
range from 15-65 years, typically. When units sunset
out of their deed restriction, they can transition to
market-rate rents unless new agreements are
arranged. This can be expensive to maintain and
poses a threat to long-term affordability.
J PRESERVATION OF AT-RISK UNITS
Naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) is
housing that is affordable without government
restriction or subsidy. This is likely to be older housing
that has not been updated and may lack the
amenities included in newer housing developments. In
a hot market, however, NOAH is at risk of being lost
due to market-induced rent rises, renovations that
lead to rent rises, sale of properties, or redevelopment.
K EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Land prices vary throughout the city, which makes
building housing more affordable in certain areas of
the city than in others. This is due, in part, to historic
redlining practices that were discriminatory and
impacted land values. Historic and current zoning also
contributes to variable land values, which makes
building affordable housing more expensive and more
difficult in certain areas of the city. While equitable
distribution of affordable housing is a long-term
goal of the city, overcoming barriers is difficult and
takes time.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan24 25
UTAH STATE REQUIREMENTS
During the 2023 legislative session, the legislature passed HB 364 - Housing
Affordability Amendments, which outlined Moderate Income Housing Plan (MIHP)
requirements. These requirements include selecting from a list of strategies
outlined in state code.
Below are the strategies that municipalities may select for inclusion in their MIHP. As
a municipality with a fixed guideway public transit station, the City is required to
select at least five of the strategies below, including strategy V and at least one of
G, H, or Q. To be eligible for priority consideration for state funding, the City must
select at least six strategies.
Chapter 4:State and Federal Requirements
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan26 27
Moderate Income Housing Strategies
(The strategies the City has selected for implementation in Housing SLC)
Salt Lake City is required to select at least four of the strategies below, including strategy V and at least one of G, H, or Q
SELECTED CATEGORY HOUSING STRATEGY
A Rezone for densities necessary to facilitate the production of moderate income housing;
B Demonstrate investment in the rehabilitation or expansion of infrastructure that
facilitates the construction of moderate income housing;
Yes C Demonstrate investment in the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable housing stock into
moderate income housing;
D
Identify and utilize general fund subsidies or other sources of revenue to waive construction
related fees that are otherwise generally imposed by the municipality for the construction or
rehabilitation of moderate income housing;
Yes E Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, internal or detached accessory
dwelling units in residential zones;
Yes F
Zone or rezone for higher density or moderate income residential development in
commercial or mixed-use zones near major transit investment corridors, commercial
centers, or employment centers;
Yes G Amend land use regulations to allow for higher density or new moderate income residential
development in commercial or mixed-use zones near major transit investment corridors;
Yes H
Amend land use regulations to eliminate or reduce parking requirements for residential
development where a resident is less likely to rely on the resident’s own vehicle, such as
residential development near major transit investment corridors or senior living facilities;
Yes I Amend land use regulations to allow for single room occupancy developments;
Yes J Implement zoning incentives for moderate income units in new developments;
Yes K
Preserve existing and new moderate income housing and subsidized units by utilizing a
landlord incentive program, providing for deed restricted units through a grant program, or
establishing a housing loss mitigation fund;
Yes l Reduce, waive, or eliminate impact fees related to moderate income housing;
Yes M Demonstrate creation of, or participation in, a community land trust program moderate
income housing;
N
Implement a mortgage assistance program for employees of the municipality, an employer
that provides contracted services to the municipality, or any other public employer that
operates within the municipality;
Salt Lake City is required to select at least four of the strategies below, including strategy V and at least one of G, H, or Q
SELECTED CATEGORY HOUSING STRATEGY
Yes O
Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal funds or tax incentives to
promote the construction of moderate income housing, an entity that applies for programs
offered by the Utah Housing Corporation within that agency’s funding capacity, an entity
that applies for affordable housing programs administered by the Department of Workforce
Services, an entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by an
association of governments established by an interlocal agreement under Title 11, Chapter 13,
Interlocal Cooperation Act, an entity that applies for services provided by a public housing
authority to preserve and create moderate income housing, or any other entity that applies
for programs or services that promote the construction or preservation of moderate
income housing;
Yes P
Demonstrate utilization of a moderate income housing set aside from a community
reinvestment agency, redevelopment agency, or community development and renewal
agency to create or subsidize moderate income housing
Yes Q Create a housing and transit reinvestment zone pursuant to Title 63N, Chapter 3, Part 6,
Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act;
R Eliminate impact fees for any accessory dwelling unit that is not an internal accessory
dwelling unit as defined in Section 10-9a-530;
Yes S Create a program to transfer development rights for moderate income housing;
T Ratify a joint acquisition agreement with another local political subdivision for the purpose of
combining resources to acquire property for moderate income housing;
Yes U Develop a moderate income housing project for residents who are disabled or 55 years old
or older;
Yes v Develop and adopt a station area plan in accordance with Section 10-9a-403.1;
Yes w
Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, multifamily residential dwellings
compatible in scale and form with detached single-family residential dwellings and located
in walkable communities within residential or mixed-use zones; and
Yes X
Demonstrate implementation of any other program or strategy to address the housing
needs of residents of the municipality who earn less than 80% of the area median income,
including the dedication of a local funding source to moderate income housing or the
adoption of a land use ordinance that requires 10% or more of new residential development
in a residential zone be dedicated to moderate income housing.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan28 29
FAIR HOUSING
Salt Lake City is dedicated to affirmatively furthering
the purposes of the Fair Housing Act to ensure equal
access to rental and homeownership opportunities
for all residents. As part of the City’s Consolidated Plan
2020-2024 for funding through the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, the City has developed
a 2020-2024 Fair Housing Action Plan. This Action Plan
addresses impediments to fair housing that currently exist,
which have been organized into the following categories:
• Discrimination in Housing
• Mobility and Access to Opportunity
• Availability of Affordable and
Suitable Housing
• Zoning, Land Use Regulations, and
Redevelopment Policies
• Fair Housing Coordination and Knowledge
Federal Funding Requirements
As a recipient of federal funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the City is required to abide by certain requirements, including
creating a Consolidated Plan for funding periods. The current Consolidated Plan is
for 2020-2024 and addresses the efforts the City will undertake using the funds
received from HUD. The City is in the process of preparing for the next Consolidated
Plan, which will cover the period of 2025-2029.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan30 31
In response to community concerns about displacement and gentrification
brought about by increased housing costs and rapid development, the City
undertook an effort to combat displacement. This effort, called Thriving in Place,
used public feedback and quantitative geospatial data to develop an action
strategy to mitigate displacement in the city. The policies and actions that
emerged from TIP will be included as an addendum to this Plan and provides
strategies for increasing housing stability, combatting displacement, and
improving affordability in Salt Lake City.
The engagement and data analysis period from TIP highlighted six key findings:
• Displacement in Salt Lake City is significant and getting worse. It is
an issue of high concern in the community; nearly everyone reported
directly experiencing its impacts in their lives and neighborhoods.
• There are no “more affordable” neighborhoods in Salt Lake City
where lower income families can move once displaced.
• Salt Lake City is growing and there are not enough housing units at
every price level, and a significant lack of affordable units for
low-income families. There is a consensus view in the community
that creating more affordable housing should be a high priority while
also protecting renters from being displaced.
• Almost half of Salt Lake City’s renter households are rent burdened,
spending over 30 percent of their income on housing, making them
highly vulnerable when rents increase.
• Displacement affects more than half of White households in Salt
Lake City and disproportionately affects households of color.
• The patterns of displacement reflect historic patterns of
discrimination and segregation, with many areas experiencing high
displacement risk being the same as areas that were redlined in
the past.
Guiding Principles
To address these issues, TIP developed the following
guiding principles:
1. Prioritize and strengthen tenant protections,
especially for the most vulnerable
2. Partner with those most impacted to
develop holistic solutions
3. Increase housing everywhere
4. Focus on affordability
5. Build an ecosystem for action.
The framework presents 23 strategic priorities that help mitigate displacement
in Salt Lake City. The strategies are divided into separate categories, which serve
as a broader framework for action. The categories are:
1. Protect the most vulnerable from displacement
2. Preserve the affordable housing we have
3. Produce more housing, especially affordable housing
4. Expand capacity for tenant support and affordable housing
5. Partner and collaborate to maximize impact
6. Advocate for tenants at the state level.
Chapter 5:Thriving in Place
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan32 33
Chapter 6:Goals & Action Items
The scale of the current housing crisis is vast and calls for
bold responses. While this Plan seeks to create a more
affordable city and housing system for everyone, the
goals and action items outlined below prioritize helping
individuals and households who face the greatest risk of
housing insecurity, displacement, and homelessness.
These households are more likely to be low-income,
people of color, seniors, single parents, and/or people
with disabilities. There is evidence that “an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure” when it comes to
homelessness and housing: it is much more affordable
to keep people in their homes than to help them exit
homelessness. Addressing the housing needs of our
extremely low-income population will reduce the strain
on these households while also reducing pressure on
our homeless services system.
The data analysis provided earlier in this Plan points
to a shortage of 5,500 units affordable to households
earning 30% AMI or below. This is the most difficult
housing to build as it requires heavy subsidy and often
requires wrap-around services to make successful.
More housing is needed at all income levels, but
the market will build market rate housing on its own.
Creating policies and programs that facilitate
the creation of more housing generally, and more
deeply affordable housing specifically, while also
protecting tenants and preserving existing housing
will create greater equity and affordability for all Salt
Lake City residents.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan34 35
Goals
GOAL 1
Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500
units of deeply affordable housing and increase
the supply of housing at all levels of affordability.
Metrics: A Entitle 10,000 new housing units throughout the city.
1. Minimum 2,000 units deeply affordable (30% AMI or below)
2. Minimum 2,000 units affordable (31% - 80% AMI)
GOAL 2
Increase housing stability throughout the city.
Metrics: A Track, analyze, and monitor factors that impact housing
stability in the city.
B Assist 10,000 low-income individuals annually through programs funded
to increase housing stability by the City.
C Dedicate targeted funding to:
1. mitigate displacement
2. serve renter households
3. serve family households
4. increase geographic equity
5. increase physical accessibility
GOAL 3
Increase opportunities for homeownership and other
wealth and equity building opportunities.
Metrics: A Provide affordable homeownership and wealth and equity building
opportunities to a minimum of 1,000 low-income households.
Action Items
Each action item addresses at least one goal and fulfills at least one of the
strategies in state code (as outlined in Chapter 4). A list of all action items and
their anticipated timelines for implementation can be found in Chapter 7. For
brief descriptions of the action items, please see Appendix A .
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan36 37
Chapter 7:Implementation Plan
The strategies listed in this chapter correspond to the selected state strategies in Chapter 4.
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY C Demonstrate investment in the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable
housing stock into moderate income housing
Increase funding for
acquisition, rehabilitation,
and development of
affordable housing
Convene working group
to research options of
increasing funding
for affordable housing
and develop
recommendations
Based on
esearch, develop
recommendations for
increasing funding
for affordable housing
Based on
recommendations and
feasibility, work with
City Council to establish
new funding source(s)
for affordable housingGOAL 1
Incentivize the purchase
and conversion of
hotels, motels, and other
buildings to deed-restricted
deeply affordable and
transitional housing
Develop incentive and
funding strategy, work
with partners to
determine priority sites
Identify land-use barriers
that may exist
Purchase and conversion
of site(s) into deeply
affordable and transition
housing
Monitor and report
on number of
individuals served
through converted units.
Purchase and
conversion of site(s)
into deeply affordable
and transition housing
Monitor and report
on number of
individuals served t
hrough converted units.
Monitor and report
on number of
individuals served
through converted units.
GOAL 1
Adopt an adaptive reuse
ordinance to facilitate the
conversion of historic
buildings into housing
Draft ordinance and
receive feedback from
Planning Commission,
City Council, and public
Adopt Adaptive Reuse
ordinance
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created, etc.
(ongoing)GOAL 1
STRATEGY E Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, internal or
detached accessory dwelling units in residential zones
Adopt revised Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU)
ordinance to make the
development of ADUs easier
and more widespread
throughout the city
Receive feedback from
Planning Commission,
City Council, and public
on proposed ordinance
Adopt ordinance
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of Accessory
Dwelling Units created
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of Accessory
Dwelling Units created
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of Accessory
Dwelling Units created
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of Accessory
Dwelling Units created
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
ordinance adoption
through annual reporting
on number of Accessory
Dwelling Units created
(ongoing)
GOAL 1
Make it easier to build tiny
homes as a form of deeply
affordable/transitional
housing through zoning,
funding, and streamlined
plan and design review
Support legislation
to adopt ICC/MBI
building standards
for modular
construction in the
2024 general
legislative session.
Convene a working
group to research best
practices, determine
land use and building
code barriers, and
explore options for
geographic equity
Draft policy
recommendations
Implement
recommendations
Monitor response to
implemented policies
(ongoing)
GOAL 1
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan38 39
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY E Continued
Develop a library of
pre-approved Accessory
Dwelling Unit plans that
residents can access
Convene a working group
to research best
practices and develop
implementation
framework
Develop and publish
library of pre-approved
building plans for
Accessory Dwelling Units
and host on City website
Continue growing library
of pre-approved plans to
host on City website
(ongoing)
Monitor response and
report on number of ADUs
built using the library
(ongoing)
Monitor response and
report on number of ADUs
built using the library
(ongoing)
GOAL 1
Facilitate the completion
of phase one of The Other
Side Village pilot program
Phase one of The Other
Side Village project
complete with residents
living in tiny homes
Maintain ongoing
partnership with The
Other Side Academy to
facilitate the expansion
of additional phasing
of project, determining
number of additional units
completed each year
until full build-out (may
occur beyond time
horizon of this plan)
Maintain ongoing
partnership with The
Other Side Academy to
facilitate the expansion
of additional phasing of
project, determining
number of additional units
completed each year
until full build-out (may
occur beyond time
horizon of this plan)
Maintain ongoing
partnership with The
Other Side Academy to
facilitate the expansion
of additional phasing of
project, determining
number of additional units
completed each year
until full build-out (may
occur beyond time
horizon of this plan)
Maintain ongoing
partnership with The
Other Side Academy to
facilitate the expansion
of additional phasing of
project, determining
number of additional units
completed each year
until full build-out (may
occur beyond time
horizon of this plan)GOAL 1
Incentivize deed-restricted
affordable Accessory
Dwelling Units across the city
with a focus on areas of
high opportunity
Update map of areas of
high opportunity
Convene a working group
to research best
practices for incentivizing
deed-restrictions on
ADUs
Begin developing a
strategy for implementing
incentives
Continue developing a
strategy for implementing
incentives
Launch deed restriction
incentive pilot program
Monitor and report on
number of units
taking advantage of
incentive program
GOAL 1
STRATEGY F
Zone or rezone for higher density or moderate income residential development
in commercial or mixed-use zones near major transit investment corridors,
commercial centers, or employment centers
Continue increasing density
limits in areas next to or near
major transit investment
corridors, commercial
centers, or employment
centers and where high
density development is
compatible with adjacent
land uses
Adopt zoning or land use
ordinance to increase
density limits in the
Ballpark neighborhood
of the city
Monitor response to
increased density in the
Ballpark neighborhood
through annual reporting
on number of new
permits, number of units
created, etc. (ongoing)
Based on data monitoring
on this and other
ordinances, planning staff
continue looking for
opportunities to increase
density limits in various
areas of the city
Work with Planning
Commission, City Council,
and public on additional
density limits in other
areas of the city
Based on data monitoring
on this and other
ordinances, planning staff
continue looking for
opportunities to increase
density limits in various
areas of the city
Work with Planning
Commission, City Council,
and public on additional
density limits in other
areas of the city
Based on data monitoring
on this and other
ordinances, planning staff
continue looking for
opportunities to increase
density limits in various
areas of the city
Work with Planning
Commission, City Council,
and public on additional
density limits in other
areas of the cityGOAL 1
STRATEGY G
Amend land use regulations to allow for higher density or new moderate
income residential development in commercial or mixed-use zones near
major transit investment corridors
Increase building height
limits in compatible
areas of the city
Work with Planning
Commission, City Council,
and public on the
adoption of building
height ordinance
Adopt building height
ordinance
Monitor response to
increased building height
limits ordinance through
annual reporting on
number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
increased building height
limits ordinance through
annual reporting on
number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
increased building height
limits ordinance through
annual reporting on
number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created, etc.
(ongoing)
Evaluate response to
building height ordinance
change and consider
increasing building
heights in additional areas
of the city
GOAL 1
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan40 41
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY H
Amend land use regulations to eliminate or reduce parking requirements for
residential development where a resident is less likely to rely on the resident’s
own vehicle, such as residential development near major transit investment
corridors or senior living facilities
Implement parking
reduction ordinance
Adopted under previous
Housing Plan - effects will
be monitored and
reported
Monitor response to
reduced parking
requirements ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
reduced parking
requirements ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
reduced parking
requirements ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Evaluate response to
parking reduction
ordinance and consider
reducing parking
requirements in additional
areas of the city
Monitor response to
reduced parking
requirements ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
reduced parking
requirements ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)GOAL 1
STRATEGY I Amend land use regulations to allow for single room occupancy developments
Implement shared
housing ordinance that
allows for single room
occupancy developments
Adopted under previous
Housing Plan - effects will
be monitored and
reported
Monitor response to
shared housing
ordinance through
annual reporting on
number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
shared housing
ordinance through
annual reporting on
number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
shared housing ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
shared housing ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
shared housing ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
shared housing ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
GOAL 1, 2
STRATEGY J Implement zoning incentives for moderate income units in new developments
Adopt and implement
the Affordable Housing
Incentives Ordinance
Work with Planning
Commission, City Council,
and public on Affordable
Housing Incentives
Ordinance
Adopt Affordable Housing
Incentives Ordinance
Monitor response to
affordable housing
incentives ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
affordable housing
incentives ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
affordable housing
incentives ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
affordable housing
incentives ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)Goal 1, 2
STRATEGY K
Preserve existing and new moderate income housing and subsidized units by
utilizing a landlord incentive program, providing for deed restricted units through
a grant program, or, notwithstanding Section 10-9a-535, establishing a housing
loss mitigation fund
Support projects that allow
tenants to build wealth and/
or gain equity in their
building based on tenure
Convene working group
to research best
practices for tenant
wealth and equity
building programs
Develop pilot program
or partnership
Secure funding for pilot
program or partnership
and implement
Monitor impact of wealth/
equity program through
annual reporting on
number of households
and individuals served,
annual amount of wealth/
equity gained, etc.
Monitor impact of wealth/
equity program through
annual reporting on
number of households
and individuals served,
annual amount of wealth/
equity gained, etc.GOAL 3
Provide $6 million in grant
funding to develop interim
or permanent supportive
housing projects to expand
housing solutions for
persons experiencing or at
risk of homelessness
Three projects awarded
and selected in 2022
Complete construction
on projects, resulting in
441 new units of deeply
affordable housing for
persons experiencing or
at risk of homelessness
Monitor impact of
housing developments
through annual reporting
on number of individuals
served, number of
individuals transitioned
from homelessness to
housing, etc.
Monitor impact of housing
developments through
annual reporting on
number of individuals
served, number of
individuals transitioned
from homelessness to
housing, etc.
Monitor impact of housing
developments through
annual reporting on
number of individuals
served, number of
individuals transitioned
from homelessness to
housing, etc.
Monitor impact of housing
developments through
annual reporting on
number of individuals
served, number of
individuals transitioned
from homelessness to
housing, etc.
Monitor impact of housing
developments through
annual reporting on
number of individuals
served, number of
individuals transitioned
from homelessness to
housing, etc.GOAL 1
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan42 43
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY L Reduce, waive, or eliminate impact fees related to moderate income housing
Continue to reduce and
waive impact fees on
eligible projects as allowed
by Salt Lake City Code
Chapter 18.98
Continue to reduce and
waive impact fees on
eligible affordable
housing developments
when such waivers and
reductions are applied
for (ongoing)
Continue to reduce and
waive impact fees on
eligible affordable
housing developments
when such waivers and
reductions are applied
for (ongoing)
Continue to reduce and
waive impact fees on
eligible affordable
housing developments
when such waivers and
reductions are applied
for (ongoing)
Continue to reduce and
waive impact fees on
eligible affordable
housing developments
when such waivers and
reductions are applied for
(ongoing)
Continue to reduce and
waive impact fees on
eligible affordable
housing developments
when such waivers and
reductions are applied for
(ongoing)
Continue to reduce and
waive impact fees on
eligible affordable
housing developments
when such waivers and
reductions are applied for
(ongoing)
Continue to reduce and
waive impact fees on
eligible affordable
housing developments
when such waivers and
reductions are applied for
(ongoing)
GOAL 1
STRATEGY M Demonstrate creation of, or participation in, a community land trust program for
moderate income housing
Continue to manage and
expand City’s Community
Land Trust (CLT) program
Convene working group
to develop City's CLT
strategy, includging
identifying priority sites
for acquisition and
potential funding sources
Draft strategy and
receive feedback from
community partners,
public, and City Council
Adopt CLT strategy and
build capacity to manage
CLT assets
Implement adopted
strategy and continue
growing CLT
Seek private and
philanthropic land
donations and set-aside
funding to grow the
number of units in and
households served by
the CLT
Implement adopted
strategy and continue
growing CLT
Implement adopted
strategy and continue
growing CLT
GOAL 3
Explore the feasibility of
issuing home equity
conversion mortgages to
existing homeowners in
return for a deed restriction,
possibly through the City’s
Homebuyer Program
Convene working group
to research best
practices and potential
opportunities for a
program and to develop
program framework
Develop program
framework
Request funding for
implementation of
program
Enter into first agreements Monitor and report
on program
Continue entering
into agreements
Monitor and report
on program
Continue entering
into agreements
Goal 2, 3
Work with community
development partners
to acquire priority
properties for permanently
affordable housing
Initiate conversations
with community
development partners
and established shared
goals and priorities
Develop framework for
partnership
Establish priorities
and partnerships for
identifying and
purchasing properties
First property acquired by
the City/Redevelopment
Agency or through a
partnership with
community development
partner(s)
GOAL 3
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan44 45
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY O
Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal funds or tax
incentives to promote the construction of moderate income housing, an entity
that applies for programs offered by the Utah Housing Corporation within that
agency’s funding capacity, an entity that applies for affordable housing
programs administered by the Department of Workforce Services, an entity that
applies for affordable housing programs administered by an association of
governments established by an interlocal agreement under Title 11, Chapter 13,
Interlocal Cooperation Act, an entity that applies for services provided by a public
housing authority to preserve and create moderate income housing, or any
other entity that applies for programs or services that promote the construction
or preservation of moderate income housing
Continue to partner with
entities that apply for state
and/or federal funds to
preserve and create low to
moderate income housing
through annual funding
opportunities, including
opportunities for home
repairs, accessibility
improvements, and other
programs.
Continue offering annual
funding and partnership
opportunities through
the Housing Stability
division (ongoing)
Continue offering annual
funding and partnership
opportunities through
the Housing Stability
division (ongoing)
Continue offering annual
funding and partnership
opportunities through
the Housing Stability
division (ongoing)
Continue offering annual
funding and partnership
opportunities through the
Housing Stability division
(ongoing)
Continue offering annual
funding and partnership
opportunities through the
Housing Stability division
(ongoing)
Continue offering annual
funding and partnership
opportunities through the
Housing Stability division
(ongoing)
Continue offering annual
funding and partnership
opportunities through the
Housing Stability division
(ongoing)
GOAL 1, 2
STRATEGY P
Demonstrate utilization of a moderate income housing set aside
from a community reinvestment agency, redevelopment agency, or
community development and renewal agency to create or subsidize
moderate income housing
Continue to release housing
funds through Redeveloment
Agency of Salt Lake CIty
(RDA) Notices of Funding
Availability (NOFA) for
development or acquisition
of moderate income housing
Continue to release
annual Notices of
Funding Availability
based on affordable
housing set-aside
funding from project
area budgets, prioritizing
funding for projects
based on RDA board
guidance (ongoing)
Continue to release
annual Notices of
Funding Availability
based on affordable
housing set-aside
funding from project
area budgets, prioritizing
funding for projects
based on RDA board
guidance (ongoing)
Continue to release
annual Notices of
Funding Availability
based on affordable
housing set-aside
funding from project
area budgets, prioritizing
funding for projects
based on RDA board
guidance (ongoing)
Continue to release
annual Notices of Funding
Availability based on
affordable housing
set-aside funding from
project area budgets,
prioritizing funding for
projects based on RDA
board guidance
(ongoing)
Continue to release
annual Notices of Funding
Availability based on
affordable housing
set-aside funding from
project area budgets,
prioritizing funding for
projects based on RDA
board guidance
(ongoing)
Continue to release
annual Notices of Funding
Availability based on
affordable housing
set-aside funding from
project area budgets,
prioritizing funding for
projects based on RDA
board guidance
(ongoing)
Continue to release
annual Notices of Funding
Availability based on
affordable housing
set-aside funding from
project area budgets,
prioritizing funding for
projects based on RDA
board guidance
(ongoing)GOAL 1, 3
Utilize Inland Port Housing
Funds (pursuant to Utah
Code Section 11-58-601(6)(b)
of the Inland Port Act) and
other housing set-aside
funds received by the
Redevelopment Agency
(RDA) to expand affordable
housing options, including
tenant equity opportunities
throughout the city,
especially on the west side
Convene working group
to research best
practices for tenant
wealth and equity-
building opportunities
and begin developing
possible programs and
guidelines
Continue researching
best practices for tenant
wealth and equity-
building opportunities
and further refine
possible programs
and guidelines
Develop goals and
guidelines to promote
tenant wealth and equity
building opportunities
and present to RDA Board
Put funding toward equity
programs and begin
acquiring/developing
projects that include a
tenant equity component
Fund first project to
provide tenants
opportunities to develop
wealth/equity
GOAL 1, 3
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan46 47
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY P Continued
Develop a financing program
for low-income homeowner
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) construction
Convene working group
to research best
practices, engage
potential partners, and
develop framework for
an ADU financing
program
ADU financing pilot
program established
and funded for initial
three-year period.
Market program and
finance initial batch
of ADUs
Continue marketing
and financing
ADU construction
Monitor, evaluate, and
assess successes and
shortcomings of financing
program.
Make determination on
whether to extend
program. Make necessary
changes, as needed.
Monitor, evaluate, and
assess successes and
shortcomings of financing
program.
Make determination on
whether to extend
program. Make necessary
changes, as needed.GOAL 1
Promote the development
of affordable family-sized
housing units with
3+ bedrooms
The SLC RDA Board sets
annual priorities for how
funding should be used.
In 2022 and 2023, priority
has been given to
family-sized housing. This
item would re-establish
a priority for family-sized
housing on an annual
basis (ongoing)
The SLC RDA Board sets
annual priorities for how
funding should be used.
In 2022 and 2023, priority
has been given to
family-sized housing. This
item would re-establish
a priority for family-sized
housing on an annual
basis (ongoing)
The SLC RDA Board sets
annual priorities for how
funding should be used.
In 2022 and 2023, priority
has been given to
family-sized housing. This
item would re-establish
a priority for family-sized
housing on an annual
basis (ongoing)
The SLC RDA Board sets
annual priorities for how
funding should be used.
In 2022 and 2023, priority
has been given to family-
sized housing. This item
would re-establish a
priority for family-sized
housing on an annual
basis (ongoing)
The SLC RDA Board sets
annual priorities for how
funding should be used.
In 2022 and 2023, priority
has been given to family-
sized housing. This item
would re-establish a
priority for family-sized
housing on an annual
basis (ongoing)
The SLC RDA Board sets
annual priorities for how
funding should be used.
