08/15/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
August 15, 2023 Tuesday 2:00 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
6:00 pm Formal Meeting &
7:00 pm Truth-in-Taxation Hearing
Room 326
(See separate agendas)
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: 11:27:57
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
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2350
North and Annexation at Approximately 2441 North Rose Park
Lane
~ 2:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about annexation and zoning changes for properties
located at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane. The changes include:
Annexation into Salt Lake City approximately 28 acres of property generally located at
approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone
for each property within the annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as
follows:
•2440 N Rose Park Lane (City-owned) – OS, Open Space
•2441 N Rose Park Lane (Hunter Stables) – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use
•2462 N Rose Park Lane (State-owned) – OS, Open Space
Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG-2 –
Agricultural to R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use. The property is currently within Salt Lake
City boundaries. Although the petitions propose specific zones for the properties, the
Council may consider other zones with similar characteristics. The properties at 2350
and 2441 North are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage.
The changes would facilitate the future development of a mixed-use, multi-family
residential development with potentially 1800 dwelling units. Additional properties at
2440 North (City-owned) and 2462 North Rose Park Lane (State-owned) would be
annexed into the City as part of the petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01124 &
PLNPCM2021-01134.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
3.Informational: Capital Asset Plan Early Check-In for Policy
Guidance ~ 2:45 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the process, goals, and prioritization criteria to
create a Capital Asset Plan. It would prioritize projects over a five-year period to
implement the City's visions from Council-adopted master plans. Prioritized projects
would go through the annual open and competitive Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
to receive funding. A Capital Asset Plan would help bridge the gap between 20-year
master plan aspirations and the annual CIP process, such as identifying efficiencies of
combining projects across departments and plans, tracking metrics for high-level policy
goals, and aligning funding sources with eligible uses.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-
24 ~ 3:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.1 for the Fiscal Year
2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect
adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes additional funding for downtown open
streets events this coming fall, local matching funds for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
grants to rebuild bridges over the Jordan River, and funding expanded elements of the
2100 South reconstruction project through the Sugar House Business District, among
other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Salt
Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to address lane closures and sidewalk closures
separately.
For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
5.Tentative Break ~ 3:45 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Resolution: Ivory University House Public Benefits Analysis ~ 4:05 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the Administration’s public benefit analysis for a
project that would provide new student housing at the University of Utah. The public
benefit analysis was performed to potentially justify impact and permit fee waivers and
refunds paid by the Ivory University House, L3C, a low-profit limited liability company.
In return, over a period of ten years, Ivory University House would pledge need-based
scholarships for Salt Lake City residents valued at the same amount as the fee waivers
and refunds.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
7.Informational: Unallocated Housing Program Income Funds
Follow-up ~ 4:35 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on unallocated U.S. Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) program income funds from the Community Development Block
Grant or CDBG and Home Investment Partnership programs, among others. The briefing
will include an overview of projects and programs based on the Council's earlier policy
guidance, the next steps for use of the funds, and areas needing further Council policy
feedback.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
8.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board: Elizabeth
Hanna ~ 5:20 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Elizabeth Hanna prior to considering appointment to the
Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Standing Items
9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
10.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.
11.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 2:00 p.m. on Friday, August 11, 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.
Administrative
Updates
August 15, 2023
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Regularly updated with highlighted
ways to engage with the City.
Community Engagement Highlights
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canTransportationslc.gov/transportation/
www.slc.gov/feedback/
•Capitol Hill Traffic Calming (D3)
•Construction start date August 21, expected
completion Mid-October
•1000 West Intersection Improvement and Traffic
Calming (D1/2)
•Take the survey!
•600/700 North Reconstruction (D1)
•www.600northSLC.org
Redevelopment Agency slcrda.com
•City Creek Daylighting at Folsom Trail (D2)
•Give your feedback online!
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning slc.gov/planning
Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office
Location Date Time
Roots Coffee Aug. 15 10:30am – 12:30pm
Northwest Rec Center Aug. 15 2pm – 4:30pm
Sugar House Rocks Aug. 18 6pm – 9pm
Kensington Street Festival Aug. 19 2pm – 8pm
August Community Office Hours
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canAugust Events
These events are a collection of City Sponsored, ACE, and publicly permitted events.
Event Date Location
Partners in the Park 8/15 Northwest Rec Center
Jordan River BioBlitz (Love Your Block, Public Lands)8/16 Poplar Grove Park
Mayor's Bike to Work Day 8/17 Jordan Park
Jayhawks Block Party 8/17
Sugar House Rocks Concert Series 8/18 Monument Plaza in Sugar House
West View Media Issue Launch Celebrations 8/19 Sugar Space Art Warehouse
Downtown Farmers Market 8/19 Pioneer Park
Kensington Street Festival 8/19
Kensington Ave. (Main Street –
Major Street)
Project Rainbow Summer BarBQ 8/26 Sugar Space Event Center
Break Bread Barber Co Mural / Love Your Block 8/27 Break Bread Barber Co.
Art in the Heart of Fairpark – Community Party 8/28 All Chay (1264 W 500 N)
Homeless Resource Center Utilization
•August 7th-11th HRCs:98.7%
Rapid Intervention/ EIM
•No EIM
•37 HEART-tracked camps
•RIT locations:
o VOA Outreach Engagement: 7
o RIT Site Rehabilitations: 6 (+16)
Resource Fair:
•Aug 11- Library Square
Odyssey House, SLCo Health, Food Justice
Coalition, D4 City Council
Kayak Court
-Friday August 18th- Jordan River
N Temple to Cornell St
Homelessness
Update
Additional System Information:
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to
End Homelessness (SLVCEH)
endutahhomelessness.org/
salt-lake-valley
Utah Office of Homeless
Services (OHS)
jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/
index.html
Winter Services Plan
•600+ beds 24/7 operations
•175 HRC Flex beds
•(65 St. Vincent DePaul
7pm-7am)
•October- April
•3 cities- Emergency Shelter Beds
•MVP- Sandy
•VOA Detox Expansion
•Code Blue Emergency Options
•Below 15 degrees F
•Working on Providers + Funding
Homelessness
Update
Winter Services Plan-
approved by Utah
Homelessness Council
August 10th
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
DATE:August 15, 2023
RE: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and
Zoning Map Amendments
Petitions PLNPCM2021-01124/01134
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing 1: August 15, 2023
Set Date: August 15, 2023
Public Hearing: September 5, 2023
Potential Action: TBD
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about annexation and zoning changes for properties located at
approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane (see map page 2). The changes include:
1. Annexation into Salt Lake City about 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441
North Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone for each property within the
annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows:
•2440 N Rose Park Lane (City-owned) – OS, Open Space
•2441 N Rose Park Lane (Hunter Stables) – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use
•2462 N Rose Park Lane (State-owned) – OS, Open Space
2. Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG-2 – Agricultural to
R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use. The property is currently within Salt Lake City
boundaries. Although the petitions propose specific zones for the properties, the Council may
consider other zones with similar characteristics. The properties at 2350 and 2441 North are
currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage.
The changes would facilitate the future development of a mixed-use, multi-family residential development
with potentially 1800 dwelling units. Additional properties at 2440 North (City-owned) and 2462 North
Rose Park Lane (State-owned) would be annexed into the City as part of the petition. The zoning of
properties annexed into the city receive their zoning designation during that process. They do not go
through the traditional rezone process. However, the annexation process includes substantial public
outreach all along the way.
Page | 2
This annexation and zoning amendments are not related to the Northpoint Small Area plan, a separate
petition that the Council is also considering at this time. That petition is for an area north/west of I-215.
Vicinity Map
Page 4 Planning Commission Staff Report
Proposed Project Description
The applicant’s project overview is found in Attachment C of the Planning Commission staff report. (It is
also pulled out in this memo as Attachment A) It includes drawings of the draft site plan. They state the
proposed plan would include the following:
▪11 buildings (5 stories – less than 75’ in height);
▪164 units per building (500 sq. ft. minimum);
▪Total density of 1,804 units;
▪Building coverage of 29%;
▪Parking Provided: Podium (2 levels each building) (1,760 parking spaces), and Surface
▪(775 parking spaces) (total of 2,535 parking spaces);
Page | 3
Policy Questions
▪If the Council chooses to move forward with the annexation and zoning amendments, does the
Council support including the eleven conditions outlined in the staff report in the final ordinance?
▪The Council may wish to ask the applicant if any of the housing units will be designated affordable
or if they would be willing to consider including deed restricted affordable units in the
development.
▪The Council may wish to ask if this project would be eligible for funds from the Westside
Community Initiative. If yes, has the applicant talked with the Administration to see if that funding
could help include public benefits into this development.