In 2022 and 2023, priority
has been given to family-
sized housing. This item
would re-establish a
priority for family-sized
housing on an annual
basis (ongoing)Goal 1, 2
STRATEGY Q Create a housing and transit reinvestment zone pursuant to Title 63N,
Chapter 3, Part 6, Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act
Establish at least one housing
and transit reinvestement
zone (HTRZ) in the city
Redevelopment Agency
to engage in
conversations with
interested parties
Work through details and
application to establish
an HTRZ
Establish HTRZ Monitor and report on
activity in and outcomes
of HTRZ
Monitor and report on
activity in and outcomes
of HTRZ
Monitor and report on
activity in and outcomes
of HTRZ
GOAL 1
STRATEGY S Create a program to transfer development rights for moderate income housing
Explore the feasibility of a
Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) program to
allow property owners to
transfer development
capacity to other areas of
the city in exchange for the
preservation of existing
affordable housing
Convene working group
to research best
practices and develop
program framework
Develop a framework for
TDR program and receive
input from public,
Planning Commission,
and City Council
Adopt TDR program
GOAL 1, 2
STRATEGY U Develop a moderate income housing project for residents who are
disabled or 55 years old or older
As part of $6 million in grant
funding awarded in 2022,
Switchpoint was awarded
funds to develop a deeply
affordable housing project
for seniors
Funding committed for
creation of 94 units of
deeply affordable
housing
Begin and complete
project
Report on number of
individuals housed
through this
development (ongoing)
Report on number of
individuals housed
through this development
(ongoing)
Report on number of
individuals housed
through this development
(ongoing)
Report on number of
individuals housed
through this development
(ongoing)
GOAL 1, 2
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan48 49
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY V Develop and adopt a station area plan in accordance with Section 10-9a-403.1
Certify all Station Area Plans
(SAPs) within the city, as
required by State Code
Section 10-9a-403.1
Planning staff work to
ensure all existing SAPs
are certified according to
Utah State Code
Planning staff work with
Planning Commission,
City Council, and the
public to develop new
SAPs for station
areas where such SAPs
are needed
All SAPs adopted and
certified by Dec 31, 2025
GOAL 1
STRATEGY W
Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, multifamily
residential dwellings compatible in scale and form with detached
single-family residential dwellings and located in walkable
communities within residential or mixed-use zones
Adopt and implement
Affordable Housing
Incentives Ordinance
Work with Planning
Commission, City
Council, and public on
Affordable Housing
Incentives Ordinance
Adopt Affordable
Housing Incentives
Ordinance
Monitor response to
affordable housing
incentives ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
affordable housing
incentives ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)
Monitor response to
affordable housing
incentives ordinance
through annual reporting
on number of properties
using ordinance, number
of units created,
affordability of units, etc.
(ongoing)Goal 1, 2
STRATEGY X
Demonstrate implementation of any other program or strategy to address
the housing needs of residents of the municipality who earn less than 80%
of the area median income, including the dedication of a local funding
source to moderate income housing or the adoption of a land use
ordinance that requires 10% or more of new residential development
in a residential zone be dedicated to moderate income housing
Expand workforce, artist, and
essential worker housing, up
to 125% AMI, so that these
populations can live in the
city in which they serve
Develop framework,
partnerships, and
potential funding sources
First project under way First project completed
GOAL 1, 2
Develop electric car-share
and/or e-bike -share pilot
program(s) co-located with
affordable housing
Convene working group
to research best
practices, apply for grant
fundings, and reach out
to potential partners
Formalize partnerships,
begin developing
parameters for pilot
program; re-apply
for grant funding if
not awarded
Launch initial phase of
pilot program; re-apply
for grant funding
Monitor results of pilot
program; re-apply for
funding or apply for
additional funding
Monitor pilot program
and extend and adapt
as needed
GOAL 2
Establish a Community/
Tenant Oportunity to
Purchase policy at the City
level, which could include
technical assistance, funding
opportunities, and other
services and resources that
would give existing tenants,
the community, or the City/
Redevelopment Agency
(RDA) the opportunity to
purchase before the
property goes to market
Convene a working
group of internal staff,
community partners,
and residents to
research best practices
and develop a
policy framework
Draft policy framework
and receive input
from public, Planning
Commission, and
City Council
Adopt framework and
dedicate funding toward
assisting community/
tenant purchase of
properties
Market program
Monitor and report on
outcomes of program
Monitor and report on
outcomes of program
GOAL 2, 3
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan50 51
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY X Continued
Host regular tenant
education events
Convene partners and
host first events; develop
schedule
Based on schedule
established by partners,
host regular education
events, potentially
quarterly (ongoing)
Based on schedule
established by partners,
host regular education
events, potentially
quarterly (ongoing)
Evaluate effectiveness of
these events and adjust
as needed
Based on schedule
established by partners,
host regular education
events, potentially
quarterly (ongoing)
Evaluate effectiveness of
these events and adjust
as needed
Based on schedule
established by partners,
host regular education
events, potentially
quarterly (ongoing)
Evaluate effectiveness of
these events and adjust
as neededGOAL 2
Support community and
grassroots organizations
that provide displacement
assistance, tenant
organizing, tenant mutual
aid, legal services, and
other resources/efforts that
help tenants
Develop program to
support grassroots
organizations and
develop parameters
Implement program
through annual funding
opportunities and/or
technical assistance
(ongoing)
Implement program
through annual funding
opportunities and/or
technical assistance
(ongoing)
Implement program
through annual funding
opportunities and/or
technical assistance
(ongoing)
Monitor outcomes of
program and re-evaluate,
if needed
GOAL 2
Develop a tenant advocate
pilot program to help
tenants understand their
legal obligations and rights,
inspect units, and connect
with other resources
Convene a working
group of internal staff,
community partners, and
residents to research
best practices and
develop a program
framework
Hire/Allocate full-time
employee or fund
community partner to
run program
Program off the ground;
receive reports for people
served
Monitor and report on
program effectiveness
(ongoing)
Monitor and report on
program effectiveness
(ongoing)
GOAL 2
Provide funding for
programs and/or initiatives
that build wealth and/or
provide equity sharing
opportunities for residents
Funding committed;
partner selected
Construction on pilot
project begins
Construction of pilot
project complete and first
tenants housed
Monitor and report on
program (ongoing)
Monitor and report on
program (ongoing)
Monitor and report on
program (ongoing)
Equity payments to
residents begin
GOAL 1, 2, 3
Develop a Relocation
Assistance Fund for Tenants
to help those impacted by
new development find and
afford living situations that
meet their needs
Develop the program
and establish the
relocation assistance
fund
Select a community
partner to administer the
program and launch
assistance program
Evaluate impact and
effectiveness of program,
make adjustments to
increase impact (as
needed), and extend
program, if pilot proved
effectiveGOAL 2
Adopt a Displaced Tenants
Preference Policy so that
lower income tenants
displaced due to new
development or rising rents
are given priority for moving
into deed-restricted units
created on the site or within
the area from which they
were displaced
Establish a working group
of City staff and key
partners
Draft policy and conduct
public review and policy
adoption
Work with partners to
implement policy
Evaluate policy impacts
based on number of
households served,
efficacy of policy, and
make adjustments,
as needed
GOAL 2
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan52 53
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY X Continued
Adopt a Community Benefit
Policy to prioritize the
preservation or replacement
of affordable housing as
a condition of approval for
changes to zoning and
master plans
Draft Community Benefit
Policy that includes
considerations for
affordable housing
and physically
accessible housing,
among other benefits
Work with public,
Planning Commission,
and City Council to
receive input and
adopt policy
Monitor impact of policy
based on number of
affordable units created,
amount of in-lieu fees
collected, etc. (ongoing)
Monitor and report on
policy implementation
(ongoing)
Monitor and report on
policy implementation
(ongoing)
Monitor and report on
policy implementation
(ongoing)
GOAL 1, 2
Improve and expand tenant
resources, access to legal
services, and landlord
training to better meet the
level of need and protect
tenant rights
Increase awareness of
funding and innovate on
service delivery, including
how legal services are
provided
Make changes to the
Landlord Tenant Initiative
to better meet needs
of tenants while
continuing to serve and
educate landlords
Market changes in
Landlord Tenant
Program to subscribe
more landlords
Evaluate changes and
make necessary
adjustments to the
Landlord Tenant Initiative
Monitor outcomes of
changes to Landlord
Tenant Initiative
(ongoing)
Monitor outcomes of
changes to Landlord
Tenant Initiative
(ongoing)
GOAL 2
Define indicators to track
displacement and
develop systems to track
progress to better know
where and how the City’s
anti-displacement policies
and actions are working
Refine list of
displacement indicators
to track and report on
Develop manageable
systems for collecting
needed data and
develop a public-facing
dashboard to report
data at least annually
Ongoing data collection
and at least annual
public-facing reporting
(ongoing)
Ongoing data collection
and at least annual
public-facing reporting
(ongoing)
Ongoing data collection
and at least annual
public-facing reporting
(ongoing)
Ongoing data collection
and at least annual
public-facing reporting
(ongoing)
GOAL 2
Form a City Implementation
Team to oversee and
coordinate implementation
of the actions in this plan
and the priority actions in
the Thriving in Place
strategy, monitor progress,
engage partners, and
identify needed updates
and next steps
Form Implementation
Team and develop a
team charter for initial
two years
Meet regularly to track
progress, develop
policies and programs,
and monitor needs
Assess progress,
obstacles, needed
updates, and next steps
Develop a strategy
for creation of a new
housing plan
Continue working on
implementation and
begin work on creation of
a new housing plan
Continue working on
implementation and
begin work on creation of
a new housing plan
Adoption of new housing
plan and continued
implementation of
action items
GOAL 1, 2, 3
Convene a Regional
Anti-Displacement Coalition
to provide an ongoing
platform for crossagency
and cross-sector discussion
and collaboration on priority
actions, tracking of progress,
collective problem solving,
and responding to emerging
issues and challenges
Convene Anti-
Dislacement Coalition
and establish regular
meeting schedule
Meet regularly to discuss
priorities, strategies, and
monitor progress
Assess progress,
obstacles, needed
updates, and next steps
(ongoing)
Assess progress,
obstacles, needed
updates, and next steps
(ongoing)
Assess progress,
obstacles, needed
updates, and next steps
(ongoing)
Assess progress,
obstacles, needed
updates, and next steps
(ongoing)
GOAL 2
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan54 55
ACTION ITEM 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
STRATEGY X Continued
Continue supporting and
expand funding for
homeless street outreach
programs that connect
individuals experiencing
homelessness with critical
resources and housing
Monitor metrics
associated with street
outreach programs, such
as number of residents
served, number of
residents connected with
shelter resources,
number of residents
connected with housing
resources, etc. (ongoing)
Based on metrics,
increase funding for
street outreach
programs
Continue monitoring
program
Make adjustments, as
needed (ongoing)
Continue monitoring
program
Make adjustments, as
needed (ongoing)
Continue monitoring
program
Make adjustments, as
needed (ongoing)
Continue monitoring
program
Make adjustments, as
needed (ongoing)
GOAL 2
Convene a physical
accessibility working group
of internal and external
stakeholders.
Convene a working
group of internal and
external stakeholders
and establish regular
meeting schedule
Research best practices
and develop strategy for
increasing units that
meet universal design
and visitability standards
Adopt and begin
implementing strategy
Monitor outcomes of
strategy, including
number of new units that
meet Universal Design
and Visitablity standards
and number of retrofitted
units (ongoing)
Monitor outcomes of
strategy, including
number of new units that
meet Universal Design
and Visitablity standards
and number of retrofitted
units (ongoing)
Monitor outcomes of
strategy, including
number of new units that
meet Universal Design
and Visitablity standards
and number of retrofitted
units (ongoing)GOAL 2
Create a public-facing
rental database that
includes information on
accessibility, rent amounts,
unit conditions, etc.
Design and launch
database
Ongoing maintenance of
database
Ongoing maintenance of
database
Ongoing maintenance of
database
Ongoing maintenance of
database
GOAL 2
Continue to use federal
funding for home repair
and modification programs
that increase accessibility
and allow individuals to age
in place
Continue to contract with
partners through
competitive awards
(annual)
Continue to contract
with partners through
competitive awards
(annual)
Continue to contract
with partners through
competitive awards
(annual)
Continue to contract
with partners through
competitive awards
(annual)
Continue to contract
with partners through
competitive awards
(annual)
Continue to contract
with partners through
competitive awards
(annual)
GOAL 2
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan56 57
Chapter 9:References
This is a five-year strategic plan. While the housing affordability crisis
will not be resolved in five years, significant progress can be made
toward increased affordability and stability. Successful implementation
of this Plan will make Salt Lake City a more equitable and affordable
place to live.
This Plan will serve as a guiding document for the City over the next five
years, providing a framework for action across City Departments and
Divisions. Successful implementation of this Plan will require dedicated
effort, funding, and collaboration across City departments and with
community and other government partners. As part of the execution of
this Plan, the City will commit to accountability, transparency, and
collaboration toward achieving its goals.
As this Plan is implemented, reports will be provided to the City Council,
the state, and the community, so that progress can be measured, and
course corrections can be made as needed.
CBRE. (2022). The Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily
Market Report. H1 2022 Review | 2023 Outlook.
Eskic, Dejan. (2022a). The Changing Dynamics of the
Wasatch Front Apartment Market. Kem C. Gardner
Policy Institute.
Eskic, Dejan. (2022b). Short-Term-Rental Inventory.
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. (2022). Salt Lake City
Data Book.
Salt Lake City Building Services Division. (2022). Internal
permit data.
Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development.
(2018). Growing SLC: A Five Year Plan 2018-2022.
Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division. (2022). 2022 Salt
Lake City Housing Needs Analysis.
Salt Lake City Planning Division. (2022). Zoning District
GIS-layer.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). 2000 Decennial Census.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). 2010 Decennial Census.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021a). 2020 Decennial Census.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021b). On the Map.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022a). 2021 American Community
Survey 1-year estimates.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022b). Housing Vacancies
and Homeownership.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(2022). Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy,
2015-2019 5-year estimates.
Chapter 8:Conclusion
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan58 59
Action Items:
PRIORITIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
a. Continue to partner with entities that apply for state and/or federal
funds to preserve and create low to moderate income housing
through annual funding opportunities, including opportunities for
home repairs, accessibility improvements, and other programs. The
Housing Stability Division receives funds from the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that it passes to partner
entities through competitive awards. These entities often receive state
or other funding for the preservation and/or construction of affordable
housing. Each year as HUD funds are received, the City opens grant
applications to form partnerships.
b. Continue to release housing funds through Redevelopment Agency
of Salt Lake City (RDA) Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) for
development or acquisition of moderate income housing. The RDA is
required to allocate a certain percentage of each redevelopment
project area’s budget toward affordable housing. Each year as those
funds are received by the RDA, they release NOFAs indicating how
much funding is available and what the application deadlines and
parameters are. These competitively awarded funds can serve an
important role in a development
project’s funding.
C. Increase funding for acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of
affordable housing. There are various ways to increase the funding
stream for the housing development loan program, including tax
increases, revenue bonds, tax increment, fees-in-lieu of development
through the Community Benefit policy, and more. The City will conduct
research to determine a strategy to increase funding.
GOAL 1
Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500
units of deeply affordable housing and increase
the supply of housing at all levels of affordability.
Metrics: A Entitle 10,000 new housing units throughout the city.
1. Minimum 2,000 units deeply affordable (30% AMI
or below)
2. Minimum 2,000 units affordable (31% - 80% AMI)
Appendix A:Descriptions of Action Items
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan60
d. Provide $6 million in grant funding to develop interim or permanent
supportive housing projects to expand housing solutions for persons
experiencing or at risk of homelessness. In fall 2022, the City released
$6 million dollars for the creation of deeply affordable housing aimed
at stabilizing low-income households at risk of homelessness and
transitioning households out of homelessness. While the awards have
been made, the projects are not yet completed. Helping facilitate these
projects will add much-needed deeply affordable, permanent
supportive, and transitional housing stock.
e. As part of $6 million in grant funding awarded in 2022, Switchpoint
was awarded funds to develop a deeply affordable housing project
for seniors. During the development of this plan, the City awarded $6
million for the creation of deeply affordable housing. One of the
projects that received funding was Switchpoint, which will use the
funds to create up to 94 units of deeply affordable housing for seniors
and individuals with disabilities.
UPDATE LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES
g. Continue to reduce and waive impact fees on eligible projects. The
City reduces or waives impact fees for developments that meet
affordability thresholds. This decreases development costs incentivizing
the creation of affordable housing.
h. Adopt and implement the Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance.
The Affordable Housing Incentive ordinance is in progress. The
ordinance allows for increased development capacity in exchange for
maintaining a percentage of the housing units as affordable for
households earning 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) or
less. The ordinance allows for different capacities based on the current
zoning on the property. This is a tool to increase both the overall
housing stock and the affordable housing stock in the city.
i. Adopt a Community Benefit Policy to prioritize the preservation or
replacement of affordable housing as a condition of approval for
changes to zoning and master plans. Establish a Community Benefit
Policy by which new developments preserve, replace, or otherwise
mitigate the demolition of existing housing units in return for an
increase in development capacity, with a focus on retaining or
replacing affordable housing. The Community Benefit Policy will guide
developers, residents, staff and decision makers in the development
agreement process, setting expectations for benefits to be provided in
return for changes to zoning and master plans. In this case, the benefit
is the preservation of affordable units that already exist on a property,
or the replacement of those units with new units that are similar in size
and affordability, and relocation assistance for impacted tenants.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan 61
j. Explore the feasibility of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program to allow property owners to transfer development capacity
to other areas of the city in exchange for the preservation of existing
affordable housing. TDR programs are not new concepts and are
often used to preserve open lands. TDR programs allow individuals to
transfer the development rights (or development capacity) of their
property into a “bank”, which can be purchased by an interested party
and used elsewhere. This allows for the preservation of certain property
characteristics while increasing development capacity elsewhere.
Creating a TDR program to preserve affordable housing has the
potential to keep existing housing affordable long-term while
increasing the housing stock elsewhere in the City.
k. Continue increasing density limits in areas next to near major transit
investment corridors, commercial centers, or employment centers
and where high density development is compatible with adjacent
land uses. Most of the land in the city is not zoned for residential uses.
Of the areas that do, one-third is zoned for single family residential
uses. Increasing density near transit corridors, commercial centers, or
employment centers can help create a 15-minute city for residents by
clustering housing, jobs, transportation, and amenities together. This
can help increase the housing stock while reducing household costs
associated with transportation.
l. Increase building height limits in compatible areas of the city.
Increasing building height limits will allow for increased density. In
compatible areas of the city, like the central business district,
increasing height limits allows for increased development capacity on
existing land.
m. Implement parking reduction ordinance. In fall 2022, the City Council
adopted the Parking Reduction Ordinance, which decreases parking
requirements in certain areas of the City. Parking is one of the key
drivers in the cost of housing. Eliminating or reducing parking
requirements can save cost on construction, which can make rents or
sale prices more affordable.
CONVERT EXISTING BUILDINGS TO HOUSING
n. Adopt an adaptive reuse ordinance to facilitate the conversion of
historic buildings into housing. Zoning and land-use changes can
make it easier and more cost-effective to retain existing structures for
reuse. An adaptive reuse ordinance complements funding incentives
to convert existing structures to affordable housing.
o. Incentivize the purchase and conversion of hotels, motels, and other
buildings to deed-restricted deeply affordable and transitional
housing. Funding acquisition and conversion is often more affordable
than building new. Projects that have used this acquisition and
conversion strategy have helped populations transition out of
homelessness and get back on their feet.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan62
INTEGRATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRANSIT
p. Establish at least one housing and transit reinvestment zone (HTRZ)
in the city. Legislation from 2022 created HTRZs as a type of project
area to incentivize coupling housing, transit, and commercial uses. The
RDA has been approached by parties that are interested in creating
HTRZs. Once created, these will facilitate increased development
capacity within the HTRZ, making more housing available.
q. Certify all Station Area Plans (SAPs) within the city, as required by
State Code Section 10-9a-403.1. SAPs are land use plans for the area
within a certain radius of a light rail, commuter rail, street car, or Bus
Rapid Transit station. The State requires that all stations within a
municipality’s boundaries have a SAP adopted by December 31, 2025.
The Planning Division is working on creating new and certifying existing
SAPs in order to meet this requirement. The City is required to adopt
SAPs as an element of its moderate income housing plan.
DIVERSIFY HOUSING STOCK
r. Adopt revised Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance to make the
development of ADUs easier and more widespread throughout the
City. In 2018 the City adopted its initial ADU ordinance. An update to
that ordinance is in progress and will be before the City Council in 2023.
The update will make it easier to build ADUs in more areas of the city
than is currently allowed. ADUs add to the housing supply by increasing
density while maintaining the scale of the existing neighborhood.
s. Incentivize deed-restricted affordable ADUs across the city with a
focus on areas of high opportunity. Deed-restricting ensures that an
ADU is available for a household who needs affordable housing. Deed-
restricting insulates units from the market pressures that lead to higher
rents in areas of high opportunity.
t. Develop a library of pre-approved ADU plans that residents can
access. Other cities have seen success in streamlining the ADU
development process, including hosting a library of pre-approved ADU
plans. This simplifies and streamlines the process for individuals looking
to add an ADU to their property, lowering costs. Lowering barriers to
ADU adoption will help diversify the housing stock and can make
housing more affordable.
u. Develop a financing program for low-income homeowner ADU
construction. ADUs can be expensive to build, and they are also
difficult to finance. Because of the challenges in financing them,
low-income homeowners who could benefit from the rental income of
an additional unit are locked out of building ADUs on their property.
The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is currently
researching a model for financing ADUs and will be developing a pilot
program in the Nine Line Project Area.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan 63
v. Make it easier to build tiny homes as a form of deeply affordable /
transitional housing through zoning, funding, and streamlined plan
and design review. Tiny homes, micro units, and other small-scale
housing are more affordable to build than larger scale housing and
can be built on smaller lots. They create an individual space with
privacy, which may be helpful for individuals who have experienced
trauma. Facilitating the uptake of more tiny homes can diversify the
city’s housing stock and increase affordability.
w. Facilitate the completion of phase one of The Other Side Village pilot
program. The Other Side Academy has been working with the City to
develop a tiny home village that will serve individuals who are exiting
homelessness and may have criminal records. The Other Side Village
will create a supportive community with housing that is affordable to
residents with the greatest housing instability.
x. Promote the development of affordable family-sized housing units
with 3+ bedrooms. Salt Lake City has a small portion of its housing
stock sized for families. Coupled with the cost of living in the city, this
lack of family housing means that many families are choosing to live
elsewhere. Using RDA funds and other incentives, the City will develop a
strategy for promoting family housing.
EXPAND WORKFORCE HOUSING
y. Expand workforce, artist, and essential worker housing, up to 125%
AMI, so that these populations can live in the city in which they serve.
Salt Lake City functions because of the people who work here.
Unfortunately, there are few tools currently available for assisting
households that earn more than 80% AMI. Exploring ways to ensure that
these households - including nurses, firefighters, teachers, and other
essential workers - can continue to live here is vital to our well-being.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan64
GOAL 2
Increase housing stability throughout the city.
Metrics: A Track, analyze, and monitor factors that impact housing
stability in the city.
B Assist 10,000 low-income individuals annually through
programs funded to increase housing stability by the City.
C Dedicate targeted funding to:
1. mitigate displacement
2. serve renter households
3. serve family households
4. increase geographic equity.
Action Items:
DECREASE COST OF LIVING
a. Develop electric car-share and/or e-bike -share pilot program(s)
co-located with affordable housing. Transportation costs are the often
the second highest expenses for households. Car-share and bike-
share program can help cut down on transportation expenses by
providing households with a convenient transportation option that they
do not have to own and maintain. Co-locating affordable housing with
transit is also critical, but car-sharing helps fill a gap for times when
bulky items are needed or at times when transit service is unavailable.
EXPAND ACCESS TO RESOURCES
b. Host regular tenant education events. Helping tenants understand
their rights and responsibilities and introducing them to resources can
help prevent evictions. Data suggests that in Utah, even having legal
counsel present during an eviction hearing has limited success given
the existing legal framework, which favors property owners. Helping
tenants before they reach the point of needing legal council is
important for tenants.
c. Develop a tenant advocate pilot program to help tenants understand
their legal obligations and rights, inspect units, and connect them
with other resources. Tenants have few rights under Utah law, so it is
important to help tenants understand their roles and responsibilities,
as well as know what they can do to protect themselves. Existing
mediation programs exist to help settle disputes, and these
programs are helpful. The tenant advocate program would seek to
exist upstream of the mediation process to help tenants read and
understand their lease, know how to communicate with their landlord,
understand what and how to document, and be a general point of
contact for tenants.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan 65
d. Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services, and
landlord training to better meet the level of need and protect tenant
rights. Help tenants remain in their housing whenever possible by
educating them and their landlords about their rights and about the
resources available to help them, including rent assistance,
mediation, and legal services, while expanding investment in those
resources and innovating in how they are delivered.
FUND COMMUNITY PARTNERS
e. Support community and grassroots organizations that provide
displacement assistance, tenant organizing, tenant mutual aid, legal
services, and other resources/efforts that help tenants. There are a
number of grassroots, volunteer organizations that serve tenants and
may have relationships with tenants that larger, better-funded
organizations may not. These organizations serve important functions
in the community by advocating for tenants, helping keep tenants
housed, and responding to tenant needs during emergency situations.
Supporting these organizations through small grant opportunities can
help build their capacity, extend their reach, and further stabilize the
community.
f. Continue supporting and expand funding for homeless street
outreach programs that connect individuals experiencing
homelessness with critical resources and housing. Street outreach
programs help connect residents who are experiencing homelessness
with resources to help them find treatment and housing. The City has
funded these programs through our partners and will continue to do
so. As the City makes progress toward its goals of increasing the
availability of new housing, especially deeply affordable housing,
increased street outreach will be needed to help ensure that residents
in need of housing can find it.
COUNTER DIRECT DISPLACEMENT
g. Develop a Relocation Assistance Fund for Tenants to help those
impacted by new development find and afford living situations that
meet their needs. While units lost to demolition are a small part of the
displacement challenge (affecting less than one percent of the city’s
housing stock between January 2020 and December 2022), the impact
on tenants who were living in those units can be profound. Helping
tenants who are directly impacted by new development find new living
arrangements they can afford and offsetting the cost of relocation can
mitigate the impacts that displacement has on households.
h. Adopt a Displaced Tenants Preference Policy so that lower income
tenants displaced due to new development or rising rents are given
priority for moving into deed-restricted units created on the site or
within the area from which they were displaced. To help ensure that
local residents impacted by rising rents and displacement are given a
priority for affordable units, some communities have adopted a
preference policy that gives qualified applicants “extra points” in their
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan66
application. This proposed policy would establish a preference for
tenants displaced from unsubsidized housing due to demolition,
rehabilitation, or rising rents so that they have the opportunity to return
to the site or area from which they were displaced when deed-
restricted units become available.
IMPROVE INTERNAL PROCESSES
i. Define indicators to track displacement and develop systems to track
progress to better know where and how the City’s anti-displacement
policies and actions are working. Success of this Plan relies on having
reliable, shared, and easily accessible data to track progress, inform
policy development, and make it possible to course-correct as needed
as conditions change. This action is focused on establishing key
metrics to track conditions over time and ensuring that investment is
made in developing the necessary data systems.
j. Form a City Implementation Team to oversee and coordinate
implementation of the actions in this plan and the priority actions in
the Thriving in Place strategy, monitor progress, engage partners,
and identify needed updates and next steps. Achieving the goals of
Housing SLC will be a significant undertaking, requiring ongoing
coordination, engagement, resources, decision making, and problem
solving. It is critical that everyone knows who “owns” implementation of
the strategy and its various components, and that those charged with
its ownership are empowered to convene, facilitate, delegate, and act.
WORK WITH COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARTNERS
k. Convene a Regional Anti-Displacement Coalition to provide an
ongoing platform for cross agency and cross-sector discussion and
collaboration on priority actions, tracking of progress, collective
problem solving, and responding to emerging issues and challenges.
Effective action to address displacement and stabilize neighborhoods
takes time, coordination, and persistence. The City is one part of a
regional ecosystem that needs to work closely together to achieve
goals related to housing affordability and neighborhood stabilization.
This ecosystem also includes other governmental agencies in the
region, nonprofits, community organizations, research centers, private
sector developers, financers, and others. The agencies and individuals
working on displacement issues need to meet regularly in order to
share information, coordinate action, problem-solve, and build trust.
Housing affordability is also a regional challenge, and the need for an
ongoing means of engaging with regional partners to identify shared
priorities for action is crucial.
INCREASE PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY AND VISITABILITY
l. Convene a physical accessibility working group of internal and
external stakeholders. Physical accessibility is a barrier to individuals
with a disability and to individuals who are aging. Ensuring that Salt
Lake City is a welcoming place to live and visit for people of all ages
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan 67
GOAL 3
Increase opportunities for homeownership and other wealth and equity
building opportunities for low to moderate income households.
Metrics: A Provide affordable homeownership and wealth and
equity building opportunities to a minimum of 1,000
low-income households.
Action Items:
ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY
a. Work with community development partners to acquire priority
properties for permanently affordable housing. Several community
development partners in Utah acquire properties to maintain
housing affordability. Partnering with these organizations to acquire
properties in Salt Lake City can help the City have a larger impact
than working alone. Developing working partnerships to explore
community ownership models can serve residents in the City and
beyond long term.
b. Establish a Community/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase program at
the City level, which could include technical assistance, funding
opportunities, and other services and resources that would give
and abilities is essential to creating an equitable city. Developing
commonsense and creative solutions to increasing the number of
physical accessible units will be a key first step in creating an
accessible city.
m. Create a public-facing rental database that includes information on
accessibility, rent amounts, unit conditions, etc. Currently there is no
database available for renters to find rental units that meet all their
needs. This data exists across platforms or may not exist online at all.
This database would not only inventory the existing housing stock, but it
would allow residents to know if units are physically accessible and
whether or not utilities are included in the listed rent price, among other
things.
n. Continue to use federal funding for home repair and modification
programs that increase accessibility and allow individuals to age in
place. Each year the City opens up Federal funding for applications
and awards funding based on competitive applications. Some of this
funding typically supports organizations that help households make
accessibility-related updates and other needed repairs. Continuing
these partnerships creates a more accessible city, helps households
age in place, and alleviates the financial burdens that many
households face.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan68
existing tenants, the community, or the City/RDA the opportunity to
purchase before the property goes to market. Community and tenant
opportunity to purchase policies allow tenants of an existing building,
or residents in the community more broadly, the opportunity to
purchase that building before it goes to market. Just having a policy on
the books, however, does not overcome the barriers to purchasing an
apartment building. Contributing technical assistance, organizing
capacity, and funding opportunities is also critical. This is one way to
help tenants become owners.
c. Explore the feasibility of issuing home equity conversion mortgages
to existing homeowners in return for for a deed restriction, possibly
through the City’s Homebuyer Program. Home Equity Conversion
Mortgages are a tool that enables borrowers to withdraw some of the
equity in their home. Using this tool to purchase deed-restrictions on
existing housing stock helps grow the stock of affordable housing while
allowing existing residents to remain in their homes.
INCREASE HOMEOWNERSHIP AND EQUITY-SHARING
d. Provide funding for programs and/or initiatives that build wealth
and/or provide equity sharing opportunities for residents. Developing
equity sharing opportunities in rental housing is one way to build
wealth and maintain housing affordability while increasing housing
stability. The City will provide funding to ensure that programs with this
end in mind succeed.
e. Support projects that allow tenants to build wealth and/or gain
equity in their building based on tenure. Homeownership is the
primary mode of gaining household wealth in the United States, but
homeownership is out of reach for the majority of residents in Salt Lake
City, especially if they currently rent. Other ways of increasing
household wealth, such as limited-equity cooperatives, provide
opportunities for ownership and/or wealth creation for households who
are otherwise priced out while incentivizing housing and neighborhood
stability and keeping rents affordable.
f. Continue to manage and expand City’s Community Land Trust (CLT)
program. Maintaining affordability long term is critical to creating an
affordable city. While deed-restrictions are useful, they often expire and
the housing converts to market rates. Community ownership ensures
that the cost of housing is always affordable. Additionally, CLTs typically
have affordable for-sale housing, which allows households to increase
stability and create wealth. Various models for community land trusts
exist and can be learned from.
HOUSING SLC | A Five Year Housing Plan 69
Appendix B:Housing Needs Analysis
2022
Salt Lake City
Housing Needs
Analysis
Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division
January 6, 2023
Housing Needs Analysis 1
Content
Analysis in Brief………………………………2
Demographics………………………………….3
Household Characteristics……………9
Economic Characteristics……………..13
Housing Stock………………………………….15
Housing Costs……………….………………….18
Housing Gap………………………………………23
Housing Needs Analysis 2
Housing Needs Analysis 1
Analysis in Brief
• Salt Lake City is short over 5,500 units for renter households earning less than 30% AMI but
has a surplus of units affordable to those earning between 30% and 80% AMI.
• Salt Lake City is projected to gain over 6,000 residents in the next five years. With an average
household size just over two individuals, roughly 3,000 new units will be needed to
accommodate this growth.
• Salt Lake City has more nonfamily households than family households – 57% in 2021. Salt
lake City’s growth has primarily come from adult in-migration, rather than natural growth
(births).
• Salt Lake City is a Millennial destination and has the lowest median age among peer cities in
the region (33 years old). Nearly one-third (31%) of Salt Lake City’s population is post-college
aged Millennials (ages 25-39)—higher than all regional peer cities but Denver.
• Salt Lake City’s decennial growth rate of 7% is lower than the State (18%) and County (15%)
rates; however, the growth rate is accelerating while the State’s growth rate is decelerating,
and the County’s has stagnated. As other areas around the Wasatch Front are built-out there
will be pressure for urban infill in the metropolitan center.
• Salt Lake City has a very high proportion of in-commuters: 83% of Salt Lake City jobs are held
by in-commuters, the highest of among peer cities in the region. The proportion of jobs held
by in-commuters has increased over the last two decades. The City’s in-commuting
population will continue to grow if job growth exceeds housing development and
affordability
• Single family detached houses make up nearly half of all housing units in Salt Lake City. Mid-
and high-rise apartments make up another 30% of units. Other housing types, often called
the “missing middle,” make up roughly a quarter of the total housing stock.
• 60% of Salt Lake City housing units are over 50 years old. An aging housing stock will require
investment to ensure that units remain in a state of good repair.
• As housing costs increase, more households are priced out of homes on the market. With
median home sale prices at $490,000 (2021), 72.6% percent of all Salt Lake City households
and 86.4% of renter households are unable to afford the median priced home.
Housing Needs Analysis 3
Demographic s 2
Population
In 2020, Salt Lake City’s population was 199,723 – up from 186,440 in 2010 and 181,743 in 2000. The
population growth rate increased between 2010 and 2020 relative to the previous decade.
However, the growth rate among minority groups slowed between 2010 and 2020 (Figure 1).
While Salt Lake City’s growth rate is lower than that of the County and State, it increased over the
previous decade (3% to 7%) whereas the County’s remained stable at 15% and the State-wide
growth rate decreased from 24% to 18% (Figure 2).
The areas in the City with the highest growth include the Hardware District, Downtown, Ballpark,
and the Sugar House Business District (Figure 3). The Westside and Liberty Wells areas have become
less racially and ethnically diverse while the remainder of the City has seen diversity increase (Figure
4).
Figure 1: Majority and Minority Population Growth, Salt Lake City, UT, 2000-2020
Source: United States Census Bureau (USCB) 2000, 2010, & 2020 Decennial Census
Figure 2: Population Growth Rate, Utah, Salt Lake County, UT, Salt Lake City, UT, 2000-2020
Source: USCB 2000, 2010, & 2020 Decennial Census
128,377 122,352 126,678
53,366 64,115 73,045
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2000 2010 2020
White, not Hispanic or Latino Minority
23.8%
14.6%
2.6%
18.4%
15.1%
7.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Utah Salt Lake County Salt Lake City
2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020
Housing Needs Analysis 4
Figure 3: Population Growth by Census Tract 2012-2016 to 2017-2021 5-year Estimates
Source: USCB 2010 & 2020 Decennial Census
Figure 4: Change in Percent Minority by Census Tract, 2010-2020
Source: USCB 2010 & 2020 Decennial Census
Housing Needs Analysis 5
Population Projection
Salt Lake City’s average annual population growth rate since 2005, when the American Community
Survey first provided reliable intercensal annual estimates, is 0.60%. Using this average to project
future growth, we can expect Salt Lake City will gain over 6,000 residents by 2027. With an average
household size just over two individuals, 3,000 new housing units will be needed to accommodate
these new residents.
This projection does not factor in external pressure from surrounding areas that are experiencing
greater growth. The average annual growth rate for Salt Lake County and Utah are 1.62% and 2.15%
respectively. As surrounding municipalities along the Wasatch Front are built out, pressure to
densify urban areas may lead to greater growth in Salt Lake City.
Other factors not included in the projection include policies that encourage or discourage growth,
push and pull factors that influence potential migrants' perception of Salt Lake City’s quality of life
such as economic outlook and environmental conditions, and broader societal trends including a
shift towards remote work and a renewed interest in urban living. Population growth is complex
and will be influenced by the policies that the City adopts as well as unanticipated external factors
beyond our ability to predict.
Figure 5: Population and Projected Population, Salt Lake City, UT, 2000-2030
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates, Analysis by author
2000
181,743
2005
182,670
2010
186,440
2015
192,660
2020
199,723
2025
205,306
2030
211,510
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Population Projection
Housing Needs Analysis 6
Age
Unlike the State of Utah, which has one of the highest birth rates in the nation, Salt Lake City is
experiencing little natural growth. A large cohort ages 20 to 39 years reflects the City’s character as
a hub for students and young professionals (Figure 6). The Westside and the University of Utah and
its surrounding neighborhoods are generally younger than the remainder of the City (Figure 9).
Salt Lake City has a higher proportion of Millennials than the larger metro area, even when
excluding college students. 31% of Salt Lake City’s population is post-college aged Millennials (ages
25-39)—higher than most regional peer cities but lower than Denver (33%) (Figure 7). The City also
has a lower median age than peer cities in the region (Figure 8). Median age has increased over the
last two decades from 30 in 2000 to 31 in 2010, and 33 in 2021.
Figure 6: Population by Age Cohort, Salt Lake City, UT, Utah, 2020
Source: USCB 2020 Decennial Census
Figure 7: % Millennial, 2021 Figure 8: Median Age, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimate Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimate
-8%-4%0%4%8%
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
Salt Lake City
-8%-4%0%4%8%
Utah
33%31%29%
26%24%
24%
23%
22%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%40 39 38 37 36 36 35 34 33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Housing Needs Analysis 7
Figure 9: Median Age by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 10: Percent Millennial (25-39 years old) by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 8
Figure 11: Percent Under 18 Years Old, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 12: Percent Over 60 Years Old, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 9
Household Characteristics 3
Tenure
As is typical in large metropolitan areas, households in the suburbs are more likely to own their
home than households in the urban core. In 2021, 48% of Salt Lake City households were
homeowners compared to 66% for Salt Lake County (Figure 13). The proportion of City households
that are homeowners declined between 2000 and 2021, with the number of renter households first
exceeding the number of homeowners in 2010 (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Household Tenure, 2000-2021
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
Figure 14: Percent Renter Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
36,579 34,903 42,681 34,823 38,421
47,158
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake City
Owner Occupied
203,690 229,445
276,964
91,451 109,486 143,339
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake County
Renter Occupied
Housing Needs Analysis 10
Family Households
As is typical in large metropolitan areas, households in the suburbs are more likely to be families
than households in the urban core. In 2021, 43% of Salt Lake City households were families
compared to 66% for Salt Lake County (Figure 15). The proportion of City households that are
families declined between 2000 and 2021, with the number of nonfamily households first
exceeding the number of family households in 2015 (Figure 15).
Across the region, the percent of housing units that are 3 or more bedrooms correlates with the
percent of households that are families. Salt Lake City has the smallest percentage of family
households among peer cities in the region as well as the smallest percentage of housing units that
are 3 or more bedrooms (Figure 16).
In Salt Lake City, there are over 16,500 more units with three or more bedrooms than there are
households with three or more individuals. Less than 3% of Salt Lake City housing units are over -
crowded (more than one individual per room) (Figure 17) .
Figure 15: Family and Nonfamily Households, 2000-2021
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 & 2021 ACS 1-year estimate
39,830 38,646 38,994
31,631 34,678
50,845
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake City
Family
214,102
240,276
278,810
81,039
98,655
141,493
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake County
Nonfamily
Housing Needs Analysis 11
Figure 16: Unit Size v. Household Size, Salt Lake City, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
Figure 17: Large Units and Family Households, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
67%
61%61%60%54%52%
46%41%41%
67%
59%61%57%57%55%
48%47%43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
% 3 or more bedrooms % Family Households
36,011
29,813
11,281
12,734
30,304
28,643
21,380
19,224
-10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Studio & 1-BR units v. 1-person households
2-BR units v. 2-person households
3-BR units v. 3-person households
4-or-more-BR units v. 4-or-more-person
household
Units Households
Housing Needs Analysis 12
Figure 18: Percent Family Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 19: Percent of Units with 3 or More Bedrooms, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 13
Economic Characteristics 4
Commuters
Salt Lake City has a very high proportion of in-commuters: 83% of Salt Lake City jobs are held by in-
commuters, the highest of among peer cities in the region (Figure 20). The proportion of jobs held
by in-commuters has increased over the last two decades (Figure 21). The City’s in-commuting
population will continue to grow if job growth exceeds housing development in the city.
For Salt Lake City residents who worked in 2021, one in four usually worked from home (Figure 22).
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, work from home was becoming more popular, increasing from 3%
of all workers in 2010 to 6% in 2019 (Figure 23). This trend accelerated during the pandemic. Work
from home, which requires residential units to serve as both home and office, will continue to
reshape views on housing, commuting, and community amenities.
Figure 20: In-Commuters, 2019 Figure 21: In-Commuters, Salt Lake City, UT
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimate
Figure 22: Workers Who Usually Work from
Home, 2021
Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates
Figure 23: Workers Who Usually Work from
Home, Salt Lake City, 2010-2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimate Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates
83%73%68%64%58%58%52%
38%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
2002
78.3%
2014
83.3%
2019
83.2%
74%
76%
78%
80%
82%
84%
86%
35%32%
26%24%24%20%19%13%13%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
3%4%6%
26%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
Housing Needs Analysis 14
Poverty
Over 25,000 Salt Lake City residents, 13% of the total population, have incomes below the poverty
line. Salt Lake City’s poverty rate is higher than Utah’s (9%) (Figure 24). Both the City and State have
seen poverty rates drop in the last decade, declining from 23% and 14% respectively in 2011 (Figure
25). Poverty rates are not even across race and ethnic backgrounds. Black or African American and
American Indian and Alaska Native populations have the highest poverty rates at 25% and 37%
respectively (Figure 26).
Figure 24: Individuals in Poverty, 2011-2021
Figure 25: Poverty Rate, 2011-2021
Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates
Figure 26: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
42,336 30,355 25,362
374,859
306,902
281,673
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2011 2016 2021
Salt Lake City Utah
23%
16%
13%14%
10%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2011 2016 2021
Salt Lake City Utah
19%
15%
24%
3%
16%
37%
25%
12%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)
Two or more races
Some other race
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Asian
American Indian and Alaska Native
Black or African American
White, not Hispanic or Latino
Housing Needs Analysis 15
Figure 27: Poverty Rate by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Stock 5
Unit Size
The distribution of housing units by
number of bedrooms did not
change substantially in the last two
decades (Figure 28). Nearly one-third
of units have two bedrooms, roughly
a quarter each have one bedroom or
three bedrooms, and the remainder
are either studio units or units with 5
or more bedrooms. Since 2000, the
percentage increase in studio units
(53%) and 5+ bedroom units (71%)
outpaced the percentage growth of
units of other sizes (1-BR, 35%; 2-BR,
15%; 3-BR, 29%; 4-BR, 27%).
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2021
Studio 1 bedroom
2 bedroom 3 bedroom
4 bedroom 5 or more bedroom
Figure 28: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Salt
Lake City, UT, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 16
Building Type
Single family detached houses make up nearly half of all housing units in Salt Lake City. Mid- and
high-rise apartments make up another 30% of units. Other housing types, often called the “missing
middle,” make up roughly a quarter of the total housing stock (Figure 29). Units in mid- and high-
rise apartments have seen the greatest increase in the last decade. Salt Lake City has the second
lowest percentage of single family detached housing units among peer cities in the region.
Figure 29: Housing Units by Building Type, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, Analysis by author
Figure 30: Percent of Units that are Single Family Detached Homes, Salt Lake City, UT 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
66%64%63%63%62%54%54%47%43%
26%24%24%26%28%23%
32%24%24%
8%12%13%11%10%
23%
14%
29%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
% Single Family, Detached % Middle Housing % Mid- to High-Rise Apartments
Housing Needs Analysis 17
Aging Housing
60% of Salt Lake City housing units are over 50 years old (Figure 31). An aging housing stock will
require investment to ensure that units remain in a state of good repair. Older units are a common
reservoir of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH). If aging housing is demolished to make
way for new development, these NOAH units could be lost.
Figure 31: Housing Units by Decade Built, Salt Lake City, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, Analysis by author
Figure 32: Percent of Units in Structures Built Before 1970, Salt Lake City, UT 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
28,443
29%
9,835
10%
10,763
11%9,369
9%
10,591
11%6,839
7%5,678
6%
6,196
6%
10,961
11%
876
1%
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Before
1940
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s
Housing Needs Analysis 18
Housing Costs 6
Housing Costs
Housing costs have outpaced wage increases over the last two decades. From 2005 to 2021, median
rent increased by 38% and median home values by 83% (adjusted for inflation). During this same
period, median annual earnings from wages increased by only 19%. Median household income
increased by 29% during this period, greater than the increase in median earnings (Figure 33).
Households that may have previously made-do with a single source of income may now include
multiple wage earners.
Figure 33: Percent Change in Income and Housing Costs, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Source: USCB 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, analysis by author
Figure 34: Net Percent Change in Income & Housing Costs from 2005 Baseline, Salt Lake City, UT
Source: USCB, 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1 -year estimates, analysis by author
-15%
23%
13%
-3%
11%
20%
7%5%
24%21%
-2%
53%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2021
Median Earnings, All industries Median Household Income
Median Rent Median Home Value
-15%
5%
19%
-3%
8%
29%
7%12%
38%
21%20%
83%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2010 2015 2021Median Earnings, All industries Median Household Income
Median Rent Median Home Value
Housing Needs Analysis 19
Figure 35: Median Earnings, All Industries, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Figure 36: Median Household Income, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Figure 37: Median Rent, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Figure 38: Median Home Value, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Source Figures 35-38: USCB 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
$34,704
$29,604
$36,493
$37,879
$41,415
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$51,856
$50,085
$55,763
$67,794
$66,658
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$861
$919
$961
$1,125
$1,192
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$251,026
$304,854
$300,079 $400,908
$459,800
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Housing Needs Analysis 20
Figure 39: Median Household Income by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 40: % Change in Median Household Income, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-2016 to 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2012-2016 & 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 21
Figure 41: Median Rent by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 42: % Change in Median Rent, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-2016 to 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2012-2016 & 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 22
Figure 43: Median Home Value by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-2016 to 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 44: % Change in Median Home Value, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-2016 to 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2012-2016 & 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 23
Housing Gap 7
Unit Gap by Income
Salt Lake City has a deficit of over 5,500 units that are affordable to extremely low-income
households (those earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income [AMI]). 70% of rental units in
the City are rented at rates affordable to households earning between 30% and 80% AMI,
generating a surplus of 14,000 units. There is a shortage of 8,500 units priced for those earning
more than 80% AMI (Figures 45 and 46). Low-income renters must compete for affordable units
with moderate- and high-income renters who may have difficulty finding a high-value unit.
Figure 45: Surplus/Deficit of Rental Units by Income Range, Salt Lake City, UT, 2021
Figure 46: Salt Lake City: Rental Affordability Gap Analysis, 2021
Income Range
Maximum
Affordable
Monthly Rent
Households in
Income Range
Rental Units
at that Price
Surplus/
Deficit of Units
Less than 30% AMI ($27,870) $697 13,860 8,353 -5,507
30%-50% AMI ($27,870-$46,450) $1,161 8,803 18,128 9,325
50%-80% AMI ($46,450-$74,320) $1,858 10,338 15,078 4,739
80%-100% AMI ($74,320-$92,900) $2,323 4,755 3,637 -1,119
100%-125% AMI ($92,900-$116,125) $2,903 3,318 1,372 -1,946
125% AMI (> $116,125) > $ 2,903 6,084 591 -5,493
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, HUD 2021 Annual Income Limits for Salt Lake City, UT MSA, Analysis by author
-5,507
9,325
4,739
-1,119 -1,946
-5,493
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
% Median Family Income ($92,900)
Unit Gap
Margin of
Error at
90%
Confidence
Housing Needs Analysis 24
Cost Burden
Low-income renter households are much more likely to be cost burdened (spending more than
30% of their income on housing costs) than moderate- and high-income renters. In 2021, 23,597
renter households – half off all renters in the City – were cost burdened (Figure 47). Cost burden has
been on the rise since 2017 (Figure 47). Data published by HUD based on 2015-2019 ACS 1-year
estimates suggests that half of all cost burdened renters have extremely low incomes (Figure 48).
Figure 47: Cost Burdened Renter Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates, Note: 1-year estimates were not published in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic
Figure 48: Households by Income by Cost Burden, Salt Lake City, UT, 2015-2019
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019 5-year estimates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021
Cost Burdened Renter Household Percent Cost Burdened Renter Households
6,645
1,430
290
8,365
1,600
4,110
2,065
400
170
8,345
1,900
2,145
6,070
4,235
9,020
23,370
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Total
Severely Cost Burdened Cost Burdened Unburdened
Housing Needs Analysis 25
Figure 49: Units by Income of Occupant by Price, Salt Lake City, UT, 2015-2019
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019 5-year estimates
Homeownership Attainability
As housing costs increase, more households are priced out of homes on the market. With median
home sale prices at $490,000 (2021), 72.6% percent of all Salt Lake City households and 86.4% of
renter households are unable to affordable the median priced home (Figures 49 and 50).
Figure 50: Homeownership Attainability for Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2021
Source: USCB ACS 2021 1-year data, Redfin Brokerage, FRED St. Louis, analysis by author assumes 30-year fixed
mortgage with PMI and property taxes
700
8634
5750
5584
2379
3590
25937
1020
3660
3659
6015
4190
8640
26164
520
1760
1505
2885
2204
18815
27169
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Vacant
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Total
Unit Price Affordable to Households with Incomes:
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
I
n
c
o
m
e
Less than 50% AMI 50%-80% AMI
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sh
a
r
e
o
f
A
l
l
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Home Sale Price
Can Afford
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sh
a
r
e
o
f
R
e
n
t
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Home Sale Price
Can Afford Priced Out
Appendix C:Thriving in Place Phase One Summary Report
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 1
PHASE ONE
SUMMARY
REPORT
Thriving in Place: Salt Lake City’s
Anti-Displacement Strategy
What We Heard | What We Learned | What Comes Next
July 2022
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We‘ve completed Phase One of Thriving in Place to develop an anti-displacement strategy
for Salt Lake City. We heard from thousands of residents and had hundreds of hours of
conversation. We also dug deep into the data, documenting the extent of displacement risk
and its realities.
Thriving In Place: Phase One Summary
What We Heard | What We Learned | What Comes Next
The results of Phase One are a call to action. The full report details what we did, who we
heard from, what they said, and what we learned from the data analysis. Here are key
takeaways:
• Displacement in Salt Lake City is significant and getting worse, and is an issue of high
concern in the community.
• There are no “more affordable” neighborhoods in Salt Lake City where lower income
families can move once displaced. This is a particularly striking finding; something that
UDP has not seen before in their work around the country.
• Salt Lake City is growing and there are not enough housing units overall, and a
significant lack of affordable units for low-income families.
• Almost half of Salt Lake City’s renter households are rent burdened, spending over 30
percent of their income on housing, making them highly vulnerable when rents increase.
• Displacement affects more than half of White households in Salt Lake City and
disproportionately affects households of color.
• The patterns of displacement reflect historic patterns of discrimination and
segregation, with areas experiencing high displacement risk closely aligning with areas
that were redlined in the past.
What We Heard and Learned
Dig Deeper!
Read the full Phase One Summary Report plus:
• Study UDP’s Displacement Analysis for Salt Lake City, including maps showing
displacement risk around the city and region.
• Download the Community Survey Data Viewer to see how responses varied by
income, Council District and more.
• Explore the details of community input from Phase One interviews, focus groups and
youth workshops.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 3
What Comes Next
1. Be pro-housing and pro-tenant.
• Incentivize new residential development where it will benefit the most people.
• Discourage new development where it will do the most harm.
• Enact policies that protect renters living in affordable homes.
• Establish policies and programs to minimize displacement from new development.
2. Increase housing options and choices everywhere.
• Create gentle infill and rental housing opportunities in every neighborhood.
• Support new housing at all income levels.
• Incentivize lower priced for-sale housing to provide homeownership opportunities to
moderate and lower income people.
• Make it easy and attractive to build affordable housing.
3. Invest in equitable development.
• Increase spending on rental assistance and affordable housing construction and develop
new funding sources to make it possible.
• Maximize community ownership of housing through mission-driven nonprofits, coops,
shared housing, public housing, and land trusts.
• Support living wage jobs.
• Support cultural institutions, locally owned businesses and public spaces that help
communities thrive in place.
4. Make sure the economics work.
• Incentivize projects that are catalytic and align with guiding principles.
• Target incentives in the areas where new development will have the least displacement
impacts and maximum benefit.
• Ensure policies and regulations are meeting guiding principles and provide for flexibility
to adjust as needed.
• Prioritize affordability in land use policy implementation.
5. Build an eco-system for action.
• Ensure ongoing communication and engagement with those who are most impacted so
that they continue to inform action and are aware of the resources available to them.
• Identify key indicators to track success and share results.
• Create a platform for regular coordination between the City and key partners.
• Work together to fund shared priorities.
Now comes Phase Two, when we work together to define our course of action.
To get started, we’ve drafted Guiding Principles. These will be refined and modified through
community input and engagement in the months ahead.
Get Involved!
Sign up for the newsletter to keep up-to-date on the project and opportunities to participate.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT4
Phase One was made possible by countless hours of work by many people.
Huge thanks! to everyone who gave their time, energy and creativity to make it
possible.