▪The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the City could more consistently inform
developers of opportunity to participate in the Westside Community Initiative affordable housing
program
▪The Planning Transmittal notes the North Access Road, which would provide circulation to
Redwood Road, is planned by the City/State.
• The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the status of the planning and
funding for that proposed road.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation by a vote of 6 to 4. The Commission’s
motion to recommend denial was based on the following: (Pages 2-3, Transmittal Letter)
1. The zoning map amendment, for the reason that it does not comply with the stated zoning goals
of the small area master plan (Rose Park Small Area Plan).
▪the Commission’s motion refers to the Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001) which has
policies that call for the Open Space or Agricultural zoning in the future for the rezone
and associated annexation property. The requested R-MU zone does not align with
those specific zones.
2. The annexation, based on Plan Salt Lake and the access to open space are not met. And the
2016 Salt Lake Housing Policy points of emphasizing the value of transit-oriented
developments and the livability of neighborhoods.
▪A Plan Salt Lake policy encourages access to parks and recreational spaces within a half
mile of all residents. In its discussion, the Commission noted that despite the property
being adjacent to the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC), use of the RAC is generally
restricted to organized groups, such as leagues, and future residents of the conceptual
1,800 dwelling unit development wouldn’t be able to freely use the facility.
▪Council “Housing Policy Statements” from 2016 that emphasize transit-oriented
development and livability of neighborhoods, emphasize the value of transit-oriented
development, transit accessibility, and proximity to services and address the livability of
neighborhoods and concentrations of aging adults, and plan and implement strategies
that will allow residents to Age in Place.
The Planning commission did not offer any concerns about the proposed zoning designation for the state
and City owned properties involved in the annexation.
Planning Staff Recommendation
Page | 4
Planning staff’s analysis found the application generally met applicable standards and recommended the
Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation with eleven conditions. Those conditions are
outlined below. See pages 2-3 of the Planning Commission for the detailed list.
1.Traffic Impact Study Improvements – improvements noted in the traffic impact
study are completed prior to any certificate of occupancy being issued
2.Rose Park Lane Improvement - The developer shall make all public right of way
improvements for Rose Park Lane adjacent to the development, including but not limited
to road widening, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, and park strip landscaping.
3.Sidewalk Improvements – sidewalk shall be installed adjacent to the site and offsite
to provide a complete pedestrian connection from each phase of the development to the
Regional Athletic Complex
4.Public Utility Improvements – comply with all public utility requirements
5.City Drain Usage – if development plans require discharge to city drains an offsite lift
station may be required as determined by the Public Utilities Director
6.City Drain (canal) Setback – a 50’ setback from the city drain and no buildings or
parking allowed within the setback
7.R-MU setback conflicts – Maximum front setback provisions of the R-MU do not
apply where a greater setback is required along the city drain, or the freeway scenic
landscape setback
8.Parking Requirement – must comply with the General Context minimum parking
requirements in Table 21A.44.040-A of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance
9.Sound Attenuation – residential uses be built with at least 30 dBs of sound attenuation in
sleeping areas and 25 dBs in other areas due to proximity to the freeway
10.State Park Adjacent Landscaping - The landscaped setback requirements of the
“Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback” applied along the east property line where it is directly
across the street from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area (2462 N Rose Park Lane).
The requirement shall apply where new development occurs within 100' of that portion of the
east property line.
11.State Park Noise Disclosure – provide a disclosure to future residents, tenants and
owners regarding the potential for high levels of noise from the Jordan River OHS recreation
area
12.HVAC Filters: That air filters with a minimum rating of MERV 13, or equivalent, shall be
used in all HVAC equipment. This applies to any replacement filters. (This is intended to
reduce freeway pollution in resident's homes)
13.Construction Impacts: City Staff develop a condition to mitigate impacts on adjacent
properties from construction activity on the 2350 and 2441 properties. (This was to help
address a concern that construction activity would negatively impact a few residents toward
the north end of Rose Park Lane and other users of the road - fugitive dust was one impact
that we heard a lot about from residents with recent construction on 2200 West.)
Key Concepts Identified in the Plan
Page | 5
The zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building(s); therefore, any rezoning application should be
considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
Even though there are draft plans pertaining to this project, it is not within the scope of the Council’s
responsibility to review the plans. However, the plans for a proposed project can help the Council weigh
options as they consider the annexation and zoning amendments.
The Planning Commission staff report includes summaries for each of the zoning districts being
considered: OS, AG and R-MU. They are included in this memo as Attachment B.
Pages 7-13 of the Planning Commission staff report outline five key considerations that were evaluated by
Planning staff. A short summary of each is provided below. Please see the Planning Commission staff
report for full analysis.
1. Plan Considerations for Zoning Designation/Zoning Amendment
a.Planning staff found the proposed rezones to OS and AG are consistent with the Rose Park
Small Area Plan. They also found the proposed rezone to R-MU Residential and low-
intensity commercial uses are compatible with recreational uses like the Regional Athletic
Complex. They also found other City plans support the proposed zoning amendments. See
Attachment C for full analysis of compatibility with City plans.
2. Traffic Impact Study and Recommended Improvements
a. The petitioner provided a traffic study that propose the following mitigation and
improvements be made:
i. Installation of I-215 interchange traffic lights and striping modifications (needed to
support existing traffic prior to development coming in 2025)
1. This would support 200 units on the site.
ii. Southbound left turn lane addition to the Rose Park Lane/I-215 access road
intersection
1. This would support up to 500 units.
iii. Installation of the North Access Road (provides circulation to Redwood Road and is
planned by the City/State)
1. This would support the remainder of the units.
b. Planning staff also recommends the following improvements be built to ensure the roadway
can support the proposed development
i. Widening of and improvements to Rose Park Lane that would be required for a
subdivision, including curb, gutter, paving, striping, and utilities. The current
roadway next to the property is roughly paved with asphalt and has no curb, gutter,
or striping.
ii. A pedestrian connection from the site to the existing sidewalk network at the RAC
across the street. This will require a crosswalk across Rose Park Lane and sidewalk
paving on the east side of Rose Park Lane and some along the development site.
3. R-MU Zone and Proposed Modification Conditions
a. Planning Staff recommends the following be included as a conditions of approval:
i. R-MU has no parking requirement. Staff proposes a parking requirement as a
condition due to the current lack of transit accessibility.
1. “General Context” requirements would apply, same as most RMF zones
ii. R-MU has a maximum front setback, conflicting with a proposed canal setback
1. Public Utilities is recommending a setback from the canal (City Drain)
Page | 6
2. Staff proposes waiving the maximum front setback where it conflicts with
canal
4. Freeway Proximity, Noise, and Pollution
a. Planning Staff recommends the following be included as a condition of approval:
i. A condition requiring noise attenuation improvements for any new buildings is
being recommended due to the proximity to the freeway.
ii. Special freeway landscaping will be required which can help mitigate pollution
impacts of the freeway.
iii. A requirement for a notice to residents/tenants/owners about potential noise from
the OHV State Park is also recommended.
iv. The freeway landscaping requirement is also proposed adjacent to the OHV State
Park to reduce the potential for fugitive dust impacts to residents.
5. Alternative Zones and Uses for the Site
a. The applicant originally proposed RMF-75. Planning staff was concerned about the lack of
walkable services with a single use zone, R-MU requires commercial/retail on the first
floor. Staff also considered the impacts of commercial or light industrial zones and found
they would have a negative impact on the Regional Athletic Complex.
Public Process
Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report outlines the public process and public comments
received during the process. (It is included as Attachment D of this memo.)
•May 16, 2022: The Westpointe Community Council was sent the required 45-day notice for
recognized community organizations. The notice asked for input from the organization and
whether the organization would like the applicant to present at one of their meetings.
• May 16, 2022: An online open house webpage was posted to provide additional information
on the requests. A link as provided to the Westpointe Community Council and included in
mailed notifications to nearby property owners.
•May 17, 2022: Mailed early notifications were sent out to nearby property owners within 300
feet of the properties.
•Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposal included:
o February 8, 2023
▪Public hearing notice signs posted on the properties.
o February 8, 2023
▪Public hearing notice mailed.
▪Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv.