A very special call-out to the University of Utah students, working under the
direction of Professors Ivis Garcia and Alessandro Rigolon. Their collective work
made it possible to reach thousands of Salt Lake residents, in person. While
we summarize their work here, be sure to follow the links to read their own
summaries, capturing hundreds of hours of input. They also did a thorough
review of current City policies and programs as well as examples from other
communities. It’s impressive work!
Heartfelt thanks, too, for our Community Liaisons and Community Working
Group members, and for the many community-based organizations who
opened their doors and partnered with us. This project is committed to
ensuring that those who are experiencing displacement are front and center
in documenting and understanding it and then shaping the response. Our
community partners are helping make that a reality.
And most importantly, sincere thanks to everyone who gave their time,
responded to our questions, shared their stories, and listened to the
voices of their friends, fellow students, colleagues and neighbors. We hope
you find this report to be an accurate reflection of what you said and what
you heard.
GRATITUDE
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 5
Thriving in Place is overseen by the Department of
Community and Neighborhoods in close collaboration with
the Mayor’s Office, Council and other City departments. The
core city team is led by Angela Price and Susan Lundmark
with support from Ruedigar Matthes.
The project consultant team includes:
Baird + Driskell Community Planning:
• David Driskell, Project Manager
• Daisy Quinonez, Project Associate
• Victor Tran, Document Design and Production
University of Utah, Department of City and
Metropolitan Planning:
• Ivis Garcia Zambrana, PhD, Assistant Professor
• Alessandro Rigolon, PhD, Assistant Professor
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) at
University of California, Berkeley:
• Tim Thomas, PhD, Research Director
• Julia Greenberg, Research Manager
For more information, visit the project website, ThrivingInPlaceSLC.org, or write
to ThrivingInPlace@slcgov.com.
PROJECT TEAM
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT6
WHAT IS IN THIS REPORT
Welcome! This report gives a summary of Phase One of the Thriving in Place
project. It captures hundreds of hours of community conversation and input from
thousands of people about housing gentrification and displacement. Follow the
links (underlined orange/red text) throughout the report to read more detail.
Also, visit the project website and sign up for the Thriving in Place newsletter.
What We Did (pg. 11)
An overview of the activities that generated the content of this
report.
What This is About (pg. 8)
A quick intro to Thriving in Place, this report, and why this work
matters.
Who We Heard From (pg. 14)
A snapshot of the people who gave us their time and input.
What We Heard (pg. 16)
Key themes and takeaways from each of the engagement
activities, with links where you can explore the data.
What We Learned (pg. 34)
Takeaways from the analysis of displacement risks in Salt Lake
City and the region plus results from University of Utah’s work,
with links to the detailed reports.
What Comes Next (pg. 38)
How we will connect our understanding of the problem with
priorities for action, including draft guiding principles.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 7
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT8
WHAT THIS IS ABOUT
Section 1
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 9
Thriving in Place is Salt Lake City’s community-driven process to analyze and
understand gentrification and residential displacement. Through this collective
work, the City and its partners will define anti-displacement strategies to
address the factors that are forcing many of our friends, family members, and
neighbors to leave, or to live without a home, because they can’t find housing in
Salt Lake City that they can afford.
This report summarizes what we heard and learned in the first phase of the
project’s work, which we called Listening and Learning. We want to reflect
back to everyone who spent time with us a summary of what was said–in the
community survey, focus groups, one-on-one interviews, youth workshops,
and community events. We also want to share what we found out through
the cutting-edge analysis conducted by our project partners at the Urban
Displacement Project. This critical information–from what the analysis tells
us and what we heard from the community about their perspectives and
experiences—helps us to understand, more completely, the problem we are
striving to solve, because it’s hard to solve a problem if you don’t agree on
what the problem is.
About Thriving In Place and This Report
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT10
When growth pressures drive housing prices up, and
incomes and housing costs get out of sync, people are
displaced. They are forced to overpay for housing, move
to a different neighborhood or city, double up with family
and friends, or start living in their car or on the street.
The impacts of displacement are profound and lasting–on
the families who are displaced, and on the communities
they leave behind. We lose our friends and neighbors, our
coworkers, and our school-aged students. We also see
increases in our unsheltered population, longer commutes,
and more air pollution.
Why This Matters
Salt Lake City is a great place to live. We are lucky to have a beautiful natural
setting, a vibrant economy and a caring, creative, and diverse community.
It’s a great place to raise a family, to build a career, and to grow old. But it’s
increasingly a very difficult place for many who cannot find housing they can
afford.
Cities thrive when all residents have access to safe, stable and affordable
housing, healthy neighborhoods, and good jobs. We know we can create a city
where everyone can thrive while staying in the community they love. That’s why
this project is called Thriving in Place. It is Salt Lake City’s vision of what we will
try to achieve and why this matters.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 11
WHAT WE DID
Section 2
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT12
To document the current situation using the best data possible we:
• Engaged the Urban Displacement Project to gather, analyze, model, and
map data on displacement risk and trends (see pg. 35)
• Had a planning class at the University of Utah review the City’s current
policies and programs related to displacement and document best practices
from other places (see pg. 37).
Analyzing the Data
Phase One engaged people throughout the community in helping us
understand and document gentrification and displacement to build a shared
understanding of the problem we are working to solve.
To make sure we are taking the right approach we:
• Interviewed 15 community stakeholders and leaders as a very first step in
the process to get their input about key issues and shape the engagement
strategy (read the summary here)
• Convened a City Steering Committee representing 16 departments and
divisions (listed here) to ensure input and coordination.
• Organized a Community Working Group of over 20 stakeholders (listed
here) to help direct the engagement strategy, serve as a sounding board,
and provide input on the project’s work.
Guiding Our Work
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 13
To reach as many people as possible we:
• Built the project website, in English and Spanish, as a platform for
education and engagement.
• Launched a survey, in English and Spanish, attracting over 2000
respondents. (see pg. 17)
• Got the word out through email blasts, social media, and 4000+ multi-lingual
flyers, postcards, and door hangers. Plus, we stenciled the project name and
website info over 150 times on walkways around different neighborhoods.
• Presented at 14 community events or gatherings and at 13 community
council meetings to let people know about the project and encourage them
to participate.
Engaging Everyone
To hear from those directly impacted by displacement we:
• Hired six Community Liaisons as trusted members of their communities to
talk with folks they know about their experiences.
• Held five focus groups and nearly 70 one-on-one interviews to hear people’s
stories and delve into their experiences, perspectives, and ideas. (see pg. 26)
• Hosted seven youth workshops with over 200 students to hear their
thoughts about changes in their neighborhoods and how to make the city a
better place for everyone. (see pg. 32)
Reaching the Most At-Risk
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT14
WHO WE HEARD FROM
Section 3
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 15
3 Schools
Elementary through
High School
Nearly 2,500 people whom contributed their time,
input, experiences, and ideas. This involved:
We heard from...
2150
Survey
Respondents
50
Focus Group
Participants
70..
In-Depth
Interviews 200
Students
Unhoused Individuals
and Low-income
Individuals Living in
Subsidized Housing
7 Youth
Workshops
( )Peop
l
e
who a
r
e
unsh
e
l
t
e
r
e
d
851
Intercept
(In-Person)
2 Spanish2 English
1 Bilingual
5 Focus
Groups
People
experiencing
housing
instability
Lati
n
o
com
m
u
n
i
t
y
me
m
b
e
r
s
1199
Online
Pacific
Islander
community
members
Immigrant
community
members
Includ
i
n
g
with
Including with
DI
G
D
E
E
P
E
R
Explore the University of Utah’s Work from Fall 2021
In addition to the work outlined in this report, we had a jump-start
in Fall 2021 thanks to two classes at the University of Utah. Check
out their work, including 21 Story Maps documenting interviews
with over 400 residents and capturing valuable information about
cultural assets, housing issues and neighborhood change as well as
their presentation on Zoning for Equity.
Check it out by clicking here!
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT16
WHAT WE HEARD
Section 4
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 17
DI
G
D
E
E
P
E
R
We had over a hundred hours of conversation—in one-on-one interviews, focus
groups and youth workshops—in addition to having over 2,150 people respond
to the survey. That’s a lot of valuable input.
We’ve worked to sort through it all, and pull out key themes and takeaways.
In short, gentrification and displacement are issues of significant concern for
people throughout the community, and are impacting many lives. There is
widespread desire for more affordable housing and for ensuring that people
are not displaced so that the benefits of new investment and growth can be
shared by all.
A community survey was conducted between February and April 2022. It was
available in English and Spanish. It consisted of six multiple choice questions
and one open-ended question in addition to asking people to identify their
neighborhood and provide basic demographic info. It could be filled out
online in addition to being used for in-person interviews by University of Utah
students. You can see the survey format and questions here.
Keep in mind that in most answers, people could choose more than one
response, so the number of responses is often higher than the number of
people who took the survey.
Survey Responses
Download the Community Survey Data Viewer
To give everyone the opportunity to explore the survey
responses, we’ve built a tool you can use to see a
summary of the data based on income group, race/
ethnicity, renter/owner status and Council district. You
can also see the full list of open-ended responses that
people provided.
Check it out by clicking here!
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT18
Profile of Survey Respondents
Approximately 2,150 people took the survey, with 42 percent responding to
it in-person (being interviewed by a student who then entered the data). The
profile of people completing the survey was similar to the overall Salt Lake
population in terms of income (figure 1), race/ethnicity (figure 2) and whether
they were homeowners or renters (figure 3).
Less Than
$15,000
$15,000 -
25,000
$25,000 -
50,000
$50,000 -
75,000
$75,000 -
100,000
$100,000 -
150,000
More Than
$150,000
Figure 1: Income of Survey Respondents vs Citywide Population
Survey Respondents Citywide (2019)
20%
10%
40%
30%
60%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
8%12%8%8.5%
22%21%20%18%15%12.5%15%14%13%14%
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 19
American
Indian / Alaska
Native
Asian Black / African
American
Hispanic /
Latino
Native
Hawaiian /
Pacific Islander
White Mixed Prefer Not to
Say
Figure 2: Race / Ethnicity of Survey Respondents vs Citywide Population
0.4%2.9%2.4%2.4%
18.9%21.8%
62.2%64.8%
4.0%2.6%
6.0%
N/A3.3%1.6%1.2%
5.3%
Survey Respondents Citywide (2019)
20%
10%
40%
30%
60%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
Survey Respondents Citywide (2019)
Homeowner Renter Living with Family/
Friends (no rent)
Unstable / Unhoused
/ Other
Figure 3: Housing Status of Survey Respondents vs Citywide Population
42.7%
48.1%44.4%
51.9%
9.4%
3.5%N/A N/A
20%
10%
40%
30%
60%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT20
Level of Concern About Gentrification and Displacement
All groups expressed high levels of concern, especially renters and lower
income people.
A significant majority of survey respondents (81%), across all race and ethnicity
groups, expressed moderate to very high concern about gentrification and
displacement.
Those who are “very concerned” are more likely to be renters, living with family
or friends without rent, facing an unstable housing situation, or unhoused,
which is understandable given the direct impact of increasing rents. However, a
majority of homeowners expressed that they are quite or very concerned.
A majority of respondents within each income bracket expressed a moderate
to very high level of concern, with lower income households being the most
concerned. The percentage of those who hold moderate to very high levels of
concern reduces incrementally with each higher income bracket. For example,
those earning between $15,000 and $25,000 had the most concern (90%
expressed moderate to very high concern) while those earning $150,000 were
less concerned (but still, 74% expressed moderate to very high concern).
Not Concerned
At All
Slightly
Concerned
Moderately
Concerned
Quite
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Figure 4: Level of Concern About Gentrification and Displacement
20%
10%
40%
30%
60%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
6.9%10.4%
21.8%
27.0%
34.0%
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 21
Experience with Gentrification and Displacement
Most Recognize or Have Experienced Gentrification and Displacement in
Their Neighborhood
Nearly all respondents (close to 95%) indicated some direct experience with
the impacts of gentrification and displacement. Over half of respondents have
experienced their neighborhood gentrifying or live in a neighborhood that
already has gentrified, and nearly half have known someone who has already
moved due to eviction or high housing costs (with 5.5% reporting having
been evicted). Almost 20% said they have had to move due to rent increases,
while 13% are on the verge of moving due to increased costs. Close to 40% of
respondents want to buy but cannot afford a home. We know from our parallel
data analysis that many of these people are renters who might otherwise be
moving into lower cost for-sale “starter homes,” but instead are staying in the
rental market, inadvertently putting pressure on rents because they are able to
pay more than lower income households.
20%
10%
40%
30%
60%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
Moved Due to
Rent Increase
Verge of Moving
(Due to Cost)
EvictedWant to Buy/
Can’t Afford
Neighborhood
Already
Gentrified
Know People
Who Moved
(Evicted/Cost)
Neighborhood Is
Gentrifying
Figure 5: Experience with Gentrification and Displacement
38.0%
48.8%
22.1
38.5%
5.5%
13.3%
19.3%
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT22
Views on Gentrification and Displacement
Despite Mixed Opinions, Most Agree That No One Should Be Displaced or
Excluded from the Benefits of Change
A clear majority of people expressed that the benefits of investment should
be shared by all and that the City should work to ensure that people are not
displaced. However, there are mixed opinions about whether gentrification
makes neighborhoods worse (29%) or better (11.5%), and just over 1 in 10
expressed that “not much can be done.” Perhaps not surprisingly, lower income
respondents were more likely to see gentrification negatively (about 40% of
respondents with incomes less than $50,000 chose “makes things worse”)
compared to higher income respondents (16% of those making over $150,000
chose “makes things worse”).
20%
10%
40%
30%
60%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
Figure 6: Views on Gentrification and Displacement
Not Sure What
Gentrification Is
At All
Not Much Can Be
Done
Ensure People are
Not Displaced
Benefits Shared
by All
Makes Things
Worse
Make Community
Better
11.5%
29.0%
60.6%
65.7%
11.0%
4.3%
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 23
Perceptions of What Contributes to Gentrification and
Displacement
People See Lack of Affordable Housing as the Main Issue
Overall, the majority of respondents (especially renters) believe gentrification
and displacement are due to a lack of affordable housing and higher income
people moving in. Many respondents (over 40%) also pointed to a lack of
housing in general as well as new development as a cause of displacement,
while a third pointed to the demolition or renovation of older buildings as a
contributing factor.
20%
10%
40%
30%
60%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
N
e
w
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
N
o
t
E
n
o
u
g
h
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
N
o
t
E
n
o
u
g
h
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
H
i
g
h
e
r
I
n
c
o
m
e
P
e
o
p
l
e
M
o
v
i
n
g
I
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
N
e
w
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
t
e
r
s
t
o
O
t
h
e
r
s
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
R
a
c
i
a
l
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
O
l
d
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
/
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
O
t
h
e
r
C
i
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
Figure 7: Perception of What Contributes to Gentrification and Displacement
43.4%
74.6%
42.3%
60.3%
11.9%
17.1%20.2%
33.6%
27.6%
20.0%
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT24
What Neighborhood Improvements Would You Like to See?
People Want More Affordable Housing
When asked what they would like to see improved in their neighborhoods, the
most common response was housing affordability (61.5%) and more housing
options (41%), with renters being particularly focused on these issues (72% and
52%, respectively). By comparison, while homeowners chose more housing
affordability the most often (45%), they also expressed higher preference for
diverse people and cultures (35%) and more places to eat and shop (32%) than
for more housing choices (30%).
20%
10%
40%
30%
60%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
P
l
a
c
e
s
t
o
E
a
t
/
S
h
o
p
J
o
b
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
D
i
v
e
r
s
e
P
e
o
p
l
e
/
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
s
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
N
o
C
h
a
n
g
e
Figure 8: What Neighborhood Improvements
41.0%
61.5%
30.2%
23.7%
14.6%
24.2%22.7%
30.1%
22.7%
2.9%
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 25
What Actions Would You Support?
Produce, Preserve, and Protect Are All Priorities
Overall, respondents prioritized more housing production as the top choice
on actions they would support, but not far ahead of actions to protect tenants
and preserve existing housing. Renters are more focused on tenant protections
than homeowners (35% made it their top choice) while homeowners are more
focused on housing preservation than renters (34% made it their top choice).
But even then, production was the top choice for both groups (37% and 36%,
respectively).
0 10 20 30 40 50
39.5% ranked “Produce”
as their first priority
26.4%
36.2%
Figure 9: Ranking Actions by Priority
More Housing
Tenants
Existing Housing
0 10 20 30 40 50
37.4% ranked “Protect”
as their second priority
32.3%
30.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50
36.2% ranked “Preserve”
as their second priority
33.6%
30.2%
1st
Priority
1st
Priority
1st
Priority
2nd
Priority
2nd
Priority
2nd
Priority
3rd
Priority
3rd
Priority
3rd
Priority
Produce
Protect
Preserve
1
2
3
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT26
Focus Groups and Interviews
Explore What People Said in More Detail
We wrote a summary of what we heard from the focus
groups on the pages that follow. But if you want to dig
into the data yourself, you can view our sorting of the
takeaways and themes from the different activities.
Check it out by clicking here!DI
G
D
E
E
P
E
R
Five focus groups and 70 one-on-one interviews were conducted between
February and April 2022. The goal of these conversations was to hear
people’s stories, experiences, perspectives, and ideas about gentrification and
displacement. Questions were open-ended and generally similar to those in
the community survey, but less structured so that the conversation could delve
into specific issues and ideas in more depth.
Most of these conversations were led by our six Community Liaisons. Some
were conducted in English while others in Spanish. Participants included
individuals experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness as well as
service providers.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 27
Experiences of Gentrification
Weakening of the Community
The rising cost of housing is making it harder for people to thrive, with
displacement causing a loss of diversity as well as individual and community-
level trauma. Many have experienced or witnessed friends, family members,
co-workers, and neighbors being priced out and needing to move elsewhere,
namely to West Valley City, Stansbury Park, and Tooele. People described
living on one’s own to be a greater challenge now, and mourned the loss of
community spaces and local businesses.
Worsening Challenges Faced by the Most Vulnerable
High housing costs are making it harder for those already experiencing housing
instability and homelessness. For example, participants of the Palmer Court
Focus Groups said that their housing vouchers are not sufficient to cover the
high rent prices, and that those who have been evicted are having a harder time
finding a place to live or are even being denied housing vouchers. They also
pointed out that victims of domestic violence and people living with disabilities
are particularly vulnerable. They said that as a result many are being forced to
live in “condemned housing,” “slum housing,” or without housing.
“I am concerned that
the beauty, history,
and diversity of this
community will be
pushed out and even
erased in the name of
progress.”
“Small, locally-owned
businesses are being pushed
out due to demolition and
unaffordable rents in new
businesses, and we are
losing our architectural
heritage in the city.”
“I’m close to several housing
insecure or homeless people
in my personal life and in my
neighborhood. I lIve along the
JRPT and see people displaced
from camps, only to have to
build new camps elsewhere.”
“I just see
a lot more
harassment
towards
homeless. they
look so down
on us.”
“Rents are like $1200-1500
a month—come on—and
vouchers are only good for
$800 or $850. How are we
supposed to get cheaper
rent for a place like this? I
can’t go anywhere else in
Salt Lake.”
“My daughter who is
30 can’t afford to live in
my area despite a good
paying job. If she loses
her current rental, I
don’t know where she
will go.”
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT28
Attitudes about Gentrification
Exclusion
Some believe gentrification can be good if it benefits
the community as a whole. However, they feel that
is not the case when current residents are not able
to access the benefits and lower income people are
disproportionately affected and forced to leave.
Distrust
There’s a general distrust of the government. Some
feel that there has not been enough done by the City
or State to intervene and protect existing communities
from being displaced. They think that those in power
do not have their best interests at heart and are
instead motivated by personal gains. However, there
are some who think that the City and nonprofits are
trying to provide as much support as they can.
Loss of Power
Some feel that newcomers contribute to the
gentrification by organizing, taking power, and
pushing policies that further alienate existing
community members.
Overall, people we heard from have a negative view of gentrification,
explaining that it disrupts their”quality of life and community. They described
feeling excluded, distrustful and powerless.
“Council needs to
cater to community
needs for housing not
developer wants!”
“Not enough benefits
and resources are
equitably distributed
and supported across
communities to prevent
gentrification from
happening.”
“It can improve
communities to a point,
but when housing and
other resources become
inaccessible to everyone
but the very well off, it is
a detriment.”
“I don’t feel like I
have enough power
to do something
because I’m a
person of color.”
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 29
Perceived Causes of Gentrification
Limited Supply of Affordable Housing
Participants said there is simply not enough affordable housing available for
low to moderate income people. They do not consider much of the new housing
being built to be affordable nor to fit their needs. They also do not think the
government has made a sufficient effort to preserve the existing supply of
affordable housing or to control the cost of housing.
Newcomers Put Pressure on Housing Prices
Participants view the trend of out-of-town newcomers moving to Salt Lake City
as a factor driving up housing demand and prices.
Prioritizing Growth Before Community
Some perceive gentrification to be enabled by the City through the over-
prioritization of growth and economic development over the protection of
current residents and preservation of the existing community.
Ignorance and Erasure
Some think that newcomers’ ignorance about the culture or history of the
existing community contributes to the displacement and erasure of existing
residents and cultures.
Greed and Prejudice
Some believe that the problem is caused by individuals’ greed, racism, and
classism.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT30
Thoughts About What Can Be Done
Grow the Housing Supply
• Evaluate current land use and consider permitting housing or
converting other types of lots or buildings into housing.
• Build more middle housing (like duplexes, triplexes, and small
apartment buildings).
• Promote accessory dwelling units and reduce restrictions.
Preserve Existing Affordable Housing
• Programs that support or subsidize the repair of existing
affordable housing.
• Programs that monitor home sales and support the sale to
existing community members.
• Expand the Community Land Trust program.
• Regulate the conversion of short-time vacation rentals from
affordable housing.
Resources People Turn to for Help
Relying on Community for Support
Many said that they rely on their community for
support—turning to community-based or religious
organizations for help. Services they have sought out
include housing assistance/counseling, food pantries,
career counseling, and health clinics.
Where Resources Are Lacking
Participants said that there’s a lack of support
for those living with disabilities or mental health
challenges. Poor case management was also
identified as an issue.
“We didn’t know what to do...
[A local community organizer]
was a huge help. Huge. She
fought for us. She told us
everything We needed to do.
She fought for our housing for
a whole year.”
“The case manager is key to
many of these services. So what
are my thoughts about what can
be done? One of them is would be
to have more case managers.”
The following list of policy suggestions was collected from participants and grouped into
themes. This list is a reflection of community members’ desires, not a formal proposal.
However, it will be taken into account when developing policy and program proposals
during the next phase of Thrive in Place (see pg. 40). Please note that while some of these
suggestions are within the City’s control, others would require intervention at the County,
State, and/or Federal level (e.g. rent control, regulating short-term vacation rentals, etc.).
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 31
Protect Renters
• Programs that address absentee landlords and neglected
properties.
• Expand tenant protection policies.
• Establish rent control policies.
• Reduce barriers for receiving rental assistance.
Increase Social Services
• Provide immediate, transitional assistance for those at risk of
eviction and displacement or experiencing housing instability.
• Increase support for people experiencing homelessness,
especially children.
• Increase the number of social workers and case managers
available.
• Improve homeless shelters.
• Address drug addiction.
Expand Homeownership Opportunities
• Increase homeownership opportunities for the working class.
• Increase homeownership education and housing counseling.
• Improve tax policy and increase tax relief for lower income
homeowners.
Focus on Workforce Development
• Improve access to better-paying jobs, especially for
unsheltered people.
• Increase educational opportunities.
• Create regulations that limit large corporate chain stores and
support locally owned businesses.
Improve Community Engagement
• Make public meetings more accessible, for example by
scheduling them during times when more residents can
participate.
• Improve representation from different community and racial/
ethnic groups (e.g. Latinx, Pacific Islander, etc.) and raise the
voices of leaders and organizers who can voice the concerns of
their community.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT32
Youth Workshops
Seven youth workshops with 200 student participants (elementary to
high school) were hosted between February and April 2022. The goal of
these workshops was to help the students understand gentrification and
displacement in their neighborhoods, hear their perspectives and stories, and
inspire their creativity through community visioning exercises.
Students Are Anxious about Change in Their Communities
Although “gentrification” and “displacement” were new terms for many of
the students, most already recognize that these forces are at play in their
communities. This is the most important takeaway from the youth workshops.
They have seen the evictions and displacement of their friends, family, and
neighbors. They have noticed the permanent closures of local businesses. They
have observed the demolition of existing rental homes for the construction of
new flats. Some even shared their personal experiences—one student said that
they needed to move away from the area due to rising costs. They said that
gentrification can also lead to benefits such as increased investment and public
improvements, but they are anxious about the consequences of gentrification
for themselves, their families, and their community.
Students Want to See Their Community Be Welcoming For Everyone
Students shared a vision for how they would like to see their community
develop. They want to see Salt Lake City develop into a place that is welcoming
and secure for all. They want to see investments in public amenities that benefit
the community as a whole, such as shops, schools, parks, gardens, and farms.
They do not want to see their family and friends be displaced. Finally, they
wish to see the City do more to prioritize, protect, and preserve their existing
community.
DI
G
D
E
E
P
E
R
View the final slide presentation by the University of
Utah’s Plan Making class
At the end of their semester, the University of Utah students who
supported the community engagement presented the results of their
work to the community. See the full summary, which includes more
details about the youth workshops, focus groups, and interviews.
Check it out by clicking here!
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 33
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT34
WHAT WE LEARNED
Section 5
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 35
DI
G
D
E
E
P
E
R
In addition to what we heard through the community engagement process, we
also studied gentrification and displacement data to document and understand
trends in Salt Lake City and the region. Following is a short summary of what we
learned, with links to more detailed reports.
We analyzed displacement using a cutting-edge model developed by the Urban
Displacement Project at the University of California, Berkeley (a project partner).
It is the most advanced model of its type, and Salt Lake is one of the first places
in the country where it is being used.
The model incorporates large data sets on a number of displacement-related
factors to estimate the level of displacement risk faced by renter households
who are very low income (earning 50% or less of the Area Median Income, or
AMI, which in Salt Lake City in 2019 was $80,196) and those who are low income
(earning between 50% and 80% of AMI).
Displacement occurs when more renter households in those income categories
are leaving an area than are moving in. The results of the model were used to
create maps indicating which areas are experiencing probable displacement,
moderate displacement or high displacement. The map also includes a layer
showing where rental housing units that are affordable to different income
groups exist. This helps identify “displacement pathways”—where are the more
affordable areas where people can go when displaced?
Displacement Risk Analysis
Read the Urban Displacement Project’s Full Report
To give everyone the opportunity to read more about
the analysis, check out UDP’s full report and explore the
Displacement Risk and Affordability Maps.
Check it out by clicking here!
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT36
Here are the key takeaways from UDP’s analysis, all of which resonate with what
we heard in the community input:
• Displacement in Salt Lake City is significant and getting worse. It is
particularly high east of the Granary and south of Central Ninth and
Ballpark.
• There are no “more affordable” neighborhoods in Salt Lake City where
lower income families can move once displaced. This is a particularly striking
finding; something that UDP has not seen before in their work around the
country.
• Salt Lake City is growing and there are not enough affordable units for low-
income families.
• Almost half of Salt Lake City’s renter households are rent burdened (they
are spending over 30 percent of their income on housing, which—when
you’re low income—does not leave much for everything else).
• More than half of all families with children live in neighborhoods
experiencing displacement risk.
• Displacement affects more than half of white households in Salt Lake City
and disproportionately affects households of color.
• Latinx and Black households are particularly susceptible to displacement,
as they have median incomes that are lower than what is required to afford
rent in the city.
• The patterns of displacement reflect historic patterns of discrimination
and segregation, as many areas experiencing high displacement risk are
areas that were redlined in the pastt.
Key Takeaways
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 37
In addition to their work supporting community engagement, students in the
Plan Making course at University of Utah reviewed and categorized policies and
programs being used in Salt Lake City to counter the forces of displacement.
These include efforts to protect tenants, promote housing production, and
preserve existing affordable housing. They also reviewed potential additional
policies and programs that could be enacted or strengthened to better respond
to the scale and scope of need documented through the displacement risk
analysis and community input. These policy and program strategies cover
topics such as increasing community ownership, creating stronger incentives,
zoning changes and improved renter assistance. As Thriving in Place moves
into its second phase of work, we will be building upon their work (with some
refinements to address incomplete or inaccurate information) to support
community conversations and help prioritize actions.
As Thriving in Place moves into its second phase of work, Crafting Collaborative
Solutions, their work will provide a valuable resource for community
conversations and prioritizing actions.
Student Analysis of Anti-Displacement Strategies
DI
G
D
E
E
P
E
R
Read the report by the University of Utah’s
Plan Making class
Read the student’s summary of engagement work they
led and their analysis of current and potential anti-
displacement policies and programs.
Check it out by clicking here!
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT38
WHAT COMES NEXT
Section 6
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 39
The results from Phase One, summarized in this report, help us understand the
problem we are trying to solve. It positions us for making decisions about what
we can and should do in response.
As we move into Phase Two, Crafting Collaborative Solutions, there are a few
important caveats to keep in mind:
• There are no quick and easy solutions. The factors that drive displacement
are complex, varied, and interconnected. There’s no quick fix. We will need
to work together to build upon what the City and others are already doing,
crafting new policies and other actions that are appropriately sequenced,
assessed and calibrated for maximum impact.
• Change is constant. Cities and neighborhoods change over time, and
many of the economic and social drivers of change are beyond our control.
However, there are aspects of change that we can affect, helping to shape
the future we want.
• It will take time. While there are near-term actions that can respond to
specific issues and challenges, many policies and programs take time to put
into place and even longer to have an impact. That should motivate us to
act, so that those benefits can be realized sooner rather than later.
• There will be trade-offs, and some things are off the table. Every course of
action has pros and cons, with some people benefiting more than others.
Further, there are legal and regulatory structures that limit some courses of
action for the City and its partners. As we evaluate options, we will focus on
what’s actionable, carefully consider trade-offs, and ensure that those most
impacted by the forces of displacement are prioritized.
• We are all in this together. We are all impacted by displacement, and
addressing it will require coordinated, cross-sector action. While the City
has an important role, many of the responses will need to be regional in
scope and require that multiple sectors (government, nonprofits, funders,
real estate, and others) have a shared understanding of the problem and a
collaborative plan of action.
Setting Expectations
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT40
DRAFT Guiding Principles
1. Be pro-housing and pro-tenant.
• Locate and incentivize new residential
development where it will benefit the most
people (close to opportunity).
• Discourage new development where it will
do the most harm (in areas where dense
concentrations of renters already live,
especially lower income renters).
• Enact pro-tenant policies that protect renters
living in affordable homes.
• Establish policies and programs to minimize
displacement from new development and
support those who are displaced.
2. Increase housing options and choices
everywhere.
• Create gentle infill and rental housing
opportunities in every neighborhood.
• Support new housing at all income levels.
• Incentivize lower priced for-sale housing to
provide homeownership opportunities to
moderate and lower income people.
• Make it easy and attractive to build affordable
housing.
To translate What He Heard and What We Learned into a policy and program
proposals and a plan for collaborative action, we have developed a set of Draft
Guiding Principles that will be discussed, revised, and refined in the months
ahead as a Framework for Action.
As they are refined, the principles will be used to guide City policymaking for
areas that are within its control as well as to guide cross-sector coordination
and advocacy for area’s outside of direct City control.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT 41
3. Invest in equitable development.
• Increase spending on rental assistance and
affordable housing construction and develop
new funding sources to make it possible.
• Maximize community ownership of housing
through mission-driven nonprofits, coops,
shared housing, public housing, and land
trusts.
• Support living wage jobs.
• Support cultural institutions, locally owned
businesses and public spaces that help
communities thrive in place.
4. Make sure the economics work.
• Incentivize projects that are catalytic and align
with guiding principles.
• Target incentives in the areas where new
development will have the least displacement
impacts and maximum benefit.
• Ensure policies and regulations are meeting
guiding principles and provide for flexibility to
adjust as needed.
• Prioritize affordability in land use policy
implementation.
5. Build an eco-system for action.
• Create a platform for ongoing
communication, coordination and
collaboration.
• Continue to listen to those who are most
impacted.
• Agree on roles and priorities.
• Work together to fund shared priorities.
• Track what matters.
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT42
THRIVING IN PLACE: SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY | PHASE ONE SUMMARY REPORT
July 2022
Appendix D:Housing SLC Engagement Report
E N G A G E M E N T R E P O R T
HOUSING SLC
An Update to Salt Lake City's 5 Year Plan:
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Ruedigar Matthes, Project Manager
Erik Fronberg
Kyle Irvin
Joelette Organista
Rachel Paulsen
Hannah Regan
Jamie Stokes
Housing SLC Project Team
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s i
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Planning
Housing Stability
Transportation
Youth and Family Services
Department of Economic Development
Salt Lake City Arts Council
Department of Parks and Public Lands
Department of Public Services
Department of Public Utilities
Department of Sustainability
The Office of the City Council
The Office of the Mayor
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
Internal Working Group
External Working Group
AARP
Alliance House
Assist Utah
Catholic Community Services
Community Development Corporation of Utah
Crossroads Urban Center
Disability Law Center
Giv Group
International Rescue Committee
Neighborhood House
NeighborWorks
People’s Legal Aid
Pik2ar
Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services
The Road Home
University Neighborhood Partners
Utah Community Action
Utah League of Cities and Towns
Wasatch Front Regional Council
University of Utah College of City and
Metropolitan Planning
Dr. Caitlin Cahill, Assistant Professor
Kate Ades
Jeresun Atkin
Leticia Karina Bennett
Jason Berntson
Vincent Carson
CK Chae
McCall Christensen
Kaden Coil
Meredith Covey
Leota Coyne
Connor Dahlquist
Luiz De Santana Luz
Justin Delgado
Moira Dillow
Emily Ercius
Parviz Faiz
Luis Garcia Plancarte
Jasmine Garcia
Joseph Geilman
Lucas Horns
Hyojeong Ko
Kristofer Land
Virgil Lund
Taylor Maguire
Ann Marie McNamara
McKay Muhlestein
Joshua Rebello
Daniel Ritter
Ana Shinzato
Shreya Shrestha
Ryan Smith
Alex Stewart
Connor Stone
Justice Propser Tuffour
Oliva Ann Vielstich
Julie Williams
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Introduction 0101
Top Takeaways0202
Timeline 0303
Engagement Methods & Outcomes 0404
Next Steps3636
ii
05. In-Person Engagement Methods
11. Online Engagement Methods
12. Hybrid Engagement Methods
14. Basic Survey Results
18. Survey Demographic Trends
28. Survey Demographics
31. Survey Drop Box Locations
32. Survey Comment Summary
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Appendix3737
INTRODUCTION
Housing SLC Engagement Report
The issue of housing is perhaps the most
frequently discussed topic among local
policymakers and residents. As the City’s
previous plan, Growing SLC, nears
expiration, Salt Lake City is preparing to
create a new affordable housing plan for
2023-2028 called Housing SLC.
The City began public engagement in July of
2022 to continue to build understanding of
the challenges surrounding housing. Taking
a holistic approach, the project team asked
the public questions not only about physical
sheltering, but also about factors
contributing to a sense of community and
livability within their neighborhoods.
The Project Team utilized multiple methods
of engagement including: organizing pop-up
events, tabling at local festivals,
administering paper and online surveys,
posting to social media, attending housing
specific-functions, and hosting focus groups.
In addition, planning students at the
University of Utah were assigned various
outreach efforts. Special attention was given
to reaching Spanish-speakers, with all event
advertisements and surveys being available
in Spanish and Spanish speaking staff and
partners at events the Project Team hosted. Members of the public share their vision for their neighborhood at the
International Peace Gardens on July 28th, 2022.
01Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
This engagement emerged from and built
upon the engagement and data analysis
conducted through Thriving in Place. A full
report of those engagement efforts can be
found here.
These efforts resulted in engagement with
approximately 4,070 individuals between
August and November of 2022. What follows
is detailed descriptions of engagement
methods and the feedback received. These
findings will guide the creation of policies
and plans for Housing SLC.
TOP TAKEAWAYS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Development for All Salt Lakers: Whether via survey or in-person conversation, the public
consistently mentioned the proliferation of luxury apartment buildings in Salt Lake City.
Residents are concerned Salt Lake City's development is geared towards high-income
earners instead of families with children, students, seniors, and those who work at local
businesses and schools.
11
44 Housing for Those Experiencing Homelessness: For respondents, housing was a more
popular solution to homelessness than homeless resource centers/emergency shelters.
Homelessness was the second most frequent topic of feedback on the qualitative portion
of the Housing SLC survey, with most participants citing the need for more behavioral
health and treatment options for the unsheltered.
33 Cost of Living Stress: Both the in-person mapping activity (Page 05) and the Housing SLC
survey (Page 13) showcased the public's desire for better and more connected
transportation options and greater access to affordable and healthy food. At the heart of
this feedback was mounting stress about everyday expenses.
55 Equity: A major concern for participants is geographic equity. In their view, affordable
housing should be distributed throughout the city to minimize the impact of gentrification
and displacement on the Westside in particular. Residents expressed frustration with what
they saw as development in a vacuum: the addition of new housing but the disruption of
neighborhood businesses and grocery stores in the process. Furthermore, participants felt
the new housing added to historically marginalized areas is often too expensive for locals
to afford. Similarly, they felt projects and resources aimed at tackling homelessness
should be more evenly distributed.
22 More Help for Renters: Many who participated expressed desperation about their housing
situation and/or frustration with what they saw as unfair increases in rent. Members of the
public suggested improvements to the City's Good Landlord Program (Landlord Tenant
Initiative), increased education about rental resources/affordable housing, and rent
control.
02Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
TIMELINE
Housing SLC Engagement Report
July 28th: Engagement Kick-Off
August 9th: Beginning of Event Tabling
August 10th: Online Survey Launch
August 12th: Paper Surveys Distributed
September 8th: Film Screening
September 6th: Reddit Ask Me Anything
September 24th: End of Event Tabling
October 19th: Renters' Rights Event
October 31st: Close of Online Survey
November 10th: Paper Surveys Collected
03Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
ENGAGEMENT METHODSAND OUTCOMES
Housing SLC Engagement Report
04Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Legend
Affordable and Healthy Food
Affordable Housing
Early Childhood Education/Childcare
Community Gathering Spaces
Affordable Medical and Dental Clinics
Parks
Transportation Features
IN-PERSON METHODS: MAPPING VISION
Housing SLC Engagement Report
05
To view a web version of the map, with the ability to filter points, click here.
The Housing SLC Project team attended
multiple events around Salt Lake City to ask
residents: If you could add anything to your
neighborhood, what would it be?
Participants were asked to select a colored
pin corresponding to specific amenities, and
place the pin on a map of Salt Lake City where
they felt the need for that amenity was
highest.
Residents would like to see affordable housing
spread throughout the City, but also in their own
neighborhoods so they can continue living in them.
Pins indicating a hope for improved transportation
were clustered along 2100 South and along
freeways.
Parents on the Westside emphasized the need for a
high school in their area.
Residents strongly indicated their desire for more
green space in the Ballpark area.
Affordable housing was the most popular selection,
followed by affordable/healthy food. Transportation
and Parks were the third most popular selections.
Key Takeaways
Vision Map Responses
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
IN-PERSON METHODS: MAPPING VISION
Housing SLC Engagement Report
The project team chose to attend events
based on their probability of including
residents whom the City might typically miss
when gathering feedback.
The two pop-up events shown on the map, at
the International Peace Gardens and Liberty
Park, were hosted by the Housing SLC project
team as a way to meet people where they
were.
06
At pop-up events, the project team gave away
free popsicles and talked with residents about
their neighborhoods.
Pop-up events were advertised as family-
friendly in both English and Spanish on
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Reddit.
Spanish speaking staff and community
partners were also present to engage with our
Spanish speaking community.
Event & Pop-up Locations
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
On September 8th, Housing SLC hosted a
screening of PUSH, a film about the
financialization of housing worldwide. The
screening was largely advertised on social
media and through word of mouth.
Intended as an an opportunity to educate the
public and stimulate discussion about
housing in Salt Lake City, the project team
led an open discussion following the film.
IN-PERSON METHODS: FILM SCREENING
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Attendees noted the trend of long-time residents
being pushed out of Salt Lake City.
Attendees mentioned how current types of
development the market is producing aren't their
needs or the needs of people who work for our
small businesses.
Attendees expressed a desire for greater renter
protections and landlord accountability.
Key Takeaways
Lessons Learned:
Attendance was low at our screening, suggesting the need for greater advertising and/or
the inaccessibility of the event. Many Salt Lakers don't have time to attend a 2.5 hour
event on a weeknight.
07Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
On October 19th, Housing SLC hosted a
renter's resource night in partnership with
Utah Department of Workforce Services, the
Disability Law Center, Utah Community
Action, People's Legal Aid, Utah Legal
Services, Alliance Community Services, and
the Utah League of Women Voters.
The project team advertised the event on
social media in English, Spanish, Somali,
Tongan, Chinese, and Korean. The team also
put up flyers at locations around the city
advertising the event in English and Spanish.
The event itself offered Spanish and ASL
interpretation.
Community partners connected with
residents and also participated in a short
panel about renting, communication with
landlords, and evictions. While the event was
geared towards connecting renters with
resources, the project team also interviewed
attendees about their experiences with
renting in Salt Lake City. Page 1o includes
excerpts from two of the interviews.
IN-PERSON METHODS: RENTER'S RESOURCE NIGHT
Housing SLC: Engagement Report
08Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
“I have applied for every place you could imagine on the
internet. They either don’t call you or they say you’re on a
waiting list that never calls. And they have programs for
felons — felon friendly — but they’re really not... They say
'Well do you have any drug charges?' Mine are like 7
years old and I’m still being held for them. I’m not from
this town. I’m from the country. I don’t fit in here and I
can’t even get out of here. And it’s just a depressing
struggle."
IN-PERSON METHODS: RENTERS' RESOURCE NIGHT
Housing SLC Engagement Report
"Currently, we are on a month-to-month lease and our
landlord is renovating, and because of [an] eviction
notice from 2015 that should never exist and their
continuing to dismiss our entire experience as if that
hasn’t impacted every breath I’ve taken since then,
we’re going to be displaced again and I am stuck. I
don’t know. I don’t know what to do about that."
09Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
On September 6th, Housing SLC hosted a
Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) about the
City's new housing plan. The project team,
plus the City's experts on housing and
homelessness, convened to answer questions
from the public.
The public left 121 questions/comments and
the AMA post, hosted on the SaltLakeCity
Subreddit Page, received 81,000 views.
ONLINE METHODS: REDDIT AMA
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Participants would like to see improvements to the
City's Good Landlord Program (Landlord Tenant
Initiative).
Worries about affordability abound - respondents
mentioned the number of luxury units being built
which they view as inaccessible to the majority of
residents.
Participants are interested in seeing rent control
implemented.
Environmental concerns were also at the forefront of
the AMA. Will housing even matter if the Great Salt
Lake drys up?
Key Takeaways
10Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
HYBRID METHODS:FOCUS GROUPS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Senior
Residents
LGBTQIA+
Pacific
Islanders
Alliance
Community
Services
Glendale
Community
Housing
Nonprofit
Leaders
City Personnel
Small
Business
Owners
Residents w/
Substance
Abuse
Disorders
Youth
Experiencing
Homelessness
Access to Food X X
Access to Housing
Information X X X X X
Affordability X X X X X X X X X
Aging in Place X
Different Levels of Gov
Involvement X X X
Displacement X X X X X
Equity X X X
Gentrification X X
Housing Variety X X X X
Local Business
Support X X X X
Minority Inclusion X X
Neighborhood
Amenities X X X X
Neighborhood Safety X X
Transportation X X X X
In partnership with planning students from the University of Utah, Housing SLC hosted 9
focus groups. The focus groups were geared towards understanding the community's
experience with housing and hearing suggestions about what the new housing plan could
confront. While focus group questions differed slightly, major themes emerged. The chart
below illustrates community groups' concerns and suggested solutions.
ISSUES:
GROUPS:
WHAT ISSUES SHOULD HOUSING SLC ADDRESS?
11Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
The survey opened in August of 2022. The
online version was promoted on social media
networks including Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter, and Reddit, as well as through City
newsletters and staff networks.
The paper version was distributed at
community centers such as homeless
resource centers and libraries (see page 31 for
full list of locations.) Paper versions of the
survey were available in English, Spanish,
and Mandarin (at 1 location, upon request.)
287 people filled out a paper version of the
survey, with 10 completing it in Spanish.
3,542 people completed the online version of
the survey, with 15 completing it in Spanish.
Of the online responses, 759 were geo-
tagged as originating from Salt Lake City
proper.
The survey did not prompt participants to
provide their location, so geo-tagged
location data gives us the best estimate of
district-by-district participation. Still, the
geo-tags are an imprecise measure. A
participant may have taken the survey at
work in District 4 but may actually reside in
District 2. Due to this issue, basic results are
displayed for the total respondents,
geotagged Salt Lake City respondents, and
paper survey respondents.
HYBRID METHODS: SURVEY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
GEOGRAPHIC OV ER VIEW O F R ESPOND ENTS
(TOTAL ONLINE RES PON DENTS )
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
200
150
100
50
0
RE SPONDE NTS BY CITY C OUN C IL DISTRI CT
(CO LLEC TE D TH ROUG H GEO-TA GGE D LOCAT ION DATA)
12
Inclusion of all responses, regardless of geo-
location, allows us to account for Salt Lakers
who have been displaced to other areas of the
County, and non-residents who work in the
city.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Total R SLC R Paper
0%25%50%75%
New affordable housing for low-income individuals
Housing for people experiencing homelessness
Access to home ownership
Preserve existing affordable housing
Renter protections, programs, and services
Rent and utility assistance
Housing support for seniors
Housing repair programs
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES IN HOUSING
SHOULD BE SALT LAKE CITY’S TOP PRIORITY?
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 2,385 individuals or 62% of total
respondents selected new affordable housing for low-income individuals as part of their top
three.
BASIC RESULTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
13Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
To maximize our response rate and avoid fatiguing the public with similar surveys, the
Housing SLC Team partnered with Housing Stability to create one housing-related survey.
While the Housing SLC team sought feedback to inform Housing SLC, Housing Stability’s
efforts centered on the best approach to Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
requirements, including where funds should be spent. Survey questions should be viewed with
this dual purpose in mind.
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 3,066 or 80% of total respondents
selected free transit passes as part of their top three.
W H I C H O F T H E F O L L O W I N G T R A N S P O R T A T I O N S E R V I C E S
S H O U L D B E S A L T L A K E C I T Y ’S T O P P R I O R I T Y ?
Total R SLC R Paper
0%25%50%75%100%
Free transit passes
More bike and walking paths
Bus stop improvements on the west side
Increased road safety in neighborhoods
More bike rack stations on the west side
W H I C H O F T H E F O L L O W I N G S E R I C E S I N B U I L D I N G C O M M U N I T Y
S T R E N G T H S H O U L D B E S A L T L A K E C I T Y 'S T O P P R I O R I T Y ?
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 2,435 or 63% of total respondents
selected affordable medical/dental clinics as part of their top three.
Total Online R SLC Online R Paper
0%25%50%75%
Affordable medical/dental clinics
Affordable and healthy foods
Early childhood education and childcare
Recreation opportunities
Community gathering spaces and learning centers
Job training programs
Computer/internet access and technology training
Improve store fronts for small businesses
Small business loans
BASIC RESULTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
14Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES IN HOMELESS
SERVICES SHOULD BE SALT LAKE CITY’S TOP PRIORITY?
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 2,536 or 66 % of total respondents
included housing for people experiencing homeless in their top three priorities.
Total Online R SLC Online R Paper
0%25%50%75%
Housing for people experiencing homelessness
Basic needs items/services for individuals living on the street
Job opportunities and training programs
Homeless resource centers/emergency shelters
Medical and dental care
Case management for housing programs
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SERVICES SHOULD BE SALT LAKE CITY’S TOP PRIORITY?
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 2,802 or 73% of total respondents
included treatment, counseling, and case management in their top three priorities.
Total Online R SLC Online R Paper
0%25%50%75%
Treatment, counseling, and case management
Housing with behavioral treatment
Affordable medical and dental clinics
Public restrooms and water stations
Needle exchange and Naloxone clinics
BASIC RESULTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
15Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
BASIC RESULTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Neighborhood Total Votes SLC Only
Votes
Ballpark 1837 421
Fairpark 1488 363
Glendale 1679 337
Poplar Grove 1391 374
TOP WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE
Respondents were asked to select their top three priority areas. Due to space constraints, this
question was not included on paper versions of the survey.
16Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
17
Updates to Salt Lake City's housing plan shouldn't be made based on one group's
preferences. To get a clearer picture of the trends showcased above, we now further
process the data by examining how income, age, and race and ethnicity correspond to
survey answers. Breaking down demographic trends allows us to see whether or not
trends are skewed towards a certain group or whether there is broad consensus among
Salt Lakers on their vision for the City.
AgeIncome Race &
Ethnicity
While the above graphs showed responses broken down into three separate groups,
(total online respondents, geo-tagged SLC online respondents, and paper
respondents), the following graphs are based on total online and paper responses. All
received responses are combined in order to increase the sample size from which to
make inferences about patterns in the data.
With further analysis of each of these prioritized groups, we present key takeaways
regarding the following categories:
Housing Community
Building
Transportation Area to
Help
Behavioral
Health
Homeless
Services
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY INCOME:KEY TAKEAWAYS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
18
Housing: New affordable housing for low-income residents and housing for people
experiencing homelessness were the top two priorities across all income brackets, with
those making less than $50,000 most supportive of new affordable housing. Providing
access to home ownership was the third most popular priority for all respondents making
more than $25,000.
Community Building: Affordable medical/dental clinics, affordable/healthy food, and early
childhood education/childcare were the top three priorities across all income brackets.
Transportation: Free transit passes was the most frequently selected priority across all
income brackets, with support lessening as respondent income increased. Support for
adding cycling and walking paths increased as income increased.
Homeless Services: Respondents across all income brackets most often selected housing
for people experiencing homelessness as one of their top priorities.
Area to Help: Helping the Ballpark neighborhood was the most popular choice for
respondents across income brackets, except for those making $24,999 or less, who were
more supportive of helping Downtown.
Behavioral Health: Treatment, counseling, and case management was the most frequently
selected priority across all income brackets.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY INCOME
Housing SLC Engagement Report
HOUSING
$0-$14,999 $15,000 -$24,999 $25,00-$49,000 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99.999
$100,000 - $150,000- $150,000 $150,00 +
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
TRANSPORTATION
Housing for the
Unhoused
Access to
Ownership
New Affordable
Housing
Preserve
Housing
Renter
Protections
Rent/Utility
Assistance
Housing Repair
Programs
Housing
Support for
Seniors
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Computer
Access
Recreation Affordable/
Healthy Food
Community
Spaces
Affordable
Medical/
Dental
Job Training Early
Childhood
Education
Improve
Storefronts
Small
Business
Loans
COMMUNITY BUILDING
More Bike Racks
on the West Side
Increase Road
Safety
Bike and
Walking Paths
Free Transit
Passes
Better Bus Stops
on the West Side
19Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
$0-$14,999 $15,000 -$24,999 $25,00-$49,000 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99.999
$100,000 - $150,000- $150,000 $150,00 +
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
75%
50%
25%
0%
20
PRIORITIES BY INCOME
Housing SLC Engagement Report
HOMELESSNESS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
Downtown Poplar Grove Glendale Central City Fairpark Liberty Wells Jordan
Meadows
Ballpark Central 9th
AREA TO HELP
Housing for the
Unhoused
Case Management
for Housing
Programs
Resource
Centers/Shelters
Job
Opportunities
Basic Needs
Items/Services
for the Unhoused
Medical/Dental
Care
Housing with
Behavioral
Treatment
Treatment,
Counseling, Case
Management
Public
Restrooms/
Water Stations
Affordable
Medical/Dental
Clinics
Needle
Exchange/
Naloxone Clinics
20
Respondents Per
Income Level
$0 - 14,999: 327
$15,000 - 24,999: 372
$25,000 - 49,999: 814
$50,000 - 74,999: 644
$75,000 - 100,000: 446
$100,000 - 150,000: 357
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY AGE:KEY TAKEAWAYS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
21
Housing: Respondents across each age category most frequently selected new affordable
housing for low-income residents as a top priority, though support decreased as respondent
age increased. Those 18-21 were most likely to support rent/utility assistance, while those
over 61 were most likely to support housing for seniors.
Community Building: Affordable/healthy food and affordable medical/dental clinics were
the top two priorities across all age groups, with younger respondents most strongly
supportive. Older respondents were more supportive of job training programs and computer
access and training than younger respondents.
Transportation: Free transit passes was the most popular response across all age
categories, with the level of support decreasing as age increased. Support for increasing
road safety in neighborhoods increased as respondent age increased.
Homeless Services: Respondents across age categories most frequently selected housing
for people experiencing homelessness as one of their top priorities, though providing basic
needs items for those living on the street was about equally important as housing for those
18-21.
Behavioral Health: Treatment, counseling, and case management was the most frequently
selected priority for respondents in each age category.
Area to Help: Younger respondents were more supportive of helping Downtown, while older
respondents were more supportive of helping the Ballpark neighborhood.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY AGE
Housing SLC Engagement Report
18-21 22-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61+
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
HOUSING
Housing for
the Unhoused
Access to
Ownership
New Affordable
Housing
Preserve
Housing
Renter
Protections
Housing
Support for
Seniors
Rent/Utility
Assistance
Housing Repair
Programs
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY BUILDING
22
Computer
Access
Recreation Affordable/
Healthy Food
Community
Spaces
Affordable
Medical/
Dental
Job Training Early
Childhood
Education
Improve
Storefronts
Small
Business
Loans
More Bike Racks
on the West Side
Increase Road
Safety
Bike and
Walking Paths
Free Transit
Passes
Better Bus Stops
on the West Side
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
75%
50%
25%
0%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
75%
50%
25%
0%
HOMELESSNESS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AREA TO HELP
PRIORITIES BY AGE
Housing SLC Engagement Report
23
Housing for the
Unhoused
Case Management
for Housing
Programs
Resource
Centers/Shelters
Job
Opportunities
Basic Needs
Items/Services
for the Unhoused
Medical/Dental
Care
Downtown Poplar Grove Glendale Central City Fairpark Liberty Wells Jordan
Meadows
Ballpark Central 9th
Housing with
Behavioral
Treatment
Treatment,
Counseling, Case
Management
Public
Restrooms/
Water Stations
Affordable
Medical/Dental
Clinics
Needle
Exchange/
Naloxone Clinics
18 - 21: 552
22 - 30: 1438
31 - 40: 831
41 - 50: 403
51 - 60: 193
61 or Older: 210
Respondents
Per Age Group
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY RACE ÐNICITY:KEY TAKEAWAYS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
24
Housing: New affordable housing for low income residents was the top choice
across all racial and ethnic groups, followed by housing for people experiencing
homelessness.