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
ATTACHMENT C: Applicant’s Narrative and
Concept Plan
22
4842-6277-7292
EXHIBIT A
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.PURPOSE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION:
•Acreage: 4.93 acres
•Address: 2350 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 (the “Property”)
•Current Zoning: Agricultural 2 Acre Minimum (AG-2)
•Proposed Zoning: High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-75)
2.A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED: The
Property is currently in Salt Lake City. The intention is to annex in adjoining land from
unincorporated Salt Lake County (the “Annexation Property”)1 and have a single, integrated
multifamily project located on the combined land. The requested rezone will facilitate the
development of this project, and will tie in infrastructure improvements intended for the area to
facilitate development. The conceptual site plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, contemplates,
among other things for both the Property and Annexation Property:
•11 buildings (5 stories – less than 75’ in height);
•164 units per building (500 sq. ft. minimum);
•Total density of 1,804 units;
•Building coverage of 29%;
•Parking Provided: Podium (2 levels each building) (1,760 parking spaces), and Surface
(775 parking spaces) (total of 2,535 parking spaces);
•Parking coverage of 30%; and
•Landscaping coverage of 41%.
3.REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
AREA:
•The Property is adjoined by the following zoning districts:
•North: N/A Unincorporated [Annexation Property (High Density Multi-Family
Residential District (RMF-75)) upon completion of annexation and rezone)]
•East: Open Space (OS)
•South: Single Family Residential (R-1-7000) separated by I-215 and Frontage Rd.
•West: Business Park (BP) separated by I-215
•The Property is located within an agricultural area of the Rose Park Small Area Plan
(adopted 2001), and other details therein are very limited. The Property is generally
located within the Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan (adopted 1992) but the
exact location of the Property is not discussed within such Master Plan. The Northwest
Jordan River/Airport Master Plan highlights the importance of eliminating use conflicts
between adjacent properties. Multi-family residential housing does not conflict with the
surrounding uses detailed above. Further, we intend to preserve open space and existing
1 The Annexation Property adjoins the Property to the north (2441 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116).
The Annexation Property is approximately 17.21 acres. Applicant is simultaneously seeking to annex the
Annexation Property into Salt Lake City with requested zoning of RMF -75.
23
4842-6277-7292
trees on the Property and the Annexation Property in accordance with the Salt Lake City
Urban Forestry.
•A rezone of the Property would support business park uses in the area, if they develop in
accordance with current zoning. The existing Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex
(RAC) to the east provides an adjacent, complimentary use. Multi-family residential
housing will involve efficient use of the Property and Annexation Property and
coordinate well with existing and planned public infrastructure.
•A rezone of the Property and the Annexation Property will support nearby developments,
including, without limitation, the RAC, and will provide infrastructure improvements for
the area to facilitate development. We have been in contact with the Utah Department of
Transportation, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, and others with respect to constructing
and/or contributing to: (i) Sports Park Boulevard, (ii) the upgrade of the intersection of
Sports Park Boulevard and Redwood Road, (iii) new water and sewer lines through
Sports Park Boulevard, and (iv) a Salt Lake City drain bridge on or near the Property.
The installation of Sports Park Boulevard and the upgrade of the aforementioned
intersection will reduce traffic congestion on Rose Park Lane after RAC sporting events.
The construction of new water and sewer lines and the drain bridge will facilitate
development in the area generally.
4.PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED:
•Property: Parcel Id. No. 08153010030000; AG-2 to RMF-75
•Annexation Property: Parcel Id. No. 08151000240000; Unincorporated to RMF-75
24
4842-6277-7292
EXHIBIT B
SITE PLAN
[See Attached]
25
20
21
23
54
13
65
48
68
18
46
12
2
5
44
95
45
56
22
42
11
3
13
5
44
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
PARKING (
T
Y
P
)
25
'
25
'
25
'
25
'
40'Rose
P
a
r
k
L
a
n
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
Utah State Parks
Jordan River OHV Park
I-215
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
Club
House
PLAYGROUND
PERIMETER TRAIL
GATHERING AREA
FENCED DOG AREA
PERIMETER TRAIL
LAWN
SALT LAKE DRAIN
Pool
HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
12 MAY 2021SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Scale: 1" = 100'-0"
0 50' 100'200'
Plotted: 5/12/21 at 9:42am By: dans
P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-103 Site Plan MColor 210512.dwgFile Path:
SLC RAC
TRAIL CONNECTING TO
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
ROAD CONNECTING TO
N REDWOOD RD
26
23
13
65
48
68
18
46
12
2
5
44
95
45
56
22
42
11
3
13
5
44
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
DWN
10%
PA
R
K
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
25'
40
'
Ro
s
e
P
a
r
k
L
a
n
e
County
U
t
a
h
S
t
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
s
Jo
r
d
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
O
H
V
P
a
r
k
Salt Lake City
N
R
E
D
W
O
O
D
R
D
JO
R
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
SPOTS PARK BOULEVARD
Cl
u
b
Ho
u
s
e
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
D
R
A
I
N
Po
o
l
HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
13 APRIL 2120SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Scale: 1" = 100'-0"
0 50' 100'200'
Plotted: 4/13/21 at 2:37pm By: tylerr
P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-2013 Site Plan MColor.dwgFile Path:
SLC RAC
TRAIL CONNECTING TO
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
ROAD CONNECTING TO
N REDWOOD RD
27
28
20
21
23
54
13
65
48
68
18
46
12
2
5
44
95
45
56
22
42
11
3
13
5
44
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
PARKING (
T
Y
P
)
25
'
25
'
25
'
25
'
40'Rose
P
a
r
k
L
a
n
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
Utah State Parks
Jordan River OHV Park
I-215
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
Club
House
PLAYGROUND
PERIMETER TRAIL
GATHERING AREA
FENCED DOG AREA
PERIMETER TRAIL
LAWN
SALT LAKE DRAIN
Pool
HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
12 MAY 2021SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Scale: 1" = 100'-0"
0 50' 100'200'
Plotted: 5/12/21 at 9:42am By: dans
P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-103 Site Plan MColor 210512.dwgFile Path:
SLC RAC
TRAIL CONNECTING TO
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
ROAD CONNECTING TO
N REDWOOD RD
29
23
13
65
48
68
18
46
12
2
5
44
95
45
56
22
42
11
3
13
5
44
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
DWN
10%
PA
R
K
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
25'
40
'
Ro
s
e
P
a
r
k
L
a
n
e
County
U
t
a
h
S
t
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
s
Jo
r
d
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
O
H
V
P
a
r
k
Salt Lake City
N
R
E
D
W
O
O
D
R
D
JO
R
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
SPOTS PARK BOULEVARD
Cl
u
b
Ho
u
s
e
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
D
R
A
I
N
Po
o
l
HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
13 APRIL 2120SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Scale: 1" = 100'-0"
0 50' 100'200'
Plotted: 4/13/21 at 2:37pm By: tylerr
P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-2013 Site Plan MColor.dwgFile Path:
SLC RAC
TRAIL CONNECTING TO
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
ROAD CONNECTING TO
N REDWOOD RD
30
31
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
ATTACHMENT F: Zoning District
Information
This attachment includes information sheets for the zone currently applied to the property within
the City (2350 N) and the proposed zones for all of the properties.
1. AG-2, Agricultural Zoning District
2. OS, Open Space Zoning District
3. R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use Zoning District
4. Special Purpose Land Use Tables Showing Allowed OS and AG-2 Uses
5. Residential Land Use Table Showing Allowed R-MU Uses
45
AGRICULTURAL
(2 ACRE MINIMUM)
Zoning Diagram of Development Standards for Agricultural Uses
AG-2
The above information is a synopsis of the regulations. Please see the zoning ordinance for the complete regulations.
ZONING REGULATIONS
OVERVIEW
Additional Regulations (21A.32.052)
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COVERAGE AGRICULTURAL USE RESTRICTIONS
A residential structure shall not be
located farther than two hundred feet
(200') from the front property line.
The surface coverage of the
principal dwelling shall not ex-
ceed eighty percent (80%) of the
buildable area for residential uses
of the lot.
No feeding, grazing, or sheltering of livestock and
poultry, whether within penned enclosures or within
enclosed buildings, shall be permitted within fifty feet
(50') of an existing single- family dwelling on an adja-
cent lot.
Development Standards for Agricultural (AG) and Single-Family (SFD) Uses* (21A.32.052)
LOT WIDTH LOT AREA FRONT/CORNER
SIDE YARDREAR YARD SIDE YARDSHEIGHT
Min. 150'Min. 2 acres AG: No min.
SFD: Min. 30'
AG: No min.
SFD: No min.
AG: No min.
SFD: Min. 35'
AG: Max. 45'
SFD: Max. 30'
*Regulations vary by use. See ordinance for regulations for other uses.
The purpose of the AG-2 Agricultural District is to preserve and protect agricultural uses in suitable portions of Salt Lake
City on lots not less than two (2) acres. These regulations are also designed to minimize conflicts between agricultural and
nonagricultural uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable Master Plans support this type of
land use.