Community Building: Affordable medical/dental clinics, healthy/affordable food, and
early childhood education/childcare were the top priorities for all racial and ethnic
groups. Respondents identifying as Hispanic or Latino supported medical/dental
clinics most strongly, with 71% citing it as a priority. Those identifying as American
Indian/Alaskan Native were most supportive of early childhood education, with 63%
citing it as a priority.
Transportation: Respondents across all racial and ethnic groups selected free
transit passes as their top transportation priority.
Homeless Services: Housing for people experiencing homelessness was the top
priority for all racial and ethnic groups except for those identifying as
Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and African American/Black, who
most frequently selected job training programs as their top priority.
Behavioral Health: Respondents across all racial and ethnic groups selected
treatment, counseling, and case management as their top priority.
Area to Help: Those identifying as White, Asian, and/or Other and those who
preferred not to say were more likely to support helping the Ballpark neighborhood.
Those identifying as Hispanic or Latino, African American or Black, American Indian
or Alaska Native, and/or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander were more likely to say
they supported helping Glendale.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY RACE ÐNICITY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
HOUSING
African American or Black American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White Prefer Not to Say Other
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
75%
50%
25%
0%
COMMUNITY BUILDING
TRANSPORTATION
25
More Bike Racks
on the West Side
Increase Road
Safety
Bike and
Walking Paths
Free Transit
Passes
Better Bus Stops
on the West Side
Computer
Access
Recreation Affordable/
Healthy Food
Community
Spaces
Affordable
Medical/
Dental
Job Training Early
Childhood
Education
Improve
Storefronts
Small
Business
Loans
Housing for
the Unhoused
Access to
Ownership
New Affordable
Housing
Preserve
Housing
Renter
Protections
Housing
Support for
Seniors
Rent/Utility
Assistance
Housing Repair
Programs
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
75%
50%
25%
0%
HOMELESSNESS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AREA TO HELP
PRIORITIES BY RACE ÐNICITY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
26
Housing with
Behavioral
Treatment
Treatment,
Counseling, Case
Management
Public
Restrooms/
Water Stations
Affordable
Medical/Dental
Clinics
Needle
Exchange/
Naloxone Clinics
Respondents Per Race &
Ethnicity (alone or in
combination)
African American or Black : 102
American Indian or Alaska Native: 65
Hispanic or Latino: 715
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 37
Asian: 115
White: 2571
Prefer Not to Say: 174
Other: 62
Downtown Poplar Grove Glendale Central City Fairpark Liberty Wells Jordan
Meadows
Ballpark Central 9th
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
African American or Black American Indian or Alaska Native Asian
Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race)Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White
Prefer Not to Say Other
75%
50%
25%
0%
Housing for the
Unhoused
Case Management
for Housing
Programs
Resource
Centers/Shelters
Job
Opportunities
Basic Needs
Items/Services
for the Unhoused
Medical/Dental
Care
DEMOGRAPHICS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Total R SLC R Paper R
18-21 22-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 or older
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total R SLC R Paper R
Men
Women
Non-Binary/Third Gender
Prefer to self describe
Prefer to not say
Other
60%
40%
20%
0%
PARTICIPANT AGE
PARTICIPANT GENDER
27Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Total R: Demographics of all survey respondents, including online and paper.
SLC R: Demographics of only online respondents whose answers were geotagged as originating in Salt Lake City
Paper R: Demographics of only respondents who answered using a paper survey
Total R Census
SLC R Paper R
0%25%50%75%100%
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
Prefer not to say
Other
DEMOGRAPHICS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
PARTICIPANT RACE & ETHNICITY
Respondents were allowed to select as many races and ethnicities as they felt represented
them. Based on federal guidelines for combination of categories, the totals below represent
each race or ethnicity alone or in combination with another race or ethnicity.
28Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Total R: Race and ethnicity of all survey respondents, including online and paper.
Census: Race and ethnicity of Salt Lake City residents according to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey 1 Year Estimates Data
Profile, 20221. Totals reflect race/ethnicity alone or in combination with another race/ethnicity.
SLC R: Race and ethnicity of only online respondents whose answers were geotagged as originating in Salt Lake City
Paper R: Race and ethnicity of only respondents who answered using a paper survey
Total R SLC R
$0 - $14,999
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $150,000
$150,000+
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
PARTICIPANT INCOME LEVEL
This question was not included on paper versions of the survey.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
29
PARTICIPANT LIVING STATUS
This question was not included on paper versions of the survey .
Total R SLC R
0%20%40%60%
Rent
Own
Living with Family or Friends
Living at a Homless Resource Center
Living at a Treatment Facility
Living on the Street
Other
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Total R: Demographics of all survey respondents, including online and paper.
SLC R: Demographics of only online respondents whose answers were geotagged as originating in Salt Lake City
Paper R: Demographics of only respondents who answered using a paper survey
DROP BOX LOCATIONS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
St Vincent De Paul Dining Hall- 42 Responses
Gail Miller Resource Center - 12 Responses
Homeless Youth Resource Center - 14 Responses
Resource Centers
Events
Utah Support Advocates for Recovery Awareness Event- 50 Responses
Groove in the Grove - 28 Responses
Homeless Resource Fair at Library Square - 17 Responses
Libraries
Corinne & Jack Sweet Branch - 18 Responses
Anderson-Foothill Branch- 17 Responses
Sprague Branch - 16 Responses
Main Library- 10 Responses
Day-Riverside Branch - 9 Responses
Marmalade Branch- 8 Responses
Glendale Branch Library - 6 Responses
Chapman Branch - 5 Responses
Community Gathering Spaces
Sorenson Unity Center -13 Responses
Suazo Business Center - 8 Responses
River's Bend Senior Center - 2 Responses
30
Deeply Affordable Housing
First Step House - 10 Responses
Valor House -2 Responses
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Respondents to the Housing SLC survey were given space to provide qualitative feedback on any topic of
their choosing. The most commonly mentioned topics are listed below in alphabetical order, along with a
summaries of the prevailing sentiments on each topic. See our website for a complete listing of qualitative
comments.
COMMENT SUMMARY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
31
ACCESSIBILITY:
Respondents brought up accessibility in all of its meanings. Participants hoped transportation,
laundromats and community centers/programs for the disabled, seniors and low-income residents
could become more accessible to the community. They also expressed support for more ADA accessible
walkways and public spaces.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Affordable housing came up more than any other topic on the survey. Respondents expressed a need for
affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents, especially families, seniors, and students.
The consensus was that much of the recent development in Salt Lake has been luxury high-rise
apartment complexes, which do not meet the needs of residents. Instead, respondents expressed a
desire for affordable housing close to city resources, especially public transit, which could eventually
allow residents to save enough to purchase their own homes.
Participants commonly shared their view that any programs, aid, housing, etc., prioritize current Utah
residents and not wealthy transplants from other states. They also expressed a desire for more
affordable housing spread throughout the city and the expansion of current housing assistance
programs.
BUILDING TYPE:
Respondents referencing building type emphasized their desire to see fewer luxury apartments. They
stressed the unaffordable nature of luxury units and worried developers wouldn't consider average
living expenses in their pricing. Respondents were mixed on their desire to preserve single family
homes and their desire to increase density throughout Salt Lake City. Mostly, respondents hoped to see
more housing options besides single-family detached homes and large-scale apartment complexes.
COMMUNITY:
Respondents expressed a desire to feel a deeper sense of belonging in the community. To create a sense
of belonging, respondents suggested more community meetings/centers, accessible spaces with longer
opening hours to allow neighbors to support each other, and prioritizing the community's children,
seniors, and refugees. Some respondents saw a need for greater opportunities to teach and learn other
languages.
DEVELOPMENT:
Respondents who mentioned development echoed those who highlighted Affordable Housing and
Zoning. Many participants supported zoning changes to remove most areas of single-family zoning and
increasing the supply of affordable housing. Respondents also suggested repurposing abandoned
buildings for housing or grocery stores.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
COMMENT SUMMARY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
32
EAST-WEST:
Participants would like to see more unity between the East and West sides of Salt Lake City. They'd like
to see City leaders foster more social interactions between East and West and create more bike lanes and
transit options to better connect the city. Respondents called for greater geographic balance in regards
to homeless resource distribution, more equal housing distribution throughout the city, better
transportation services, and more equitable maintenance priorities.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Those who mentioned economic development were concerned about the destruction of small
businesses, the need for an increased minimum wage, transitional living skills programs, and
assistance programs for families. The other major concern related to homelessness and concerns that
economic development cannot continue until the root issues of homelessness are fixed. Respondents
suggested rehabilitation centers and providing training and skills development for those experiencing
homelessness.
EDUCATION:
Respondents mentioned two major threads when discussing education. The first thread emphasized
public awareness and education about homelessness - the causes and prevention methods. Participants
would like to see more public awareness about resources (job programs, health services, and health
care) available to the unsheltered. The second education thread regards children’s education.
Respondents would like to see teachers paid more, safer schools, and free meals for children.
ENVIRONMENT:
Respondents were very concerned about the Great Salt Lake drying up. Preserving the watershed,
protecting trees, and improving air quality were also top environmental priorities for respondents.
FAMILY:
Many respondents expressed the need for affordable childcare options and increased quality of
children's education. Respondents were also concerned about housing costs pushing families out of the
City.
FOOD ACCESS:
Respondents saw a need for more affordable food access. They related food access to the increase in
housing costs, as respondents generally felt like they cannot afford basic necessities. Some suggested
community gardens and pantries, plus the development of grocery stores throughout the city to combat
food deserts and to increase walkability.
GREEN SPACE:
Participants desired increased access to green space and parks throughout the city, whether through
increased public transportation to connect to existing natural areas or by the creation of more green
space. Respondents also expressed a desire for more trees and nature integrated into the city, both to
beautify the city and to keep it cool. Some respondents requested more community gardens and outdoor
recreation areas.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
COMMENT SUMMARY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
33
HOMELESSNESS:
Homelessness was the second most popular feedback topic, behind only affordable housing.
Respondents commented on a perceived increase in encampments and individuals experiencing
homelessness throughout the city and requested programs and services to respond to the increase in
need. Many suggested designated camping areas and increased access to shelters, while a few
respondents requested stricter enforcement of camping laws.
The issue is closely related to tenants’ rights, as many have become homeless because of increased
housing costs. Respondents requested a rental assistance program to keep individuals in their homes.
Many respondents connected the perceived increase in homelessness to an increase in illicit drug
activity, sharing safety concerns and expressing a need for more mental and behavioral health services
and rehabilitation programs. While some respondents requested more police presence in response to
the issue, many more requested increased social services and case managers for individuals with
substance abuse disorders. Please see Programs, Services, and Maintenance for some other concerns on
homelessness.
HOMEOWNERSHIP:
Respondents' sentiments about homeownership were centered on increasing regulation on corporate
homeownership and the creation of first-time buyer programs prioritizing Utah residents. Similar to
ideas expressed in the the Tenants' Rights category, respondents believe rent is so high that
households cannot afford to save for a down payment, which compounds the already-limited
ownership opportunities in Salt Lake City.
HOUSING:
Respondents who mentioned housing shared similar thoughts as those who discussed Homeownership,
Building Type, and Affordable Housing. Respondents expressed a need for affordable housing for low-
and middle-income households, higher density outside of downtown, preservation of currently
affordable units, increased multi-use zoning, and regulation of short-term rentals.
MAINTENANCE:
Comments on maintenance were closely related to Services, Programs, and Homelessness.
Respondents wanted a cleaner city, including cleaner streets and parks. Many respondents connected
trash issues with encampments, others just requested increased litter pickup throughout the city. There
were also many comments about the need for road and sidewalk repairs.
MISCELLANEOUS:
This topic encompasses comments difficult to place or themes not mentioned enough to merit their
own category. Respondents expressed concern about the state of facilities in the city and shared the
need for more public restrooms. Some respondents were frustrated with the perceived arduous
processes of getting development projects approved. Participants also advocated for lowering property
taxes and taxing vacant units and units not occupied by owners. Many mentioned keeping housing and
assisted living programs affordable for seniors.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
COMMENT SUMMARY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
34
PROGRAMS:
Respondents expressed a need for more rental assistance, drug rehabilitation, disability assistance, job
training, and medical bill assistance programs. Such comments imply that respondents cannot afford
basic necessities and are in need of financial assistance to get back on their feet.
SAFETY:
Respondents who mentioned safety reported a decreased feeling of security, linking it to the perceived
increased unsheltered population in the city. Some hope to see increased accountability for those using
illicit drugs and living on the street, while others asked the city to provide more services to prevent
drug-related safety concerns from happening in the first place. Respondents also mentioned a desire
for more lighting throughout the city, protected bike lanes, and resources for victims of sexual assault
and abuse. SERVICES:
Sentiments expressed about services were similar to those expressed about Programs and
Homelessness. Respondents requested more affordable and accessible behavioral and mental health
programs and rehabilitation programs with case management. Program suggestions also included basic
hygiene resources, rental assistance, and job trainings along with food, shelter, and other direct
services. Some participants highlighted the need to help single-parent, refugee, and immigrant families
with affordable childcare and job training, emphasizing the need for access in a variety of languages.
The expansion of libraries was also suggested.
TRANSPORTATION:
Among those providing comment about transportation, public transit was mentioned most frequently,
with many expressing a desire for free or lower-fare transit, increased frequency of service, and
expansion of services throughout the city. Other themes included road improvements, pedestrian and
cyclist safety, and walkability. Participants suggested road improvements including fixing potholes,
developing solutions for congestion, and traffic light system repairs. Many respondents said they didn't
feel safe while walking and biking. Respondents expressed a desire for the city to become more walkable
to reduce road congestion, pollution, and overall reliance on cars.
TENANTS' RIGHTS:
Tenants' rights and rental assistance came up throughout the qualitative comments. Three main
policy/program suggestions came up: rent control, rental assistance programs, and eviction
protections. In terms of eviction protections, many respondents requested access to or funding for legal
counsel. Respondents also expressed frustration at a lack of landlord accountability, sharing that their
landlords have been unresponsive to their requests for improvements. The overall sentiment from
respondents is that rent has become too expensive and that landlords are raising rents by hundreds of
dollars each year, seemingly without reason or regulation. Another feeling shared by many respondents
was that they are locked into renting and have few pathways to ownership.
ZONING:
Respondents expressed a desire for higher density and mixed-use zoning throughout the city to
promote affordability and walkability. Some respondents would like to see process improvements to
make it easier to build high-density housing.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
The first draft of Housing SLC, Salt Lake
City's affordable housing plan for 2023-
2028, will be available for public feedback in
early 2023.
Based on comments received during the
public comment period, updates will be made
to Housing SLC before it is presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
After necessary changes are made, the plan
will be presented to the Salt Lake City
Council for proposed adoption.
NEXT STEPS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Public Engagement Round 2
Public Engagement Round 1
Analysis of Engagement, Creation of New Housing Plan
Second Draft of Housing Plan
Council Review and Proposed Adoption
35Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
APPENDIX
Housing SLC Engagement Report
36Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
In addition to assistance with focus groups, graduate students in the College of Metropolitan
and City Planning at the University of Utah conducted outreach centered on Salt Lake City's
Westside communities, those experiencing homelessness, and specific housing interventions.
Students' engagement efforts took place during the Fall of 2022.
Along with key takeaways, outreach efforts also resulted in guides, maps and toolkits
residents and policymakers can use to better understand our community. The supplemental
materials can be viewed on our website at https://www.slc.gov/can/housing-slc/.
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT
University of Utah planning students spoke with Glendale Middle School students about the
Glendale neighborhood, the housing crisis, and other community issues. Students in four
classes and one after school program, 104 Youth, were asked to share their experiences
through cause-and-effect trees and poetry. The 6th and 7th graders were keenly aware of the
changing community dynamics borne out in Salt Lake City’s Thriving in Place study:
gentrification and displacement. With the help of Truth Cypher, Glendale Middle School and
104 Youth, roughly 112 students were engaged.
Inequality and racism in Salt Lake City were
frequently discussed. Students felt fearful of
surveillance and perceived a gap in the
materials/opportunities afforded to them versus
Eastside students.
Environmental issues, ranging from air pollution to
litter, were at the forefront of students’ minds.
Students noted recent closures of local businesses
to make way for large apartment buildings in their
community and worried future generations wouldn’t
care for Glendale.
The rising costs of rent, utilities, and medical and
grocery bills alarmed the students.
Students celebrated their families, friends and
places that make Glendale special, Jordan Park
chief among highlighted locations.
Key Takeaways
APPENDIX
Housing SLC Engagement Report
37Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
SPECIFIC HOUSING INTERVENTIONS:
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS, PEOPLE’S LEGAL AID
During the Fall of 2022, University of Utah planning students hosted information sessions and
discussions about three housing-related topics: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), Community
Land Trusts (CLT), and People's Legal Aid (PLA) for renters. The purpose of each session was
to raise awareness and glean feedback on housing solutions. Students heard from 10 Westside
residents about ADUs, 40 community leaders about Community Land Trusts, and 22 renters
and landlords about People’s Legal Aid, a legal service for those dealing with eviction and
other housing issues.
ADU: Salt Lake City must improve communication between decision-makers and Westside communities.
CLT: The housing crisis requires stronger partnerships between Salt Lake City and housing-related organizations.
CLT: Special attention should be paid to those in our community who have been historically underserved.
PLA: Residents are feeling the burdens of inflation and cost of living stress.
PLA: Residents believe there are few resources and protections for tenants.
Key Takeaways
HOUSING BOOK CLUB
Planning students at the University of Utah hosted a housing-related book club to generate
discussion about Salt Lake City’s housing crisis. Participants read the book The Color of Law: A
Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein. After
participants finished the book, they met at Salt Lake City’s Main Library to discuss their
takeaways from the book and how the book applied to Salt Lake City’s past and present. Two
residents participated in the book club.
Salt Lake City should increase its housing stock and
allow for more mixed-income communities to
mitigate residential segregation.
Salt Lake City could do more to raise awareness
about historical inequities.
Decision-makers should make high-opportunity
areas more accessible to all residents.
Key Takeaways: Lessons Learned:
While the book club fomented positive and sincere
discussion, future clubs will need to be advertised
more widely/regularly to achieve a better turnout. A
book club may be too time-intensive for many Salt
Lakers, but it may still be a valuable way to deeply
educate and engage the public on difficult topics. It
may be more beneficial to partner with a local
bookstore or other small business or organization in
the future.
APPENDIX
Housing SLC Engagement Report
38Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
WESTSIDE TESOROS
Planning students from the University of Utah partnered with NeighborWorks Salt Lake to
create a treasure map of the Westside – a map of Westside gems deserving of recognition and
protection. Students placed a six-by-eight foot map at Mestizo Coffeehouse that residents
could use to pinpoint their most cherished Westside locations. In addition to placing a pin,
participants were in invited to share why picked each location.
View the map here.
Participants highlighted centers for learning and
gathering, including local schools and libraries as
well as the murals at Fleet Block.
Residents foregrounded local businesses where
diverse cultures are celebrated, including Mexican,
Chinese, and Vietnamese restaurants, and grocers
specializing in Latin American products.
Participants noted green space as a priority for
protection, including pocket parks and the
International Peace Gardens.
Residents expressed a desire to see the
community’s legacy protected, including the
birthplace of one of just thirty female State Senators
in Utah's history, now Nellie Jack Park, and the
natural springs at Warm Springs Park, which were
used by indigenous people prior to the arrival of
Mormon settlers
Key Takeaways:
PHOTOVOICE PROJECT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ROADHOME
Three individuals shared their experiences with homelessness through photography and
caption writing, using a method known as photovoice. Showcasing the struggles and triumphs
of participants' everyday lives, the final product is entitled "Hey SLC, Can You See Us Now?"
View the work here.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
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 BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY24
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 25, 2023
RE: Proposed FY 2024 Sustainability Department / Refuse Fund Budget
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: Key Changes 64, 72-73, Department Overview 255-257, Staffing Document 317
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The FY2024 Sustainability Department budget is proposed to be $28,493,792 which is $3,541,121 or 14% more than last
fiscal year. The increase is mostly due to collection fee adjustments to cover higher costs for existing services, nearly $2.4
million for new capital purchases (new vehicles replacing old vehicles), and reappropriating prior year funding for new
vehicle purchases that couldn’t be used because of manufacturer supply constraints. Two new full-time employees or
FTEs are proposed, bringing the total Department staff level to 65 FTEs. There are two divisions in the Department. See
Additional Info section for a summary of the Sustainability Department budgets from when it was created in FY2016 to
the proposed FY2024 budget. Key elements of the FY2024 proposed budget are grouped below by the two divisions.
The Waste & Recycling Division enterprise fund operates like a business where revenues must cover expenses. It
provides weekly collection of recycling, yard waste, and garbage as well as to special events, operates a bulk waste
collection program “Call 2 Haul,” supports the municipal landfill, education and permitting, and oversees
implementation of city ordinance requirements for commercial recyclers. There are 56 FTEs in the Waste & Recycling
Division with one new FTE proposed for a total of 57 FTEs. This Division is over 90% of the Department’s budget.
The Environment & Energy Division is transitioning away from relying on landfill dividends as a revenue source to be
fully covered by the General Fund, and FY2024 is planned to be the last year in that transition. The Environment &
Energy Division seeks to advance the City’s sustainability and electrified transportation goals jointly adopted by the
Mayor and Council (see Additional Info section for those goals). It assists departments with environmental assessments
typically performed by consultants and compliance, develops strategies to reduce emissions and improves energy
efficiency for City operations and resident’s activities, address food insecurity, and facilitates greater access to renewable
energy. There are seven FTEs in the Environment & Energy Division with one new FTE proposed for a total of eight.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE $25.6 MILLION WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION PROPOSED BUDGET
The total division budget is proposed to be $25,617,162 which is $4,078,883 or 19% more than FY2023.
$2.3 Million Debt Financing for New Refuse Vehicles
(Some funds are reappropriations from prior years)
The budget includes $2,385,363 for capital purchases to fund new vehicles to replace older vehicles and new charging
infrastructure for electric vehicles (EVs). A list of the new vehicles is provided below. The Department finances them
through new debt which is paid back over several years. There is a corresponding revenue increase in the budget of
$2,556,200 to accept the debt proceeds for the new vehicle purchases. The line item also includes some revenue from
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 25, 2023
Budget Hearings: May 16 and June 6, 2023
Potential Action: June 13, 2023
Page | 2
the anticipated sale of older vehicles, interdepartmental refuse billings increasing from higher fees and more interest
income from higher interest rates.
- 14 side load packers (replacements)
o Note that seven of these were initially funded in Budget Amendment #2 of FY2023 but were unable to
be ordered because of supply chain constraints experienced by the manufacturers. The replacement
vehicles are still needed. The funding would be reappropriated in the annual budget so the funds are
available in FY2024 when the manufacturers begin accepting orders again.
o The vehicles are a mix of clean diesel and compressed natural gas. Hybrid versions are not available in
the market. Electric versions are just becoming available with reliability being tested and may be cost
prohibitive until more widely produced.
- 4 electric sedans, replacing 4 hybrid vehicles, and 2 flatbed pickup trucks (replacements)
- 1 loader (replacement)
- EV charging infrastructure for 4 new EV sedans (listed above), plus make-ready for up to 6 additional EVs
$1.5 Million from Collection Fee Increases
(12% fee increase proposed)
The budget includes $1,488,156 new revenue from higher refuse collection fees which also covers increased expenses. A
12% fee increase is proposed for FY2024. The table below provides a summary of the fee increases. Last year the fees
increased 15%. The Department projects an 11% fee increase for FY2025, 8% in FY2026, 5% in FY2027, and then 3%
annually afterwards. Collection fees were not increased for seven years from FY 2015 through FY2021. Fees have been
increased in the last two fiscal years to address rising operating costs and cash reserves (rainy day fund) in case of
emergencies. A low-income abatement program is operated through the Public Utilities Billing System where a resident
qualifying for property tax relief programs administered by the County also receives a discount on their Public Utilities
and Refuse fees. (There have been some concerns that this relief program is not as helpful for people experiencing
financial crisis.) There is also $25,000 of new revenue from fees for replacement or removal of collection bins and
related to services at special events based on a recently completed cost justification study. The last three annual budgets
did not include revenue from special event fees because pandemic impacts significantly reduced the number of events.
$481,531 for the 5% general pay increase / cost of living adjustment (COLA) proposed in the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget for all City employees.
$407,526 for Lease Debt Payment Increase
This line item includes the cost of first payments to cover new debt (such as new refuse packers and other vehicles
financed with a loan instead of bought with cash) and payments for existing debt.
$353,000 for Tipping Fee Increases
There are four fee increases bundled together in this line item. Some of the cost increases are estimates such as the
landfill’s transfer station. Landfill tipping fees are determined by the landfill’s annual budget and the Landfill Council’s
budgeting process which is on a calendar year cycle. The four fee categories are:
- Landfill tipping fees for waste collected in curbside trash containers and Call 2 Haul
- Green waste tipping fees for curbside compost (yard waste)
- Recycling processing fees for material collected in curbside recycling carts
- Recycling fees for tires and electronics collected in Call 2 Haul
$205,132 for Public Utilities Billing System or PUBS Increase
The Waste and Recycling Division within the Sustainability Department uses PUBS to collect service fees. The PUBS cost
of operations has increased and a proportionate share of the higher costs is charged to the Department.
$182,406 for vehicle operations cost increases for fuel including compressed natural gas and vehicle maintenance.
$%
4 0 Gallo ns 1 7 .80$ 2 .1 0$ 1 2 %1 9 .9 0$ 2 5 .2 0$ 2 3 8.80$
6 0 Gallo ns 2 2 .7 5$ 2 .7 0$ 1 2 %2 5 .4 5$ 3 2 .4 0$ 3 0 5 .4 0$
9 0 Gallo ns 2 7 .0 0$ 3 .2 0$ 1 2 %3 0 .2 0$ 3 8.4 0$ 3 6 2 .4 0$
T o t al
A n n u al FeeContainer Size C u rre n t
M o n t h l y Fe e
FY 2 0 2 4
M o n t h l y Fe e
Pro p o se d I n c re ase A n n u al C o st
I n c rease
Page | 3
$63,247 for a Container Maintenance Service Worker New FTE
The position is proposed to be funded for 10 months recognizing the time it takes to go through the hiring process. The
total annual cost of the position is estimated to be $75,897. This would be the third such position in the Department. The
FTEs provide replacement and delivery requests in the field, repair damaged and assemble new containers, and
disassemble old containers for recycling.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE $2.9 MILLION ENVIRONEMENT & ENERGY DIVISION PROPOSED BUDGET
The total division budget is proposed to be $2,879,630 which is $-(537,762) or -16% less than FY2023. Most of the
decrease is caused by removal of one-time project funding approved in the FY2023 budget. See the Additional Info
section for status updates on some of those projects and studies.
$230,000 for Expanded Air Quality Incentives Program
(See policy questions #1-3)
The FY2024 budget proposes a $230,000 increase to the existing $250,000 budget previously used for the gas-powered
lawnmower exchange program and broadening the eligible expenses. The new program budget would be $480,000 and
the largest program by funding in the Division. The Sustainability Department would explore potential partnerships
with community nonprofits and state agencies to administer parts of the program to residents. For the past three years,
the City partnered with the State Division of Air Quality or DAQ to provide rebates on exchanging gas-powered
lawnmowers for electric versions or a discount if there is no equipment exchange. The State has ended the residential
component of the program to solely focus on commercial landscaping businesses. The City has more flexibility to tailor
goals and eligibility by taking on the residential portion of the program. However, this is expected to increase program
operating costs for the City which is why the Department is also requesting a new FTE (see next section of the staff
report). The funding request includes printing and mailing for public noticing of the program.