This matches the general pro-
vision for all zones.
Isn't the "nuisance impact"
applicable to all zones really?
46
OPEN
SPACE
Zoning Diagram of Development StandardsExamples
OS
The above information is a synopsis of the regulations. Please see the zoning ordinance for the complete regulations.
ZONING REGULATIONS
OVERVIEW
Additional Regulations (21A.32.100)
RECREATION EQUIPMENT PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES*LIGHTING LIMITS
Recreation equipment
heights are permitted to
a height not to exceed
eighty (80) feet when
needed due to the nature
of the equipment or for
the use to operate safely,
such as fences surround-
ing golf course driving
ranges.
Heights for buildings or struc-
tures for the Salt Lake City Public
Utilities Department that are not
specifically exempt in section
21A.02.050 of this title, are ex-
empt from the height restrictions
in this zoning district provided the
building or structure is deemed by
the director of the public utilities
department as critical infrastruc-
ture necessary to provide specific
utility needs to the public.
• Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will not have
an adverse impact on the natural environment when placed
in areas with wildlife habitat, traffic safety or on surrounding
properties and uses;
• Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or
light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the
view of the night sky; and
• Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphithe-
aters, and other similar uses may be permitted up to seventy
(70) feet in height provided the lights are located a minimum
of thirty (30) feet from a residential use and directed to reduce
light trespass onto neighboring properties.
*See ordinance for additional regulations regarding telecommunication structures.
Development Standards (21A.32.100)
LOT
WIDTH
LOT
AREA
FRONT/CORNER
SIDE YARD
REAR YARD
SIDE
YARDSLANDSCAPE
BUFFERS
HEIGHT
No
min.
No
min.
Min. 10'Min. 10',
Min. 15' if
site over 4
acres.
Min. 10',
Min. 15' if
site over 4
acres.
10' next to single/
two-family zones,
requires trees,
shrubs, fence.
Sites <4 acres: Max. 35', for height >20' yard
setback increases 1' per 1' height.
Sites >4 acres: Max. 45', for >30', yard setback in-
creases 1' per 1' height. Up to 60' allowed through
Design Review.
The purpose of the OS Open Space District is to preserve and enhance public and private open space, natural areas, and
improved park and recreational areas. These areas serve to provide opportunities for active and passive outdoor recreation;
provide contrasts to the built environment; preserve scenic qualities; protect sensitive or fragile environmental areas
such as wetlands, steep slopes, ridge lines, meadows, and stream corridors; preserve the capacity and water quality of the
stormwater drainage system; encourage sustainability, conservation and renewable energy and provide pedestrian and
bicycle transportation connections. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support
this type of land use.
This matches the general pro-
vision for all zones.
Isn't the "nuisance impact"
applicable to all zones really?
47
The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the mixed use character of the area and encourage
the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing retail, service commercial, and small
scale office uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support high density, mixed
use development. The standards for the district are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with
an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access.
RESIDENTIAL/
MIXED USE
REGULATIONS SUMMARY FOR
MULTI-FAMILY, NONRESIDENTIAL, OR
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Development Standards (21A.24.170) For Multi-family Residential & Mixed Uses
LOT
WIDTH
LOT
AREA
FRONT/CORNER
SIDE YARD
REAR YARD
SIDE
YARDS
LANDSCAPE
BUFFERSHEIGHTSURFACE
PARKING
OPEN SPACE MIXED USE
LIMITATION
Min
50'
No
min.
No min., max.
15' for 25% of
facade length.
25% of
lot depth,
need not
exceed 30'
No min.,
min. 4 if
provided.
10' next to
single/two-
family res-
idential
zones
75' max; non-res-
idential limited to
45'.1
Located be-
hind front
line of the
building or
setback 30'.
Min 20% of
lot area, in-
cludes yards,
plazas, and
courtyards
Non-residen-
tial use limited
to first three
floors.
Design Standards
GROUND
FLOOR GLASS
ENTRANCES MAXIMUM LENGTH OF
BLANK WALLS
BUILDING EQUIPMENT &
SERVICE AREAS
PARKING LOT LIGHT
LIMITS
PARKING
STRUCTURES
40% glass &
non-reflective,
allows 5' of
visibility into
building,
Min 1 entry for
each street facing
facade
No blank walls over
15' long; must be bro-
ken up by windows,
doors, art, or architec-
tural detailing.
On roof or in rear yard.
Sited to minimize visibility
or screened and enclosed to
appear to be an integral part
of the architectural design of
the building.
If next to residential,
light poles limited
to 16' height, must
be shielded, aimed
down and lightproof
fencing is required.
Unattached parking
structures shall be
setback 45' from
front property line
or behind building.
1. Up to 125' is allowed through Design Review in the area generally between 200 and 500 East, and 150 South to 350 South. See ordi-
nance for map.
Zoning Diagram of Mixed Use Building Next to a Single/Two-Family ZoneDevelopment Examples
R-MU
The above information is a synopsis of the regulations. Please see the zoning ordinance for the complete regulations.
Updated: 2/7/2023
48
Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS
Use RP BP
FP AG AG
-
2
AG
-
5
AG
-
2
0
OS NO
S
A PL PL
-
2
I UI MH
EI MU
Accessory use, except those that are
otherwise specifically regulated else-
where in this title
P P P P P P P P20 P P P P P P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C2 C2 C2 P2
Agricultural use C P P P P P P
Air cargo terminals and package deliv-
ery facility
P P
Airport P
Alcohol:
Bar establishment (2,500 square feet
or less in floor area)
C12
Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
P12 C12
Brewpub (more than 2,500 square
feet in floor area)
P12
Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
C12
Ambulance service (indoor)P P
Ambulance service (outdoor)P10 P10
Amphitheater, formal P C
Amphitheater, informal P P
Animal:
Kennel on lots of 5 acres or larger C P8 P8 P8 P8
Pet cemetery P4 P4 P4 P4 P4,5
Stable (private)P P P P
Stable (public)P P P P
Veterinary office P P
Antenna, communication tower P P C P P P P P21 P P C P P P
Antenna, communication tower ex-
ceeding the maximum building height
in the zone
C C P21 P P11 C C C
Art gallery P P P P P P
Artisan food production P24
Bed and breakfast P2 P P
Bed and breakfast inn P2 P P
Bed and breakfast manor P2 P P
Bio-medical facility P23,
24
P23,
24
P23,
24
Botanical garden P P P P
Cannabis production establishment P P P P P
Cemetery P
Clinic (medical, dental)P P P P P
Commercial food preparation P24 P24
Community garden P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Updated 2/15/202349
Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division
UseRPBP
FPAGAG
-
2
AG
-
5
AG
-
2
0
OSNO
S
APLPL
-
2
IUIMH
EIMU
Accessory use, except those that are
otherwise specifically regulated else-
where in this title
PPPPPPPP20PPPPPPPP
Adaptive reuse of a landmark siteC2C2C2P2
Agricultural useCPPPPPP
Air cargo terminals and package deliv-
ery facility
PP
AirportP
Alcohol:
Bar establishment (2,500 square feet
or less in floor area)
C12
Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
P12C12
Brewpub (more than 2,500 square
feet in floor area)
P12
Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
C12
Ambulance service (indoor)PP
Ambulance service (outdoor)P10P10
Amphitheater, formalPC
Amphitheater, informalPP
Animal:
Kennel on lots of 5 acres or largerCP8P8P8P8
Pet cemeteryP4P4P4P4P4,5
Stable (private)PPPP
Stable (public)PPPP
Veterinary officePP
Antenna, communication towerPPCPPPPP21PPCPPP
Antenna, communication tower ex-
ceeding the maximum building height
in the zone
CCP21PP11CCC
Art galleryPPPPPP
Artisan food productionP24
Bed and breakfastP2PP
Bed and breakfast innP2PP
Bed and breakfast manorP2PP
Bio-medical facilityP23,
24
P23,
24
P23,
24
Botanical gardenPPPP
Cannabis production establishmentPPPPP
CemeteryP
Clinic (medical, dental)PPPPP
Commercial food preparationP24P24
Community gardenPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Use RP BP
FP AG AG
-
2
AG
-
5
AG
-
2
0
OS NO
S
A PL PL
-
2
I UI MH
EI MU
Convent/monastery P P
Data center P24
Daycare center, adult P P P P P P P P
Daycare center, child P P P P P P P P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16
Daycare, registered home daycare or
preschool
P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16
Dwelling:
Accessory unit P P P P P P
Assisted living facility (large)C P P
Assisted living facility (limited capac-
ity)
P P P
Assisted living facility (small)P P P
Congregate care facility (large)C C C
Congregate care facility (small)P P P
Group home (large)C
Group home (small)P P P P
Living quarters for caretaker or secu-
rity guard
P P P C P P P P
Manufactured home P P P
Mobile home P
Multi-family P P
Residential support (large)C
Residential support (small)P
Rooming (boarding) house P
Single-family (attached)P
Single-family (detached)P P P P
Twin home and two-family P
Exhibition hall C P C P
Extractive industry P24
Fairground C
Farm stand, seasonal P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Financial institution P P P
Financial institution with drive-
through facility
P14 P14
Gas station P7
Golf course P24 P24 P24
Government facility C C P P P P P20 P C C C13 C P C
Government facility requiring special
design features for security purposes
C C
Government office P P P P P P P P
Heliport C C P P C C
Home occupation P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS
Updated 2/15/2023 50
Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division
QUALIFYING PROVISIONS
Use RP BP
FP AG AG
-
2
AG
-
5
AG
-
2
0
OS NO
S
A PL PL
-
2
I UI MH
EI MU
Hospital, including accessory lodging
facility
C P P
Hotel/motel C C P P
Hunting club, duck P
Industrial assembly P24 P24
Jail C
Jewelry fabrication P
Laboratory, medical related P24 P24 P24 P24 P24
Large wind energy system C C C C C C C P P
Library P P P P P
Light manufacturing C24 P24
Manufacturing, concrete or asphalt P15,
24
Meeting hall of membership organi-
zation
P P P P P
Mixed use development P
Mobile food business (operation on
private property)
P P P P P
Municipal service uses, including City
utility uses and police and fire stations
C C P P P P P C C C14 C P C
Museum C P P P P P P
Nursing care facility P P P
Office P P P P P P P P
Open space P P P P P P P P P9 P P P P P P P P
Park P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Parking:
Commercial C
Off site P P P P P C
Off site (to support uses in an OS or
NOS Zoning District)
P
Park and ride lot P C
Park and ride lot shared with existing
use
P P P P P P P P
Performing arts production facility P P
Philanthropic use P P P P
Place of worship P P P P P
Radio, television station P6 P
Reception center C22 C P P P P
Recreation (indoor)C P P P P P P
Recreation (outdoor)P P P P
Research and development facility P24 P24 P24 P24 P24
Restaurant P7 P P
Restaurant with drive-through facility P7,
14
P3
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS
Updated 2/15/202351
Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS
Use RP BP
FP AG AG
-
2
AG
-
5
AG
-
2
0
OS NO
S
A PL PL
-
2
I UI MH
EI MU
Retail goods establishment P7 P P
Retail, sales and service accessory
use when located within a principal
building
P20 P
Retail, sales and service accessory
use when located within a principal
building and operated primarily for the
convenience of employees
P P P P P P P P P
Retail service establishment P
School:
College or university P P P
K - 12 private P P P P
K - 12 public P P P P
Music conservatory P P P
Professional and vocational P P P P P
Seminary and religious institute P P C
Small brewery C24
Solar array P24 P24 P19,
24
P24 P24 P24
Stadium C C C
Storage, accessory (outdoor)P P P P
Studio, art P
Technology facility P24 P24 P24 P24
Theater, live performance C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 C15
Theater, movie C C
Transportation terminal, including bus,
rail and trucking
P
Urban farm P P P P P P P P P P P P
Utility, building or structure P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or
pole
P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Vehicle, automobile rental agency P P
Vending cart, private property P P
Vending cart, public property P
Warehouse P24 P24
Warehouse, accessory to retail and
wholesale business (maximum 5,000
square foot floor plate)
P
Wholesale distribution P24 P24
Wireless telecommunications fa-
cility (see Section 21A.40.090, Ta-
ble 21A.40.090.E of this title)
Zoological park P
52
Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS
QUALIFYING PROVISIONS
1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title.
2. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
3. When located on an arterial street.
4. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval.
5. In conjunction with, and within the boundaries of, a cemetery for human remains.
6. Radio station equipment and antennas shall be required to go through the site plan review process to ensure that the color, design
and location of all proposed equipment and antennas are screened or integrated into the architecture of the project and are com-
patible with surrounding uses.
7. When approved as part of a business park planned development pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.55 of this title.
8. Kennels, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall not be permitted within 200 feet of an existing
single-family dwelling on an adjacent lot.
9. Trails and trailheads with signage are subject to Section 21A.46.120, "Sign Regulations For Special Purpose Districts", of this title.
10. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use.
11. Maximum of 1 monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes.
12. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title.
13. If located on a collector or arterial street according to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan - major street plan: roadway
functional classification map.
14. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations.
15. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
16. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this
title.
17. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this
title.
18. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
19. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant
Overlay, consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain recommendations on siting and equip-
ment types for all solar arrays on a particular property to mitigate impacts to wildlife.
20. When customarily provided with the principal use and is accessory to the principal use.
21. New antennae and communication towers are allowed outside the telecommunication corridor in the OS Open Space District for
public safety, public security or Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department purposes only.
22. Reception centers may be allowed in parks of 100 acres or more where the reception center is a subordinate use to the principal use
of the property as a park. Reception centers are allowed in existing buildings, are limited to 1 reception center per park, and hours
of operation are limited to park hours. Removal of existing recreation areas to accommodate the stand alone reception center use,
including areas to accommodate parking for the reception center use, is not permitted.
23. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah De-
partment of Environmental Quality administrative rules.
24. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1.
Updated 2/15/2023
53
Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS
Use RMF
-30
RMF
-35
RMF
-45
RMF
-75
RB R-MU
-35
R-MU
-45
R-MU RO
Accessory use, except those that are otherwise spe-
cifically regulated elsewhere in this title
P P P P P P P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 C8 C8 C8 P P P P P6
Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less
in floor area)
C9 C9 C9 C9
Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor
area)
C9 C9 C9
Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor
area)
C9
Animal, veterinary office C C C P P6
Art gallery P P P P P
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
P3 P3 P3 P3 P
Bed and breakfast inn P P P P
Bed and breakfast manor P
Clinic (medical, dental)P P P P P6
Commercial food preparation P21 P21 P21 P21 P21
Community garden P P P P P P P P P
Community recreation center C
Crematorium C C C
Daycare center, adult C P P P P P P
Daycare center, child C18 C18 C18 P P P P P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18
Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter
Dwelling, accessory unit P P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large)C P P C P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity)C P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small)P P P P P P
Dwelling, congregate care facility (large)C C C C C C C
Dwelling, congregate care facility (small)C P P P P P P P P
Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority
Dwelling, group home (large)C C C C C1 4 C C C C1 4
Dwelling, group home (small)P P P P P15 P P P P15
Dwelling, manufactured home P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, multi- family P P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, residential support (large)C C C C C1 6
Dwelling, residential support (small)C C P C C P P17
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C P C C C P P
Dwelling, single- family (attached)P P P P P P P P P
Updated 2/15/202354
Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division
Use RMF
-30
RMF
-35
RMF
-45
RMF
-75
RB R-MU
-35
R-MU
-45
R-MU RO
Dwelling, single- family (detached)P P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, twin home and two- family P P P P P P P
Financial institution P P P P6
Funeral home P P P P
Governmental facility C C C C C C C C C6
Home occupation P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20
Laboratory, medical related P21 P21 P21 P21 P21
Library C C C C C
Mixed use development P1 P P P P
Mobile food business (operation on private proper-
ty)
P P P
Municipal service use, including City utility use and
police and fire station
C C C C C C C C C
Museum P C P P P
Nursing care facility P P P P P
Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and
office
P P P P P6
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P P P P P P P P
Park P P P P P P P P P
Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a
residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones)
C C C C C
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P P P P P
Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C C C C C C C C
Reception center P P P
Recreation (indoor)P P P P P
Research and development facility P21 P21
Restaurant P P P P P
Restaurant with drive-through facility
Retail goods establishment P P P P
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop
with outdoor retail sales area
P P P P
Retail service establishment P P P P
School, music conservatory P C C P
School, professional and vocational P C C P P6
School, seminary and religious institute C C C C C C C C C
Seasonal farm stand P P P P P
Studio, art P P P P P
Technology facility P21 P21 P21 P21
Temporary use of closed schools and churches C19 C19 C19 C19 C19 C19
Theater, live performance C1 3 C13 C13 C13 C1 3
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS
Updated 2/15/2023 55
Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division
QUALIFYING PROVISIONS
1. A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office.
2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are
located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995).
3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
4. Reserved.
5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
6. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building's footprint. Build-
ing additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review.
7. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.02.050 of this title.
8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010S of this title.
9. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title.
10. In the RB Zoning District, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square
footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor
patio area.
11. Accessory guest or servant's quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot.
12. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.150 of this title.
13. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
14. Large group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
15. Small group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
16. Large residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
17. Small residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
18. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
19. Subject to section 21A.36.170 of this title.
20. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title.
21. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1.
Use RMF
-30
RMF
-35
RMF
-45
RMF
-75
RB R-MU
-35
R-MU
-45
R-MU RO
Theater, movie C C C C C
Urban farm P P P P P P P P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5, 7
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5
Wireless telecommunicati ons facility (see section
21A.40.090, table 21A.40.090E of this title)
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS
Updated 2/15/202356
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
ATTACHMENT D: City Plan Policies
The below are related policies from adopted City Master Plans. Each plan title is followed by a table
where Staff has compiled related policies or discussion text from the associated plan. Some policies
may not be directly applicable but have been identified in public or other comments and so have been
included below.
The plan policies related to growth and housing are applicable to the privately owned property that is
intended for residential development. Staff has also included some policies related to recreational and
open space uses that apply to the City/State properties.
The Rose Park Small Area Plan policies related to the proposal are located in and discussed in
Consideration 1.
Salt Lake City Housing Plan
Issues/Goals/Objectives Status in Relation
to Proposal
Discussion
Housing Crisis Section
Summary: The city is in an
affordable housing crisis and if growth
projections are correct, it will not
improve unless bold and strategic
measures are developed and enacted.
Solutions must include using zoning
ordinance to provide a mix of housing
types in an effort to relieve the
pressure put upon existing housing,
creating sustainable and significant
funding sources, preventing and
diverting low income families from
entering homelessness, and creating
innovative housing for all income
types.
Consistent The zoning change would support
additional housing in the City and relieve
price pressures on existing housing.
GOAL 1: Increase housing options:
Reform city practices to promote a
responsive, affordable, high-
opportunity housing market
Consistent Broad goal supports additional housing
options to respond to housing needs and
demand. Analysis regarding specific
objectives/policies within this goal is noted
below.
Objective 1: Review and modify
land-use and zoning regulations to
reflect the affordability needs of a
growing, pioneering city
Consistent The proposed zoning change would add
additional housing units to help increase
the supply of housing in the City and
reduce the price increase pressure on
existing housing.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and
regulations, with a focus along
significant transportation routes.
Expanding this system of zoning
with a focus on new residential and
commercial development along
transportation corridors will allow
the private market to fill the
Consistent This policy supports expanding
zoning/regulations that support new
housing, particularly along significant
transportation routes. This property is
located along a major transportation
route (I-215), with very convenient access
to that route. In the future, Redwood
Road will also be quickly accessible from
the development via a planned new direct
32
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
housing demand where the city
needs it most. To ensure that the
maximum potential of these
regulatory changes is realized, the
City will need to plan, design, fund,
and construct the infrastructure
that will be required to support the
increases in residential density.
This will require significant and
targeted investment in
multiple utility systems and other
public improvements. Where
possible, the City will seek public-
private partnerships to fund the
infrastructure improvements.
road connection. The policy notes that
there will likely be a need for significant
infrastructure improvements. The
improvements to support this
development will likely occur from a mix
of City/State funding (North Access
Road) and private developer funding (all
other improvements such as utilities).
Goal 3: Equitable and Fair
housing: Build a more equitable
city
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle
Housing principles in neighborhoods
throughout the city
Plan Narrative: Salt Lake City
should be a place where residents are
not stifled in their housing choice,
because certain neighborhoods are
not conducive to their stage of life.
The goal with this objective is to
enable a diversity of housing types
that responds to housing needs,
allowing individuals to stay in their
communities as their housing needs
evolve.
The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute’s
demographic projections show a
growing senior population statewide,
and while we know from the housing
market study that Salt Lake City’s
percentage of seniors (10% of total
population) is relatively low
compared to other municipalities in
the state, the City will begin
anticipating the needs of a growing
senior community. However, seniors
are not the only population that is
demanding a different type of
housing. Across the country there are
trends for micro housing, community
style living, generational housing to
accommodate aging parents, and
intentional community and living
space that co-exist (like a day care in
a Senior Center). There is not one way
to achieve life cycle housing, but
infinite possibilities and it is the goal
to engage the community in way that
not only fosters the possibility, but
Neutral/
Consistent
While the developer’s concept plans only
show multi-family residential
development, the zone would allow a mix
of housing types, including single-family
residential, townhomes, mixed use, and
multi-family development. However, this
policy is primarily intended to ensure that
other types of housing are available in
existing neighborhoods beyond single-
family residential.
33
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
creates policy that allows for the
building.
2016 Salt Lake Housing Policy (Housing Policy Statements Adopted by the City Council)
Policy Status Discussion
1. Foster and celebrate the urban
residential tradition;
Neutral The proposal is not located within a highly urbanized
area of the City.
2. Respect the character and charm
of predominantly residential
districts, including those with
historic character and qualities,
while also providing opportunities
for the provision of local goods
and services easily accessed by
neighborhoods;
Neutral The proposal does not involve commercial uses/local
goods and services within a neighborhood.
3.Promote a diverse and balanced
community by ensuring that a
wide range of housing types and
choices exist for all income
levels, age groups, and types of
households;
Consistent The proposal would provide additional multi-family
residential which meets a housing need in an area
currently predominantly single-family.
4.Develop new housing
opportunities throughout the
City;
Consistent The proposal adds additional housing in the City
outside of the currently developed residential areas.
5. Ensure that affordable housing is
available in all neighborhoods and
not concentrated in a few areas of
the city;
Neutral The proposal does not currently involve any “income
restricted” affordable housing.
6. Emphasize the value of transit-
oriented development, transit
accessibility, and proximity to
services;
Not consistent The proposal is not currently served by a dedicated
transit route. It is likely that at full build-out a transit
route would be supported due to the number of
residents in this location.
7.Recognize that residents, business
owners, and local government all
have a role to play in creating and
sustaining healthy
neighborhoods;
Neutral General statement that is not applicable to proposal.
8. Create an appropriate balance of
rental and ownership
opportunities in neighborhoods
without jeopardizing an adequate
supply of affordable housing;
Neutral Any development on the site could be either rental or
owner occupied.
9. Strongly incentivize or require the
use of green building techniques
and sustainability practices in
public and private housing
developments;
Neutral/NA This pertains to creating new City regulations and
does not apply. The proposal will have to comply with
City ordinances and building codes related to
sustainability practices and building techniques.
34
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
10. Examine the changing needs of
Salt Lake City’s population, and
develop and maintain reliable
demographic information to
support housing policy and
residential development;
Neutral/NA This is not directly related to this amendment.
11.Consider the needs of multi-
generational households and
ensure housing products are
available to meet those needs.
Neutral/NA The proposed concept plan does not address
potential future specific unit types.
12.Address the livability of
neighborhoods and
concentrations of ageing adults,
and plan and implement
strategies that will allow residents
to Age in Place.
Neutral/NA This policy is aimed at ensuring a diversity of housing
types in larger neighborhoods to allow residents to
change housing types as they age, rather than in any
one specific development.
Plan Salt Lake
Plan Salt Lake City is a City-wide master plan. This master plan is broad and not property specific. The
following list includes excerpts of the narratives and policies from the plan regarding growth, housing,
and parks and recreation. These are also further discussed in Consideration 1.
Policies Status Staff Discussion
Growth/
(Discussion excerpt) Growing
responsibly, while providing
people with choices about where
they live, how they live, and how
they get around.
1. Locate new development
in areas with existing
infrastructure and
amenities, such as transit
and transportation
corridors.
2. Encourage a mix of land
uses.
3. Promote infill and
redevelopment of
underutilized land.
4. Preserve open space and
critical environmental
areas.
5. Reduce consumption of
natural resources,
including water.
6. Accommodate and
promote an increase in the
City’s population.
Mixed,
Consistent/Neutral
/Not Consistent
1. The proposal is located adjacent to
a major freeway and will have
connection to a major street
(Redwood Road) due to future
State/City infrastructure
investment in a new road that
accesses the property. However,
additional, significant developer
provided infrastructure will be
required to be installed to serve the
property.
2. The zoning of the private property
would allow a mix of uses.
3. The private property is currently
underutilized with at least half of it
being used for outdoor equipment
storage, and the zoning would
encourage its redevelopment.
4. The private property is generally
used for agricultural and horse
boarding activities. These uses
could fall under the term “open
space.” Records do not indicate
that it contains any critical
environmental features, such as
wetlands. The City (RAC) and
State (State Park) properties
35
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
7. Work with regional
partners and stakeholders
to address growth
collaboratively.