Broadening Eligible Expenses
New eligible expenses would be added possibly including gas-powered yard maintenance equipment exchanged for
electric versions beyond lawnmowers (e.g., weed whackers, edgers, trimmers, leaf blowers, snowblowers), voucher or
rebate for purchasing an electric bike (no motorized bike exchanged required), and indoor air quality tools such as air
purifiers and filters. Residents can choose to participate in the Call 2 Haul program for old gas-powered equipment to be
picked up and recycled. Metrics that could be tracked include the number of community events and contacts, number of
residents participating, number of indoor air quality tools disbursed, and resulting pollution reduction over time.
Program History FY2021 – FY2024
The Council previously funded $250,000 annually over three years for a gas-powered lawnmower exchange program in
partnership with DAQ. In prior years, the Department estimated approximately 1,000 residents could participate in the
program at the $250,000 funding level. Residents received up to $300 for exchanging a gas-powered lawnmower for an
electric one or $150 off an electric mower without an exchange. The gas-powered lawnmower exchange program
received $250,000 from General Fund Balance in Budget Amendment #5 of FY2021 and another appropriation of
$250,000 from General Fund Balance in Budget Amendment #4 of FY2022. The FY2023 annual budget included
$250,000 to continue the program at the same funding level.
$96,094 for an Air Quality Incentives Program Coordinator New FTE
(See policy questions #4)
The position is proposed to be funded for 10 months recognizing the time it takes to go through the hiring process. The
total annual cost of the position is estimated to be $115,313. The FTE would manage the Air Quality Incentives Program
which was formerly a gas-powered lawnmower exchange program partnership with the State Division of Air Quality (see
write up above). The FTE would be needed to handle the administrative workload of the City taking on the residential
portion of the program since the State is focusing on commercial landscaping companies. At the time of publishing this
staff report, the Department was working with Human Resources to develop a job description for the new position based
on community program manager positions in other departments.
$403,563 Increase Transfer from General Fund
This continues the transition of the Division from relying upon dividends from the Landfill to be solely funded from the
General Fund. FY2024 is anticipated to be the last year of the transition. The total estimated transfer from the General
Fund is estimated at approximately $1.4 million and was being confirmed at the time of publishing this staff report.
Continue $214,000 Ongoing for New Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Page | 4
The FY2024 budget continues the $214,000 ongoing funding level for new EV charging stations. Note that the ongoing
maintenance and operations budget of $45,000 is proposed to be transferred to the Public Services Department. The
ongoing studies (funded in the last annual budget) evaluating where to place EV charging stations serving the City’s
internal fleet and public facing stations will inform the locations and ownership models of new stations built with these
funds. The Departments states these funds are helpful as local matching funds for federal grants authorized over the
next several years as part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
$155,828 for Community Renewable Energy Program Public Noticing and Mailings
The Department stated this funding will be covered by the ongoing base budget. The City is required to pay Rocky
Mountain Power for mailing and noticing costs after the program has been created. The current design of the program
anticipates automatically entering all property owners into the program unless they opt-out at a to be determined time.
$125,061 for the 5% general pay increase / cost of living adjustment (COLA) proposed in the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget for all City employees.
$-(210,774) Revenue Reduction from Selling Recyclables
The Department has not received revenue from the sale of recyclables since August 2022. Pricing for recyclables is
influenced by the national and international markets which have experienced significant demand decreases in recent
years. The FY2024 budget includes no revenue from the sale of recyclables which is considered a volatile funding source.
$-(250,000) Revenue Reduction from Community Renewable Energy Program
The reduction reflects Millcreek City taking on the fiduciary role for the new Community Renewable Energy Program on
behalf of participating municipalities. The FY2023 budget included $250,000 for this same purpose but is removed in
the FY2024 budget to recognize that Salt Lake City is not managing funds for the program.
$-(875,000) Reduction for Removing One-time Project Funding Approved in FY2023
This represents several one-time projects that received funding in the FY2023 annual budget. The funds have either
been spent, are encumbered under a contract to be used next fiscal year or are in the process of being encumbered. The
Department provided status updates for several of the projects and studies which are shown in the Additional Info
section below.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Delegation of Authority for Air Quality Incentives Eligibility – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration whether to delegate authority for what air quality incentives would be eligible to use the
$480,000. The Council previously funded $250,000 annually over three years for a gas-powered lawnmower
exchange program in partnership with the State. The Administration indicates gas-powered lawnmower
exchanges would continue to be eligible. An alternative could be a separate dedicated line item for continuing the
gas-powered lawnmower / yard maintenance equipment exchange program and a separate line item for new
indoor air quality incentives.
2.Balancing Indoor Air Quality Improvements with Reducing Outdoor Pollution Goals – The Council
may wish to discuss how the expanded Air Quality Incentives Program would balance indoor air quality
improvements which benefit the members of the immediate household (and where people spend most of their
time) with reducing outdoor air pollution which benefits all residents and visitors in the local airshed.
3.Air Quality Incentives Equity Considerations – The Council may wish to provide policy guidance to the
Department for how to prioritize an expanded air quality incentives programs such as outreach to support
geographic equity, using a sliding scale or income-qualified approach to discounts, setting a maximum per
resident or household, etc.
4.New FTE for Air Quality Initiatives – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether
funding for the FTE could come out of the program’s proposed $480,000 budget. The Council may also wish to
ask whether the proposed position is commensurate with similar FTEs in other departments.
5.Illegal Dumping Role Clarity and Resource Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how
reports of illegal dumping are routed between departments for response and whether more resources are needed
to address the issue. Depending on the location and type of waste, a response could be handled by the
departments of Sustainability, Public Services, and Public Lands, the County Health Department, and/or the Utah
Page | 5
Department of Transportation (e.g. waste on state-owned roads within Salt Lake City). The Call 2 Haul Program in
the Waste & Recycling Division picked up 748 illegal waste piles around the city in FY2022.
6.Electric Vehicle Charging Electricity Subsidies – The Council may wish to continue the policy discussion of
who should pay for electric vehicle charging electricity (City currently subsidizes) and whether to explore
privatizing the chargers. Ongoing maintenance and operations funding of $45,000 for EV chargers is proposed to
be transferred to the Public Services Department. The Sustainability Department would continue to lead on
studying and planning where to install EV chargers, models for ownership, maintenance, and operations.
7.Upcoming Landfill Projects and Potential City Impacts – the Council may wish to ask the Administration
what potential impacts to the City could be expected from major projects planned at the Landfill, and what service
impacts the public should expect. Examples of upcoming projects include constructing a new landfill cell, new
methane gas collection mainline, reconstructing offices, and expanding public unloading facilities.
8.Competing Priorities – The Council may wish to ask about how to prioritize the initiatives and programs that
are created and managed through the Environment & Energy Division. With the transfer from the General Fund
increasing, the Council may wish to discuss the Sustainability programs’ shared benefits, importance, and weigh
that with other priorities needing funding throughout the City.
9.Funding for Periodic Rate Study – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how often a rate
study should be conducted to evaluate the structure and amounts for collection fees like how the Public Utilities
Department reviews rate every five years. The Council Office has received public comments suggesting rates
should provide a discount or other incentive for properties that do not need containers picked up every week.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Salt Lake City Renewable Sustainability Goals from July 2016 Joint Council-Mayor Resolution
1. 50% renewable energy for municipal facility operations by 2020
2. 100% renewable energy for municipal facility operations by 2032
a. In August 2019, this goal was updated to be achieved in 2030 as required by the Utah Community
Renewable Energy Act
3. 100% renewable energy for community wide electricity supply by 2032
4. 80% reduction in Salt Lake City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2040
a. Collaborating with Rocky Mountain Power could significantly move the City toward this energy goal;
however, it is insufficient alone to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Electrified Transportation Goals (Attachment 3)
In December 2020, the City Council and Mayor jointly adopted a resolution setting out goals to electrify the City’s
vehicle fleet which builds upon the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal from the 2016 joint resolution. See
Attachment 3 for the resolution and goals.
Status Updates for One-time Projects and Studies Funded in FY2023 Annual Budget
The Department provided the below quick status updates on several large one-time projects that were funded in the last
annual budget. All the funding is anticipated to be encumbered before the end of the fiscal year.
-$450,000 for electrified landscape equipment used by the Public Lands Department. $352,000 has been spent
so far this fiscal year purchasing eight electric riding lawn mowers, extra batteries, and charging infrastructure.
The remaining funds are expected to be used on solar charging trailers to support electric equipment in the field.
-$250,000 for the gas-powered lawn mower exchange program in partnership with the state had all the funds
encumbered. The partnership with the State will end later this calendar year.
-$214,000 for public facing electric vehicle charging stations are encumbered under a contract and hope to be
used in FY2024 in partnership with Rocky Mountain Power’s make ready program. Most of the funds would
install infrastructure between the utility grid and the future chargers so the locations are ready for EV charging
stations. Planned locations are:
o Two locations along the western portion of the 200 South reconstruction project (One dual port and one
single-port station),
Page | 6
o One dual port charger location at the Regional Athletic Complex (which will add to the existing charger
already there which experiences frequent use),
o One dual port charger location at Rosewood Park,
o Two dual port charger locations at Day-Riverside Library,
o One dual port charger location at Riverside Park.
-$200,000 for a zero waste by 2040 roadmap implementation plan has an active RFP and the funds are being
encumbered. The project is expected to be completed in approximately 20 months.
-$150,000 for a City fleet electric vehicle infrastructure study have been encumbered under a contract with the
selected consultant.
-$150,000 for a community electric vehicle siting consultant and engagement study has been encumbered under
a contract after an RFP process.
-$125,000 to complete a community food equity assessment is using an on-call contract and the funds are in the
process of being encumbered. The scope of work was finalized in December. The project is expected to be
completed in approximately 20 months.
Sustainability Department Total Budget FY2016 – FY2024
The Department was created in FY2016 from a former division within the Public Services Department. Collection fees
are the largest revenue source for the Department. The Waste & Recycling Division operates as an enterprise fund where
revenues must cover expenses. As a result, collection fees are adjusted based on operating cost changes. Collection fees
were held flat for seven years from FY2015 to FY2021. Fees increased in FY2022, FY2023, and are proposed to increase
again in FY2024. A few million dollars of the FY2023 and FY2024 budgets are reappropriations of funds to purchase
new vehicles to replace old ones. The funding was unable to be used due to manufacturers experiencing supply chain
issues. Reappropriating the funds allows the Department to place orders when manufacturers reopen order windows
sometimes at short notice.
Note: FY2023 is the adopted budget and FY2024 is the proposed budget. All others are actual figures.
*A few million dollars in FY2023 and FY2024 are reappropriations from prior years to purchase new vehicles.
The manufacturers were unable to accept orders because of supply chain constraints. The replacement
vehicles are still needed.
$4.5 Million Cash Reserves / Rainy Day Fund (separate from General Fund Balance)
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
Sustainability Department Total Budget Comparison
Environment & Energy Waste & Recycling
Page | 7
The Refuse Fund has a minimum target for cash reserves set at 18% of operating revenue which is approximately
equivalent to two months’ worth of operating expenses. The Finance Department has recommended this target for other
enterprise funds. The projected end of FY2024 cash reserves is just over $2.5 million or 15% of operating revenues.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary Comparison Budget Chart
2. Department Performance Measurements
3. Salt Lake City’s Electrified Transportation Goals (jointly adopted by the Mayor and Council December 2020)
ACRONYMS
COLA – Cost of Living Adjustment
DAQ – State Division of Air Quality
EV – Electric Vehicle
FY – Fiscal Year
RFP – Request for Proposals
Page | 8
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY COMPARISON BUDGET CHART
BY FUNCTION
Note: See Additional Info section for a summary of the Sustainability Department budgets from when it was
created in FY2016 to the proposed FY2024 budget.
FY 2 0 2 2 FY 2 0 2 3 FY 2 0 2 4
A c t u al s A do pt e d Pro po se d Do l lars %
Env ir o nm e nt & Ene r gy 8 $ 1 ,4 85 ,5 4 5 $ 3 ,4 1 4 ,3 9 2 $ 2 ,87 6 ,6 3 0 $ (5 3 7 ,7 6 2 )-1 6 %
Waste & Re c y c ling 5 7 $ 1 6 ,6 2 1 ,6 89 $ 2 1 ,5 3 8,2 7 9 $ 2 5 ,6 1 7 ,1 6 2 $4 ,0 7 8,883 1 9 %
T o t al 65 $ 18,10 7 ,2 3 4 $ 2 4 ,95 2 ,6 7 1 $ 2 8,4 9 3 ,7 9 2 $ 3 ,5 4 1,12 1 14 %
Fu n din g So u rc e
Re fu se Fu nd 0 $ 1 8,1 0 7 ,2 3 4 $ 2 4 ,9 5 2 ,6 7 1 $ 2 8,4 9 3 ,7 9 2 $ 3 ,5 4 1 ,1 2 1 1 4 %
De part m e n t o f Su st ain ab il it y
Di v isio n FT E s Diffe ren c e
FY 2 0 2 2 FY 2 0 2 3 FY 2 0 2 4
A c t u al s A do pt e d Pro p o se d Do ll ars %
Pe r so nal Se r v ic e s $ 5 ,4 3 0 ,5 7 8 $ 6 ,0 2 9 ,0 5 9 $ 6 ,7 5 2 ,5 4 4 7 2 3 ,4 85$ 1 2 %
Op e r at io ns & Mainte na nc e $ 2 89 ,4 5 3 $ 2 7 8,5 9 9 $ 6 3 3 ,1 0 0 3 5 4 ,5 0 1$ 1 2 7 %
Cha r ge s & Se r v ic e s $ 7 ,3 5 5 ,7 1 7 $ 1 0 ,0 5 2 ,4 3 8 $ 9 ,7 2 2 ,6 84 (3 2 9 ,7 5 4 )$ -3 %
I nte r e st & Bo nd Ex p e nse $ 1 ,9 7 8,82 7 $ 2 ,5 7 8,87 1 $ 2 ,9 86 ,3 9 7 4 0 7 ,5 2 6$ 1 6 %
Ca p it a l Ex pe nd itu r e s $ 2 ,7 7 5 ,4 6 4 $ 5 ,7 3 8,7 0 4 $ 8,1 2 4 ,0 6 7 2 ,3 85 ,3 6 3$4 2 %
Tr a nsfe r s Out $ 2 7 7 ,1 9 6 $ 2 7 5 ,0 0 0 $ 2 7 5 ,0 0 0 -$ 0 %
T o t al $ 18,10 7 ,2 3 4 $ 2 4 ,9 5 2 ,6 7 1 $ 2 8,493 ,7 9 2 $ 3 ,5 4 1,12 1 14%
Ope rat in g Bu dg e t fo r De part m en t o f Su st ain ab i lit y
Differe n c e
Page | 9
ATTACHMENT 2
DEPARTMENT MEASUREMENTS
Note: the first metric of diverting a percent of the waste stream is calendar year and the rest are fiscal year.
Perfo rm an c e M easu re 2 0 2 0
A c t u al
2 0 2 1
A c t u al
2 0 2 2
A c t u al
2 0 2 3
T arg e t
2 0 2 4
T arg e t
I nc r e a se p e r c e nt o f r e sid e ntia l waste s t r e am
d iv e r t e d fr o m t he land fill thr o u gh r e c y c ling
and c o m p o st ing
3 9 .2 9 %3 7 .2 0 %3 7 .0 0 %≥4 0 %≥4 0 %
5 0 % r e ne wab le e le c tr ic it y ge ne r atio n fo r
munic ip al o p e r at io ns b y 2 0 2 3
(do e s no t re fle c t Ro c ky Mo unt a in Po w e r's
re ne w a b le e ne rg y ge ne ra tio n m ix)
1 3 .0 0 %1 2 .0 0 %1 2 .0 0 %≥5 0 %≥5 0 %
1 0 0 % r e ne wa b le e le c t r ic ity ge ne r atio n fo r
c o mm u nity b y 2 0 3 0
(re fle c t s Ro c ky Mo unt a in Po w e r's
re ne w a b le e ne rg y ge ne ra tio n m ix)
2 2 .0 0 %3 0 .0 0 %3 1 .0 0 %≥3 0 %≥3 0 %
Re du c e c o mm u nity g r e e nho u se gas
e miss io ns 80 % b y 2 0 4 0
(e stim a t e d b a se d o n e le c tric it y a nd na t u ral
c o nsu m ptio n, a ir trav e l, o n-ro a d
trans p o rtatio n, a nd w a ste and re c y c ling )
4 ,4 9 8,2 5 2
MTCO2e
4 ,7 2 0 ,0 0 0
MTCO2e
4 ,6 2 0 ,0 0 0
MTCO2e
4 ,62 0 ,0 0 0
MTCO2e
4 ,6 2 0 ,0 0 0
MTCO2e
SLCGr e e n To t a l so c ia l m e dia fo llo we r s
(I nst a g ra m, Fa c e b o o k, a nd Tw it te r) 1 7 ,6 2 4 1 8,2 5 4 1 8,82 3 2 0 ,2 5 0 2 0 ,3 5 0
RESOLUTION NO. 45 OF 2020
A joint resolution of the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor establishing
electrified transportation goals for Salt Lake City
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City municipal government is committed to protecting the public
health and safety of its residents, combating climate change, and ensuring access to clean air,
clean water and a livable environment; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is dedicated to being a leader in the use of clean energy,
establishing policies and programs that conserve energy, promote sustainability, and improve our
air quality; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City’s Mayor and City Council adopted a joint resolution in 2016
calling for an 80 percent reduction in community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City created an Electrified Transportation Roadmap in 2018 with
strategies and best practices for local governments in Utah to support electrified transportation;
and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is committed to fiscal responsibility by reducing fuel
consumption and associated costs for City operations; and
WHEREAS, residents are concerned about air quality and support strong action by
government leaders to reduce pollution; and
WHEREAS, cities along the Wasatch Front, including Salt Lake City, are not in
compliance with federal health-based standards for fine particulate matter and ozone, and vehicle
emissions are the primary source of air pollution; and
WHEREAS, the petroleum-fueled on-road transportation sector accounts for nearly 20%
of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in Salt Lake City and is a contributing factor to air
pollution and climate change, threatening the health of our citizens and long-term stability and
success of our community; and
WHEREAS, air pollution from vehicle emissions harm public health in the form of
increased cardiovascular disease, asthma, lung cancer, and diabetes, with children and the elderly
at special risk; and
WHEREAS, disadvantaged populations face the biggest impacts from poor air quality,
with higher rates of respiratory illnesses, hospitalizations, and premature death; and
WHEREAS, the transition of the transportation sector to clean energy technologies,
including electric vehicles (EVs), will provide a range of benefits including improved air quality,
enhanced public health, and reduced reliance on finite imported resources; and
R 20-1R 20-16
WHEREAS, electrification of cars, trucks and buses is needed in order to achieve deep
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the benefits grow over time as electricity generation
in Utah gets cleaner and Salt Lake City achieves its net-100% renewable electricity community
goal by 2030; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is responsible for providing infrastructure for safe and
reliable travel options for residents and visitors that support a robust economy and minimize
negative impacts of transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor as
follows:
1. Electrified Municipal Fleet Goals: Salt Lake City Corporation will strive to purchase
electric vehicles for its internal fleet, while also considering total cost of ownership, to
ensure progress towards its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040. The
City sets the following targets for purchases within its fleet, including target dates that
may be adjusted to account for market availability and total cost of ownership
considerations:
a. All new sedans purchased will be plug-in vehicles by 2023;
b. All new sports utility vehicles (SUVs) purchased will be plug-in vehicles by
2025;
c. All new pickup trucks purchased will be plug-in vehicles by 2027;
d. All new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment purchases will
be evaluated for electric options prior to purchase;
e. The City will financially support the charging infrastructure necessary to own and
operate plug-in vehicles within its fleet.
2. Electrified Transit Goals: Salt Lake City Corporation will encourage Utah Transit
Authority (UTA) to implement a sustained transition to electric buses and will collaborate
with UTA on related efforts.
3. Electrified Smart Mobility Goals: Salt Lake City Corporation will collaborate with
providers of smart mobility services such as rideshare, car share and other transportation
options to encourage electrification of their fleets and operations that help achieve local
air quality and community carbon reduction goals. The City will also prioritize equitable
access to smart mobility services to ensure an inclusive development of clean and
affordable transportation options for community members.
4. Electrified Personal Vehicle Goals: Salt Lake City Corporation will support the
development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, plus other programs, policies and
projects that encourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles by local residents and
non-governmental fleets. The City will strive to accelerate uptake and use of electric
vehicles at rates higher than national averages and in line with achieving local air quality
and community carbon reduction goals.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 8th day of
December, 2020.
____________________________ ____________________________
Erin J. Mendenhall Chris Warton, Chair
Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: Approved As To Form
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
________________________ ____________________________
CITY RECORDER Megan DePaulis, Senior City Attorney
Megan DePaulis (Dec 17, 2020 16:52 MST)
Megan DePaulis
Chris Wharton (Dec 29, 2020 18:55 MST)Erin Mendenhall (Dec 30, 2020 10:21 MST)
Cindy Trishman (Jan 4, 2021 23:24 MST)
Salt Lake City Proposed FY23-24 Budget
Presented by: Debbie Lyons, Sustainability Director | Sophia Nicholas, Deputy Director | Chris Bell, Division Director
Sustainability FY23-24 Budget
Presented by: Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas
and Chris Bell
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
BBSUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas and Chris Bell
DIVISION FY23 Adopted FY23 Amended FY24 MRB
FTEs Budget FTEs Budget FTEs Budget
Environment & Energy 7 $3,414,392 7 $3,414,392 8 $2,876,630
Waste & Recycling 56 $21,538,279 56 $24,573,979 57 $25,617,162
TOTAL 63 $24,952,671 63 $27,988,371 65 $28,493,792
3
Sustainability FY23-24 Budget
PROGRAM BASED BUDGETING BB
E&E FY24 EXPENSE BY PROGRAM
Administration
$219,303
8%
Internal Svc Fees
$446,290
15%
Air Quality
$1,069,601
37%
Climate
$229,772
8%
Renewable Energy
$422,087
15%
Efficiency & Electrification
$90,710
3%
Outreach & Engagement
$125,214
4%
Food Equity
$197,468
7%
Enviro Mgt
$76,186
3%
5
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
7 FTEs (FY23)
4 Program Managers
W&R FY24 EXPENSE BY PROGRAM
6
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
56 FTEs (FY23)
Garbage Collection
$14,641,174
57%
Recycling Collection
$3,355,872
13%
Yard Waste Collection
$2,846,129
11%
Call 2 Haul
$1,687,436
7%
Education and Permits
$954,098
4%
Glass Recycling
$660,431
2%
Internal Service Fees
$510,000
2%
Admin
$962,022
4%
Sustainability FY23-24 Budget
ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY DIVISION
INSIGHTS
BB
7
Insight Description
FY23
Adopted
Budget
FY24
Requested
Budget
Change
from FY23
Budget
MSCW Dept
Score
E1 Transfer In from GF for Operations (Rev)$1,272,126 $1,400,900 $128,774 Should 18
E2 Air Quality Incentives $250,000 $480,000 $230,000 Should 26
E3 Air Quality Projects Manager 26 (10 Mo)$0 $96,084 $96,084 Should 26
E4 EV Station O&M Transfer to Public Services $45,000 $0 ($45,000)Should 8
E&E INSIGHTS SUMMARY
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
8
Mayor’s 2023 Goal: Propose a budget to facilitate the launch of a City-led air quality incentives
program, which could include resident rebates for landscaping equipment, indoor air quality tools,
and e-bikes.
INSIGHTS E2 & E3: AIR QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM
E2: $230,000 increase ($480,000 total) | MSCW: Should | Score: 26
E3: $96,084| MSCW: Should | Score: 26
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
9
Base Air Quality Program: $493,517
•Electrified transportation
•EV infrastructure installation
•Internal/external coordination
•Communications & outreach
•Air quality technical expertise
•Grant management (Federal, State,
Utility)
+ Incentives Program: $576,084
•$96,084 Air Quality Program Manager (26)
•$480,000 for incentives ($250,000 budgeted in FY23)
•Community & Partner Engagement
•Procurement, contracting
•Logistics and distribution
•Grant applications, management
•Data tracking
INSIGHT E2 & E3: AIR QUALITY INCENTIVES CONTINUED
Equitable incentives for SLC residents
METRICS
General: Participants, by zip code/council district
Yard Equipment:Tons of pollution reduced, # of units replaced
E-Bike:# of Income qualified. Surveys –how much did you ride (miles, how often, replaced vehicle
trips,trip length)--> emissions reduced, cost savings
Indoor Air Quality: Units distributed, location, partner program, IAQ awareness.