8. Provide access to
opportunities for a healthy
lifestyle (including parks,
trails, recreation, and
healthy food).
function now, or will function, for
uses that generally fall under
“open space.” The City property
itself has a deed restriction
limiting the use of the property for
open space type uses.
5. Multi-family residential
development uses relatively little
water compared to single-family
residential, agricultural, or
industrial development.
6. The proposal would accommodate
approximately 1,800 new units
over the next decade or so.
7. This policy isn’t directed at
individual developments.
However, the State/City will need
to continue working together with
regard to the North Access Road
and any improvements to the I-215
interchange where they connect to
City streets.
8. The site is directly adjacent to a
regional recreational sports
facility, which will soon have a
playground, and will be a short
walk to the Jordan River trail
when the North Access Road is
completed. This area of the City
generally requires a car to visit a
grocery or convenience store. The
proposed mixed-use zoning of the
private property would allow for
future retail, such as grocery or
convenience stores, and could be
supported by the number of
residents and also users of the
RAC.
Housing/
Access to a wide variety of
housing types for all income
levels throughout the city,
providing the basic human need
for safety and responding to
changing demographics.
Discussion (Excerpt)
Almost half of the total housing
units in Salt Lake are single-
family detached dwellings. While
preserving the existing housing
stock will continue to be a
Mixed,
Consistent/Neutral/
Not Consistent
1. The proposal would allow for the
creation of multi-family rental
housing, but they could also be
condominiums. The developer has
not indicated that the housing will
be income restricted.
2. Not applicable, this would generally
be considered relatively high-density
development.
3. Not applicable. This is aimed at
ensuring a diverse range of housing
options in predominantly single-
family neighborhoods.
4. This area has a high level of current
and planned vehicle transportation
36
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
priority for Salt Lake City, over
the next 25 years, it will be critical
for us to encourage and support a
diversity of new housing options
and types with a range of
densities throughout the City to
best meet the changing
population.
Policies:
1. Ensure access to
affordable housing
citywide (including
rental and very low
income).
2. Increase the number of
medium density
housing types and
options.
3. Encourage housing
options that
accommodate aging in
place.
4. Direct new growth
toward areas with
existing infrastructure
and services that have
the potential to be
people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate
density increases
within existing
neighborhoods where
appropriate.
6. Promote energy
efficient housing and
rehabilitation of
existing housing stock.
7. Promote high density
residential in areas
served by transit.
8. Support homeless
services.
infrastructure, a current and future
high level of recreational access
(RAC, Jordan River Trail), but a low
level of nearby service access (retail,
grocery) except via a car. The
number of future residents in this
location may support additional
pedestrian accessible services, such
as retail.
5. This is not in an existing
neighborhood.
6. Newer construction is generally
more energy efficient.
7. The area is not currently served by
transit, but a transit stop could be
possible in the future with the
number of residents at the location.
8. Not applicable.
Parks and Recreation
GUIDING PRINCIPLE/
Protecting the natural
environment while providing
access and opportunities to
recreate and enjoy nature.
2040 TARGETS:
1. Increase Park Space
Neutral/Consistent Most of these policies aren’t directly
applicable to the proposal, but the
proposed Open Space zoning supports
additional park space and allows the
recreational facility to be “enhanced”
with a second phase. (Target 1 and
Initiative 4) The proposed private
property zoning would support
additional households that have both
a park and a recreational space (RAC
37
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
2. Parks Or Open Space
Within Walking Distance
Of Every Household
3. Increase Miles Of Trails
Initiatives:
1. Balance protection and
management of natural
lands with access to
recreational
opportunities.
2. Provide accessible
parks and recreation
spaces within 1/2 mile
of all residents.
3. Enhance trail and open
space connectivity
through improved
visual and physical
connections.
4. Protect and enhance
existing parks,
recreational facilities,
and trails allowing for
modifications to
enhance usability and
promote activity.
5. Establish level of
service standards that
address type,
proximity, quality, and
quantity of park space
that is responsive to
both citywide and
neighborhood needs.
6. Integrate artistic
elements into parks,
urban trails, and other
urban public spaces.
7. Support urban
agriculture and local
food systems that
produce healthy and
sustainable food for the
community, while
providing valuable
open space.
and the Jordan River trail) within a ½
mile of their location. (Target 2 and
Initiative 2)
38
North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023
ATTACHMENT H: Public Process &
Comments
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities,
related to the proposed project since the applications were submitted:
• May 16, 2022: The Westpointe Community Council was sent the required 45-day notice
for recognized community organizations. The notice asked for input from the organization
and whether the organization would like the applicant to present at one of their meetings.
• May 16, 2022: An online open house webpage was posted to provide additional
information on the requests. A link as provided to the Westpointe Community Council and
included in mailed notifications to nearby property owners.
• May 17, 2022: Mailed early notifications were sent out to nearby property owners within
300 feet of the properties.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
• February 8, 2023
o Public hearing notice signs posted on the properties.
• February 8, 2023
o Public hearing notice mailed.
o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv.
Community Council Meetings
The applicant informed Staff that they met with the Westpointe Community Council twice before
the applicant submitted their annexation and zoning request. The most recent of those meetings
was on January 8, 2020.
Public Input:
Staff received a call from a horse owner who utilizes the horse stables on the applicant’s property.
The caller was concerned with the potential loss of the facility an d was provided information on
how to attend the public hearing and how to provide a written comment.
Staff also received one written comment opposed to the rezone of the private property. The
comment is located on the following page.
Staff received no other public comments or inquiries.
Community Council Comments
Staff requested comments from the Westpointe Community Council, but they did not provide any
comments or a letter about the proposal prior to staff report publication.
62
1
Echeverria, Daniel
From:Kelly Pickering
Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2023 1:42 PM
To:Echeverria, Daniel
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 2-22-23 Comments re Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2350 N. and
Annexation at Approximately 2441 N. Rose Park Lane
Mr. Echeverria:
This note is meant to comment on the Zoning Map Amendment for 2350 N. and Annexation at Approximately 2441 N.
Rose Park Lane being considered on February 22, 2023. The 1,800‐ unit multi‐family residential development will
negatively impact the area in the following ways.
1. In this area, Rose Park does NOT house the infrastructure to accommodate water let alone sewer for 1,800 new
households. Conservatively, the average household has three people. This area cannot accommodate 5,400
residents and their vehicles.
2. Rose Park does NOT house the infrastructure in this area for school enrolment.
3. Rose Park does NOT house the infrastructure in this area for safety and enforcement and
4. This proposal will also negatively affect wildlife in this area.
Please consider this is not the best use for this land.
Kindest regards,
Kelly Hambleton‐Pickering
Resident
63
CITY COUNCIL // AUGUST 15, 2023
NORTH ROSE PARK LANE ANNEXATION AND ZONING AMENDMENT
2350, 2440, 2441, AND 2462 N ROSE PARK LANE
PLNPCM2021-01124/01134
•Requests by JWright Properties (2350/2441 N)
•Two requests:
•Zoning Map Amendment (2350 N Rose Park Lane)
•From AG-2, Agricultural
•To R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use
•Annexation from County to City –Zoning Requests
•Apply R-MU to 2441 N
•Apply OS to 2462 N
•Apply OS to 2440 N
•Intended to accommodate an 1,800 unit multi-family development
on the 2350 N and 2441 N properties
•City and State properties not involved in development
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial of annexation and
zoning amendment
REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
2441
(J Wright)
2350
(J Wright)
2440
(City)
2462
(State)
CONTEXT
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
$1m from State
for road planning
“Sports Park Blvd”
2100 North
Interchange (Access)
Roughly paved
road
Horse boarding
facility
Single family
neighborhood,
elementary and
middle schools
(South of RAC)
Zoning Map Amendment
•Requires review against standard City considerations
Annexation:
•No consideration standards
•Requires a zone be applied when annexed
•Council forwarded the annexation to Planning
Commission for a zoning recommendation
•Staff used considerations for a rezone
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ZONING AMENDMENT &ANNEXATION PROCESS
•Proposed zone for J Wright (private)properties
•75'height
•Limited front setbacks to engage street
•20%open space requirement
•Allowed Use Examples:
•Multi-family and low intensity commercial
(i.e.retail,restaurant,office)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
R-MU -RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE
2440 (City) & 2462 (State):
•Rose Park Plan (2001) calls for Open Space (OS) or Agriculture (AG)
•Proposed OS –matches City and State use of properties
2350 & 2441 (J Wright -Private)
•Rose Park Plan policy:
•Zone properties OS or AG
•“to be compatible with the State recreational (OHV) and open space
land uses (RAC)”
•Citywide policies
•Access to healthy lifestyle/open space (RAC/Jordan River trail)
•Redevelopment of underutilized property
•Locating near existing infrastructure (significant planned City
improvements –RAC/Sports Park Blvd)
•Transit access (currently none)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
F
S
t
r
e
e
t
2441
(J Wright)
2350
(J Wright)
2440
(City)
2462
(State)
•Traffic study provided by applicant
•Recommends phased improvements to support
development
•Intersection upgrades, road improvements (500 units)
•Full build-out only possible if Sports Park Boulevard built
•Freeway noise and air quality impacts
•Could be mitigated with noise attenuating materials (similar to
airport requirements)
•MERV 13 HVAC filters to reduce pollution
•Landscaping (trees)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS &FREEWAY IMPACTS
Turn Lane
Signal/
Turn Lanes
New Road
•Improve/Widen
Road
•Add Sidewalk/
Crosswalk
•Two letters generally opposed to the residential zone
•One letter with conditions related to health/air quality (freeway)
•Public comments at PC generally opposed (9 comments)
•Air quality, infrastructure, traffic, RAC access limits
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PUBLIC INPUT
Recommended denial of zoning and annexation:
1.Rezoning
•Doesn’t comply with Rose Park Plan
•Calls for Open Space or Agricultural zoning.