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
10
Sustainability FY23-24 Budget
WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION
INSIGHTS
BB
11
Insight Description
FY23
Adopted
Budget
FY24
Requested
Budget
Change from
FY23 Adopted MSCW Dept
Score
W5 Inflationary Costs (Fleet
Mnt, Fuel, Emp Comp)$9,829,880 $10,858,678 $1,028,798 Must 10-14
W6 Capital Increase $5,738,704 $8,124,067 $2,385,363 Should 20
W7 Container Maintenance 14
FTE (10 months)$0 $63,247 $63,247 Should 16
W8 Residential Service Fees
(Revenue)$14,321,577 $15,809,733 $1,488,156 Should 12
W9 Special Event Fees
(Revenue)$0 $25,000 $25,000 Should 12
W&R DIVISION INSIGHT SUMMARY
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
12
INSIGHT W5: INFLATIONARY COSTS –Maint, Fuel, Tipping, Comp
2,775,464
1,801,327
448,744
1,769,495
4,823,5455,738,704
2,158,988
562,594
2,005,652
5,102,646
8,124,067
2,209,000
692,700
2,358,652
5,661,573
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
Capital Fleet Maint Fuel (Diesel+CNG)Tipping Fees Compensation
FY22 Actual FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed
$1,028,798| MSCW: Must | Score: 10-14
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
13
INSIGHT W6: CAPITAL INCREASE
$2,385,363| MSCW: Should | Score: 20
FY23 Adopted Budget:$5,738,704
FY23 Amended Budget:$8,774,404
*7 Refuse Packers funded in FY23 BA2 but unable to place order
Program Purchase Replaces FY24 Request
Weekly curbside pickup *14 Refuse Packers
2 Flatbed Trucks
Cart Purchases (Toter )
14 Refuse Packers
2 Flatbed Trucks
$7,000,000
$188,000
$400,000
Call 2 Haul Wheel Loader Wheel Loader $260,067
Administration 2 Electric Sedans 2 Prius $70,000
Education & Enforcement 2 Electric Sedans 2 Prius $66,000
Admin/Education EV charging infrastructure:
•2 stations/4 ports for W&R EV sedans
•3 stations/6 ports “EV Ready”
$140,000
Total $8,124,067
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
14
INSIGHT W7: CONTAINER MAINTENANCE 14
$63,247| MSCW: Should | Score: 16
•Consistent demand met with temporary
labor for 3 years
•Critical year-round support for curbside
programs and special events
•Clean, replace and deliver containers
•Repair broken containers
•Assemble new containers
•Disassemble old containers for
recycling
•Audit container inventory
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
15
INSIGHT W8 : Residential Service Fee
Container
Current
Monthly Fee
Proposed
Monthly Fee
Monthly
Impact
Annual
Impact
90 gal garbage $27.00 $30.20 $3.20 $38.40
60 gal garbage $22.75 $25.45 $2.70 $32.40
40 gal garbage $17.80 $19.90 $2.10 $25.20
Multi Fam 90-gal recycle $9.05 $10.15 $1.10 $13.20
•Target Cash Balance:18% of Operating Revenue
•Projected end of year FY24 Cash Balance: 15%, $2,572,027
Assumes Increases:12% FY24 •11% FY25 •8% FY26 •5% FY27 •3% annually FY28+
$1,488,156| MSCW: Should | Score: 12
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
16
INSIGHT W9: Special Event Service Fee
W&R Special Event Services
Current
Fee
Actual
Cost
Proposed
Fee Difference
(per container per event)
> 100 Containers, Delivery, Removal and 1st Dump $19.00 $24.57 $25.00 $6.00
< 100 Containers, Delivery, Removal and 1st Dump $22.00 $20.32 $20.00 ($2.00)
Additional Can Dump Service $4.00 $2.10 $2.10 ($1.90)
•Fees are assessed to recover actual cost to provide requested service for special events
•Total Special Event Revenue: $25,000
•(Special Event Revenue has not been budgeted in previous years due to pandemic)
•Net change due to change in fees: $2,500
~85 small events and 5 large events per year
$25,000| MSCW: Should | Score: 12
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
17
Insight Description FTEs FY24 Change MSCW Dept
Score
E1 Transfer In from GF for Operations (Rev)$128,774 Should 18
E2 Air Quality Incentives $230,000 Should 26
E3 Air Quality Projects Manager 26 (10 Mo)1.0 $96,084 Should 26
E4 EV Station O&M Transfer to Public Services ($45,000)Should 8
W5 Inflationary Costs (Fleet Mnt, Fuel, Emp Comp)$1,028,798 Must 10-14
W6 Capital Increase $2,385,363 Should 20
W7 Container Maintenance 14 FTE (10 months)1.0 $63,247 Should 16
W8 Residential Service Fees (Revenue)$1,488,156 Should 12
W9 Special Event Fees (Revenue)$25,000 Should 12
INSIGHT OVERVIEW
BB
SUSTAINABILITY FY23-24 BUDGET PROPOSAL
18
THANK YOU! Angie Nielsen, Sandee Moore, Randy Hillier, Jamahl
Greer, Lisa Hunt, Mary Beth…and the whole Sustainability Team
19
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 BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY24
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Ben Luedtke, Lehua Weaver, Kira Luke
Allison Rowland, Sam Owen, and Sylvia Richards
DATE: May 25, 2023
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES – Follow-up of Council Questions
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Staff has kept a list of items that one or more Council Members have raised as potential changes to the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget. It should be noted that this is a staff-generated draft, reflecting Council questions and
discussions as of the date of its printing. It may be updated prior to the work session discussion, and Council
Members may have changes or corrections to individual items, and Council Members may add items. At the May
23, 2023 Council Meeting, Council Members introduced items that they are interested in discussing further, and
removed some items that staff had previously been tracking.
If a budget impact is apparent (revenue, FTE and/or expense changes), that amount has been listed, or noted as
“to be determined.” Depending on Council feedback, adjustments can be made to the overall key changes
document, so that the Council can track the net effect of these decisions on the overall budget. See attached
tracking sheet.
Changes to the budget may cause it to be out of balance (increase or decrease expenses and revenues). As these
changes occur, the Council would need to identify offsetting revenue enhancements or expense reductions to
bring the budget back in balance. Staff can research and provide other revenue generation or expense cutting
options if the Council is interested.
(Note: this list is not comprehensive – please let staff know if there are other items to add)
Follow-up Items
1.Items to consider adding to the budget. Some Council Members have expressed interest in adding
the following items to the budget (cost estimates are TBD):
a.Housing ideas raised by one or more Council Members (Note: Staff is working with the
Administration to identify whether any of the dormant HUD funds first allocated in FY 23
could be used for any of these items):
Housing Idea Amount Potential Funding Sources
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 25, June 1, June
6, June 8
Budget Hearing: June 6, 2023
Potential Action: TBD
2
Loan Program for Naturally-Occurring
Affordable Housing
Funding to establish a low or no interest
loan program for repairs on naturally-
occurring affordable housing units for the
owners to guarantee the ongoing
affordability of those units (TBD one-time
or ongoing $)
$1 million •Potentially Dormant HUD funds (Originally from Riverside project is
the most flexible);
•Fund Balance (General Fund or Funding our Future)
•Reallocate Transfer to RDA from Funding our Future (would reduce
NOFA for this year)
City-wide ADU Incentive Program
To incentivize construction of ADUs City-
wide
(TBD one-time or ongoing $)
$1 million •Fund Balance (General Fund or Funding our Future)
•Reallocate Transfer to RDA from Funding our Future (would reduce
NOFA for this year)
Funding for partnership with
Neighborworks for an equity-sharing
workforce housing project
(one-time $)
$2 million •Westside Community Initiative (FY 24 has $1.83 million)
•Transfer additional funding into Westside Community Initiative from:
o Excess North Temple Viaduct CRA Funds ($1.7 million)
o Reallocate transfer to RDA from Funding our Future (would
reduce NOFA for this year)
o Fund Balance (General Fund or Funding our Future)
Funding for partnership with SL
County to add housing to the planned
Sunday-Anderson Senior Center
reconstruction project (9 Line)
The County is using ARPA dollars to reconstruct
the senior center and is on a timeline to spend by
the end of 2025. Opportunity to add housing to
the project if the City can contribute on their
timeline.
(one-time $)
$ TBD
($3 million+)
•Dormant HUD Funds (Originally from CDBG – because they are time
limited and housing construction meets the purpose)
•RDA Project Area Housing Funds (FY 24 $1 million)
•Reallocate Transfer to RDA from Funding our Future (would reduce
NOFA for this year)
•Fund Balance (General Fund or Funding our Future)
Funding for addition to current
Switchpoint facility on North Temple
– the addition would house services and
case management for residents. Current
funding gap is $2 million.
(one-time $)
$500,000 •Potentially Dormant HUD funds (Originally from Riverside project is
the most flexible);
•Fund Balance (General Fund or Funding our Future)
Sanctioned Camping grant to
supplement state and county efforts
One idea - Funds would be offered on the
condition that a site be opened by X date
(one-time $)
$250,000 •Fund Balance (General Fund or Funding our Future)
b. Compensation related (these would be ongoing expenses):
i.Fire Fighter pay increases – Some Council Members have expressed interest in
considering adding to the pay increase for Fire Fighters, in addition to the 5% included
in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. These are amounts that would need to be added
to the budget, depending on the time of year the increase goes into effect:
1. For each 1%, for a full year - $376,624
2. For each 1%, for half a year - $188,312
Note: The Fire Union contract is up for negotiation in FY 25. The previously-
negotiated amount for FY 24 was 3% increase (the Mayor’s recommended
budget exceeded that with the 5% increase for all City employees).
ii. Intent for pay equity for City Prosecutors and Salt Lake Legal Defender Association
1. The County District Attorney increased salaries for County prosecutors, due
to increasing salaries at the Office of the Attorney General. Some Council
Members have expressed an interest in increasing salaries for City Prosecutors,
as they work alongside County prosecutors and there is a concern about
turnover. The Mayor’s Recommended budget includes $200,000 for prosecutor
salary increases. The following would need to be added to the budget to get
them to various comparison levels to the County prosecutors:
a. $322,000 to get them equal to County Prosecutors,
b. $280,000 more to get them to 95% of County prosecutor salaries, with
the intent of revisiting mid-year
Staff has forwarded information from the City Attorney’s Office on
this topic.
2.Legal Defenders Association (LDA) (Some Council Members are
interested in addressing this as a priority, rather than the item above). Due to
3
the County and State increases listed above, a similar pay equity issue is created
with LDA. Currently the City contracts with the LDA to provide legally-required
defense services. The Mayor’s Recommended budget includes a $118,000
increase for LDA. Some Council Members have expressed interest in ensuring
pay parity for LDA. According to staff communications, to get LDA to pay parity
the City would need to add $122,000 to the Mayor’s Recommended budget.
3. See related legislative intent relating to LDA and considering Funding our
Future as a funding source in future years.
iii.Wage increase for seasonal workers - While salaries for seasonal workers were
increased from $13.15 to $17 in FY 23, wages are not proposed to be increased in FY 24.
Staff is confirming with the Public Lands Department to identify how much the Council
would need to add to the budget foreach 1% increase.
c. Transportation
i. One Council Member expressed an interest in providing HIVE passes to a
parent/guardian of a school children (the Mayor’s Recommended budget continues
the $100,000 funding for HIVE passes for all K-12 Students). The Salt Lake School
District foundation is proposing the following to provide a pass for all faculty, staff and 1
parent/guardian:
Total Cost $ 503,648
Mayor’s Recommended Budget $ 100,000
School Foundation Contribution $ 289,000
Gap to be funded $ 114,648
This would be an ongoing expense.
ii.Train crossing safety signs – $150,000 (ongoing $) - One Council Member has
expressed interest in a technology that would provide signs connected to the Rail Lines
in order to increase safety at heavy rail train crossings on the west side. One Council
Member raised this idea that the Inland Port could be a partner in the future.
iii. Some Council Members have expressed an interest in providing an additional
$100,000 for rapid traffic calming. Staff is following up with Transportation to
find out what the division could achieve for that amount of money.
d. Other
i. One Council Member expressed interest in funding a system similar to one deployed by
the Unified Police Department (UPD) last year that sends the caller a text message
after calling 911, with information including their case #, whether officers arrived,
and a post-incident survey. Staff is following up with the City’s 911 Dispatch
Department on potential costs and to see if this is something they have explored.
ii. One Council Member expressed interest in increased funding for Economic
Development to partner with smaller non-profits to extend the reach of the
Economic Development Department to communities that those non-profits are already
connected to. Note: Some Council Members clarified that this is not intended to be a
competitive process, although other Council Members asked that we clarify with the
Attorney’s office to ensure any process comports with State procurement/expenditure
guidelines. Proposed funding amount $30,000
iii. One Council Member expressed an interest in continuing funding for an RV Black
Water tank disposal voucher program - $10,000. Staff note: the Council added
$10,000 for this program in FY 23 that has not been spent yet.
e.Budget “clean up” items – these are items that either the Staff or Administration have
flagged as potential corrections to the budget to ensure expectations are met:
i. Increased funding for lifestyle savings account to ensure all employees who are
interested can receive the benefit - $638,046 additional needed for the General Fund,
$731,934 for enterprise funds. This includes half a year of administrative fees to pay for
the third party administrator. (Potential source: Insurance and Risk Management
Fund Balance. Staff is confirming potential funding sources. Typically Enterprise
Funds would budget for this program within their sources).
ii. Reappropriating/Rolling forward building security money not yet spent from account
established with the FY 23 budget - $409,450. If not re-appropriated for this purpose,
these funds will lapse to fund balance and will no longer be available for this purpose.
4
iii.Reappropriating/Rolling forward funding for Downtown Street activation approved in
BA #5 - $500,000. If not re-appropriated for this purpose, these funds will lapse to
fund balance and will no longer be available for this purpose.
iv. Additional funding needed to ensure Police substations in downtown and north temple
have sufficient funding for lease and utilities - $5,000 (CAN)
v. Correct Bio Hive funding (intended to be one-time in FY 23) - $35,000 can be removed
from the budget.
2. Items to discuss further:
a. Airport Employee Parking Lot Development – Some Council Members have indicated an
interest in reducing the Airport budget or adopting a contingent appropriation to address the
$61 million request for CIP funds for the South Employee Parking Lot Development Program
(CIP Budget Book page 70). Some Council Members have raised the policy consideration that
while the Department of Airports may have a policy goal of providing ample employee parking
and generating revenue from passenger parking, the City Council may have a policy goal of
making demonstrable efforts to encourage people to use transit over passenger vehicles.
b. Clarification on major Westside art installation – funding in CIP, funding in RDA. The Council
could clarify whether these funds should they be combined via policy for a more major
installation, or whether the Council/Board prefers multiple projects on the west side.
3.All New Positions – some Council Members expressed an interest in considering the proposed new
FTEs in more detail. Each new position (except those approved in Budget Amendments) will be listed in
a forthcoming detailed unresolved issues spreadsheet under the proposed department. Note: While
most positions are funded for less than a full year to reflect the time it takes to actually hire an
employee, there are a few that are proposed for a full year of funding. The Council could consider
adjusting those budget amounts to reflect the realities of the hiring process. Alternately, the Council
could authorize early advertising for new positions to begin before the fiscal year begins. One Council
Member asked for additional clarification on the difference between the amount included in the budget
for all new positions this year and the amount that will be needed to fully fund the position next year.
For the general fund, the City will have to add $1.2 million to the FY 25 budget to
accommodate all proposed new positions ($370,000 from funding our future).
4.Funding source options - Staff has identified the following potential funding sources for Council
discussion/consideration, potentially to address some of the above ideas (these are included on the
attached spreadsheet):
a. Potential additional revenue (pending information from Tax Commission and follow up from
the Administration – due by June 8 per state law)
i. Actual New Growth
ii. Actual Judgement Levy
b. Fund balances available – Previously the City had a policy of maintaining a minimum of 10%
fund balance. In FY 19 the Council established a policy goal of 13%, although that goal is not
legally binding. Staff has provided both figures. Also note this is one-time in nature and to the
extent it funds ongoing ideas, this would increase the structural deficit for FY 25:
Amount above 13%Amount above 10%
General Fund $ 723,239 $ 12,488,243
Funding our Future
(for ideas relating to one of the 5
Funding our Future areas)
$ 1,945,500 $ 3,515,644
c. Consider re-appropriating funds that would otherwise drop to fund balance within a
department (funds that are not likely to be spent for FY 23)
d. Risk Management Fund balance (for items relating to employee benefits)
e. Increase property tax (Note: the proposed FY 24 budget does not include a tax increase
although because it includes a judgement levy, a truth in taxation hearing is required).
f. Evaluate compensation levels for non-represented employees (reduce mayor’s
recommendation).
5
g. $35,000 in non-departmental not needed for Bio Hive branding (it was intended to be one-time
in FY 23 and can be re-appropriated this year for other uses)
5.Budget reduction options – As of the printing of this staff report, Council Members have not
specifically identified any budget reduction options (to fund one of the budget additions listed above),
although some have expressed interest in reviewing the proposed new FTEs in more detail. These FTEs
are all listed on the attached Unresolved Issues tracking sheet. The Council may also wish to discuss
whether to reduce or eliminate any existing programs offered by the City.
Potential Legislative Intents
1.Building Security - Legislative intent that the $1 million set aside for building security in Budget
Amendment #5 be the Administrative priority for the new Safety and Security Manager FTE in Public
Services, and that returns to the Council by the end of 2023 with recommendations for how that money,
could be prioritized. Note: In FY 23, the Council allocated $1 million for building security, of which
$409,450 is not yet spent. This money will drop to fund balance unless the Council elects to re-
appropriate it in FY 24 for this purpose.
2.City-wide re-evaluation of zoning – A Council Member has raised an interest in the possibility of
considering a city-wide re-evaluation of the City’s zoning code. It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration and planning staff to come up with a work plan for what city-wide zoning reform could
look like.
3.Apprenticeship Program Incentives - Council Member Petro expressed an interest in ways to
incentivize an employee who works through the City Apprenticeship program to stay with the City once
they are certified. The Council could ask the Human Resources Department to recommend strategies to
achieve this goal.
4.Legal Defenders Association - Council Member Fowler expressed an interest in shifting funding for
the Legal Defenders contract to “Funding Our Future”, under the policy umbrella of public safety, with
the thinking that Legal Defenders are very much like the City’s social workers when operating within the
justice system. She is also interested in the City discussing with the County whether it would be more
efficient for the County to manage the full contract with the City contributing funding towards it.
5.Pay Parity among Attorneys - Some Council Members have expressed an interest in evaluating pay
parity among the City Attorney’s Office, Salt Lake Legal Defenders, the City Prosecutors, and the County
prosecutors. Because this may be a longer term issue, the Council could ask the Human Resources
Department to conduct a more thorough evaluation on this topic and recommend strategies to achieve
longer-term pay parity in the future.
6.Bird-friendly Glass - Council Member Dugan has expressed an interest in a legislative intent to
review the City code for opportunities to require bird friendly glass in new commercial and City
buildings.
7.Golf fee structure - One Council Member requested an evaluation from the Golf Division about a
program that could provide discounted rates to reduce financial barriers for City residents.
8.(repeat from FY 23) Evaluating efficiencies of all diversified response teams – Council
Members have expressed support for the various alternative response models in each department. The
Council would like to periodically re-evaluate across City departments to determine whether there are
redundancies and/or efficiencies to be gained. Staff is including the following programs in our
understanding of “diversified response models”:
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
6
iv. Public Lands – Park Rangers Program
v. Public Services – Community Cleaning Program (CCP) Rapid Intervention Team
(clarify whether this is sometimes referred to as the “Clean Team”)
vi. 911 Department – partnership with Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT)
b. The following are specific areas of interest that were raised in the context of the FY 23 budget
and may be relevant in evaluating these programs:
i. Clarify roles of each team and how a call for service is routed from one team to another,
and how calls from the public are routed.
ii. Track as much data as possible to determine what metrics are most important for future
reviews such as number of calls for service, diversions away from a police-only
response, response times, impact on police response times, volume of calls by time of
day and day of the week, referrals, and other outputs and outcomes.
iii. Find ways to share 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
Potential Conditional Appropriations
1.Trails contingency – In FY 22, the Council adopted the following contingency related to funding for
trails. The Council may wish to consider an additional or similar contingency for FY 24, including
whether language should be changed to enhance clarity for all parties. The following is the conditional
appropriation from that year:
Conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails – Existing and new funds for
the construction, modification and decommissioning of trails built under the Foothills Trail System
Master Plan, Phase 1, will be placed on hold contingent on the Administration’s review in
collaboration with a broad spectrum of community stakeholders of:
a. the implementation to date of the master plan;
b. identification of adjustments or additional engagement as warranted;
and c. the Council’s authorization to move forward after the Council evaluates the results of the
process.
The City Council is willing to provide funding to the Administration for one or more outside experts
who can objectively evaluate the technical and public policy aspects of the trail changes and
additions completed to date and anticipated in the master plan. That written evaluation should
focus on, but not be limited to, the extent to which trail planning and development have been
consistent with the vision, goals and principles in the Master Plan, including: best practices;
strategies for the preservation and stewardship of the land; and respect for Tribal concerns. In
addition, the written evaluation should include an analysis of how the process could be adapted to
better meet the needs and desires of all users.
Existing and new funds for environmental studies will not be on hold, so long as such funds are not
used for construction or decommissioning of trails. Existing and new funds for maintenance or
repair of existing trails will be on hold, but may be released incrementally by the Council as
information about adherence to best practices and progress on community feedback is received.
2.Continued Contingency for All Funding Our Future -- Sales Tax Funds (this has been
adopted each year since the City implemented the sales tax). The Council approves Funding
Our Future sales tax revenue appropriations with the following conditions:
a. Expenditure of Funding Our Future Sales Tax Funds. Funding our Future funds may not be
expended unless the department or division expending the funds complies with:
7
i. Utah Fiscal Procedures Act
ii. The City’s Procurement Code and Rules
iii. Written verification from the City Attorney and City Finance Director that proper
legal and financial procedures have been followed.
b. Other Funding Our Future Budget Contingencies:
i. The Administration providing a written semiannual spending, implementation and
outcomes report on each of the critical need areas.
ii. Tracking funding for Fleet provided through the Funding our Future tax separately
to ensure it is spent only on public safety (police, fire, dispatch).
iii. The Administration spending funds in the critical need areas as adopted in the
attached key changes spreadsheet.
iv. The Administration bringing back to the Council any proposed adjustments to the
adopted budget in a budget amendment for re-appropriation before changes are made.
v. The Administration maintaining and regularly updating a publicly available
dashboard reflecting revenues received and actual uses.
vi. In FY21 and all future funding requests, providing a label denoting which line items
are funded with this Funding Our Future sales tax funds.
vii. For all positions added, the Administration shall submit an annual written review
along with the Mayor’s Recommended Budget to ensure that each position continues to serve
the critical need areas and, if a Council work session briefing is scheduled, provide a
presentation of the report.
Additional information
- Debt Ceiling – Based on a Council Member question, staff inquired with finance regarding the potential
impact of a federal default on debt on the City’s operations and/or budget. It will likely have no
operational impact on the City, although municipal bond rates may be impacted, causing the City to
strategize when it make sense to issue either the Sales Tax or General Obligation bonds.
Glossary
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees - AFSCME
Budget Amendment - BA
Capital Improvement Program – CIP
Community and Neighborhoods – CAN
Community Land Trust – CLT
Economic Development Corporation of Utah -
EDCU
Funding Our Future - FoF
Frequent Transit Network – FTN
Fiscal Year – FY
Full-Time Employee – FTE
Housing and Neighborhood Development – HAND
Human Rights Commission – HRC
Homeless Resource Centers – HRCs
Housing Trust Fund - HTF
Interlocal Agreement – ILA
International Association of Chiefs of Police – IACP
Mayor’s Recommended Budget - MRB
Redevelopment Agency – RDA
Salt Lake City School District – SLCSD
Salt Lake City Fire Department - SLCFD
Request for Proposal - RFP
TBD – To Be Determined
Transit Master Plan – TMP
United Nations – UN
Utah League of Cities and Towns
Utah Transit Authority – UTA
Volunteers of America - VOA
Wasatch Community Gardens - WCG
5/25/2023 **DRAFT **11:17 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
A B C D E F G H I J
Net -$ -$ -$
Amount Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses RevenueExpenses
Revenue Items
Actual New Growth Revenue (MRB estimated - $2,140,028)TBD (June 8)
Judgement Levy (if the actual amount is greater or less than the proposed budget)TBD (June 8)
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 13% (GF only)
($1.9m avove 13% in FOF)723,239$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 13%1,945,500$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 12%4,644,907$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 12%2,468,882$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 10%12,488,243$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 10%3,515,644$
Capture funds dropping to fund balance in FY 23
Capture funds from premium holiday in FY 23
Reappropriate Downtown Street Activation dollars 500,000$
Appropriate Housing Funding Dollars (Dormant HUD Funds)TBD
Reconsider new FTEs proposed in the budget 5,526,097$
blue = ongoing
orange = one-time
Housing Ideas
Funding to establish a low or no interest loan program for repairs on naturally-
occurring affordable housing units for the owners to guarantee the ongoing
affordability of those units 1,000,000$
City-wide ADU Incentive Program - to incentivize construction of ADUs City-
wide 1,000,000$
Funding for Partnership with Neighborworks for an equity-sharing worforce
housing project (RDA/Westside Community Initiative)2,000,000$
Partnership with SL County to add Housing to the planned Sunday Anderson
senior center reconstruction project (9 Line)TBD ($3 million +)
Funding for addition to current Switchpoint facility on North Temple - the
addition would house services and case management for residents. Current
funding gap is $2 million 500,000$
Sanctioned camping grant to supplement State and County efforts 250,000$
Compensation Related
Increase salary for fire fighter increases - options for discussion:
for each 1% for a full year 376,624$
for each 1% for a half year 188,312$
5% for a full year 1,883,120$
5% for half a year 941,560$
Increased funding for Prosecutors
($200k in the MRB; $322,000 to get them to 100%; $280,000 to get them to 95%)322,000$
Increased funding for Legal Defenders contract
($118k increase in the MRB - idea to fund from FOF)122,000$
Wage Increases for seasonal workers in Public Lands TBD
Transportation/Streets
Parent/Guardian/Faculty Hive passes 114,648$
Train Crossing Safety signs 150,000$
Additional quick traffic calming 100,000$
Other
Post-911 Call text messaging reporting/survey system (UPD system)TBD
Increased funding for Economic Development to partner with smaller non-
profits 30,000$
Black Water Tank Voucher Program
($10k in funds added in FY 23 have not yet been spent and will drop to fund
balance unless approrpriated by the Council into FY 24)10,000$
Increased funding for lifestyle savings account for all employees ($454,943 for
enterprise funds) - UPDATED 206,724$
(NO NEW FUNDING NEEDED) Reappropriating downtown street activation
approved in BA #5 500,000$
(NO NEW FUNDING NEEDED) Reappropriating building security money not yet
spent from FY 23 amount 409,450$
Additional funding to ensure PD Substations are fully funded on North Temple
and Downtown 5,000$
Correct Bio Hive funding
(intended to be one-time accidentally included as ongoing)(35,000)$
Attorney FY 24 Budget Amount
Special Project Analysis & Automation (Grade 26)1 99,509$
Prosecutor's - Assistant Prosecutor - Miami Model (Grade 34) 1 132,238$
Community and Neighborhoods
YF Youth and Community Programs Four FTES (Potentially Grant Funded mid-year)4 447,136$
Civil Enforcement Positions (Grade 19)2 194,000$
Business Systems Analyst II (Grade 28)1 111,010$
Finance
Housing
Funding
Dormant
Program Income
HUD Funds
Council Ideas - see staff report for additional detail/background
Budget cleanup - these are items that either the Staff or Administration have flagged as potential
corrections to the budget to ensure expectations are met:
New Positions - these are included in the MRB - listed here for additional discussion per Council Member
request
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund
Funding our
Future
Categories: Housing,
Transit, Public Safety,
Infrastructure, Parks
Maintenance
5/25/2023 **DRAFT **11:17 AM
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
A B C D E F G H I J
Financial Analyst II for Salt Lake Foundation (Grade 24)1 87,373$
Fire
(CHAT) Community Health Access Team Enhancements - (FOF)4 367,667$
Fire Captain - Medical Division (6-month Funding) - (FOF)1 72,252$
Offset with Airport Revenue - 5 FTEs for Airport MRT 5 764,666$
Human Resources
Project & Policy Manager (Grade 24) 1 121,588$
Business Partner I (Grade 25) 1 128,460$
Mayor
Love Your Block Program (Grade 23)2 160,667$
Know your Neighbor (Grade 23) 1 92,000$
Police
Sergeant Internal Affairs Program (9 Mths)1 143,186$
Civilian Response (Grade 20) (9 Mths) - (FOF)4 202,999$
Offset with Airport Revenue - 6 FTEs - Airport Operations Program - (9 Mths)6 760,881$
Public Lands
Expanded Citywide Events 1 85,500$
FOF Funding for Parks Maintenance:
Parks Maintenance Tech II - (FOF)1 67,800$
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (FOF)1 67,800$
Maint. Electrician IV (Grade 22) (FOF)1 83,800$
General Maint. Worker IV (Grade 21) (FOF)1 79,800$
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III (Grade 20)(FOF)1 76,000$
Central Control Irrigation SPE (Grade 20) (FOF)1 76,000$
Sr Warehouse Operator (Grade 15) (FOF)0.5 7,500$
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (FOF)4 248,000$
Environ Specialist II Union (FOF)1 74,700$
Public Services
Converting part-time Office Tech to FTE - Streets 1 n/a
Safety and Security Manager (Grade 37)1 152,565$
Environmental Engineer - (Grade 33)1 160,000$
Building Administrator
($80k in current budget for this function - currently outsourced)
1
49,000$
Trades Apprenticeship Program 4 332,000$
Sustainability (offset with non-dept transfer)
Air Quality incentives program coordinator ($115,313 annual cost)1 96,094$