2.Annexation
•Doesn’t align with Plan Salt Lake policies regarding
open space/recreation access
•Plan Salt Lake emphasizes open space
availability –RAC not accessible to general
public
•Doesn’t align with 2016 Council Housing Policy
Statements that emphasize transit proximity and
the livability of neighborhoods.
•Transit not available in area
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
•Commission didn’t offer concerns with the City and
State property annexation/zoning.
Staff recommended approval based on R-MU zone
compatibility with RAC, utilization of City improvements
(RAC/Sports Park Blvd), and proximity to open space (RAC
/Jordan River Trail).
Included 13 conditions:
•Required, phased street improvements (striping, Rose Park
Lane, sidewalks, utilities, traffic lights, Sports Park Blvd
completion)
•Air quality mitigations (HVAC filters, landscaping)
•Noise mitigations (freeway sound attenuation, OHV park
noise notice)
•Setback and parking modifications
•Road construction impact mitigations
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Daniel Echeverria // Senior Planner
daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com
Albuquerque | Boise | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Phoenix | Portland | Reno | Salt Lake Ci ty | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C.
2350 N Rose Park Lane
North Rose Park Lane Annexation and
Zoning Amendment
PLNPCM2021-01124 and
PLNPCM2021-01134
Salt Lake City: City Council–
August 15, 2023
Context Aerial
2
Applicant
Parcel to be
Rezoned
Salt Lake City
Parcel to be
Annexed
State of Utah
Parcel to be
Annexed
Applicant
Parcel to be
Annexed and
Zoned
City Boundary
Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001)
3
Pg. 17
Staff Report –Planning
Commission:
If and when existing
properties in the County
are annexed into the City
they should be zoned for
either agricultural or
open space land uses to
be compatible with the
State recreational and
open space land uses
between Redwood Road
and Interstate-215.
Current Zoning
AG-2
BP
PL
M-1
4
Salt Lake County
Zoning: A-5
Proposed Zoning
R-MU
BP
PL
M-1
5
Site Plan
6
Required Road Plan (Sports Park Blvd.)
7
Site Rendering
8
Development Description:
9
•Mix of Units -a minimum of 2% will be 3 bedrooms, minimum 10% will be 2
bedrooms, with the remainder being 1 bedroom & studio.
•Traffic Study
•500 Units until North Access Road is constructed
•Bike Amenities
•Secure bike storage areas
•Bike racks & lockers
•Bike repair area
•Bike washing area
•Noise and Pollution
•A condition requiring noise attenuation improvements for any new buildings is
being recommended due to the proximity to the freeway.
•Special freeway landscaping will be required which can help mitigate impacts
of the freeway.
•A requirement for a notice to residents/tenants/owners about potential noise
from the OHV State Park is also recommended.
•The freeway landscaping requirement is also proposed adjacent to the OHV
State Park to reduce the potential for fugitive dust impacts to residents.
Conditions of Approval from Staff to Planning Commision
10
1.That the owner of the 2350 N and 2441 N properties enter into a development agreement with the City that does
the following:
i.Traffic Impact Study Improvements: That the improvements noted in the transportation impact study
addendum (dated 12/23/22), or equivalent improvements as determined by the Transportation Director,
are completed prior to any Certificates of Occupancy being issued for development of the property. If
other uses are proposed on site that differ from those evaluated in the study, the Transportation Director
shall have the ability to require additional traffic studies and may require different off-site improvements
for traffic impacts identified in such studies. (See Consideration 2)
ii.Rose Park Lane Improvements: The developer shall make all public right of way improvements to the
adjacent street Rose Park Lane that would be required by a subdivision process for each phase of their
development in compliance with the improvement standards of Chapter 20.40 “Improvements and Flood
Control” and Chapter 20.12 “Design Standards and Requirements” including, but not limited to, road
widening, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, and park strip landscaping. This may include additional
right-of-way improvement beyond the west-half of the adjacent Rose Park Lane right-of-way. (See
Consideration 2)
iii.Sidewalk Improvements: Sidewalk shall be installed both adjacent to the site and off-site to provide a
complete pedestrian connection from each phase of the development to existing sidewalk infrastructure
along the Regional Athletic Complex. Sidewalk shall have a minimum width of 5 feet. A crosswalk shall
also be installed across Rose Park Lane. The final configuration of the sidewalk and crosswalk is subject
to Transportation, Engineering, and Planning Director approval. (See Consideration 2)
iv.Public Utility Improvements: That the developer complies with all Public Utility Department requirements
to serve the development, including, but not limited to, installation of offsite water and sewer
improvements. (See Consideration 2)
v.City Drain Usage: If future development plans require discharging to City Drain, there may be offsite lift
station upgrades required as determined by the Public Utilities Director. (See Consideration 2)
vi.City Drain Setback: That a 50' setback from the City Drain apply to development of the property,
measured from the average high-water elevation of the City Drain. No buildings or parking pavement
shall be constructed within the setback. Fences, landscaping, sidewalks, and other improvements may
be located within the setback. (See Consideration 3)
Conditions of Approval
11
vii.R-MU Setback Conflicts: That the maximum front setback provisions of the R -MU ordinance in section
21A.24.170.E.8 do not apply where a greater setback is required along the City Drain (canal) or by the
Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback where conditioned to apply along Rose Park Lane. (See
Consideration 3)
viii.Parking Requirement: That any uses comply with the General Context minimum parking requirements
in Table 21A.44.040-A of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. This does not preclude modifications
through the options provided in the Zoning Ordinance. (See Consideration 3)
ix.Sound Attenuation: That residential uses be built with at least 30 dBs of sound attention in sleeping
areas and 25 dBs of attenuation in other areas, due to the proximity to the freeway and noise impacts.
A sound attenuation study would need to be provided to verify compliance, as described in City Code
18.88.020. (See Consideration 4)
x.State Park Adjacent Landscaping: That the landscaped setback requirements of the “Freeway Scenic
Landscape Setback” of 21A.48.110 (or its successor) be applied along the east property line where it
is directly across the street from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area (2462 N Rose Park
Lane). The requirement shall apply where new development occurs within 100' of that portion of the
east property line. (See Consideration 4)
xi.State Park Noise Disclosure: That a disclosure be provided to future residents, tenants, and owners
regarding the potential for high levels of noise from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area. (See
Consideration 4)
North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment
PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134
Salt Lake City: City Council–August 15, 2023
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 5, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Map Amendment (Petitions
PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134)
STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com, 801-
535-7165
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the
annexation and the requested zoning map amendment designation of R-MU for the two involved
private properties.
BUDGET IMPACT: No direct budget impact. If annexed, the properties would be subject to
receiving City services for such things as fire, police, and utilities.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
JWright Communities, LLC, property owner and applicant, is requesting a zoning map amendment
for an approximately 6-acre parcel of land located at 2350 N Rose Park Lane. The applicant is
requesting a rezone from the AG-2, Agricultural, zone to the R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use zone.
The zoning is intended to support future development of an 1,800-unit multi-family residential
development. No formal plans have been submitted for that development. The property is currently
within Salt Lake City boundaries.
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 5, 2023 13:13 MDT)04/05/2023
04/05/2023
In conjunction with the rezone request, the property owner filed a petition to annex approximately
28 acres of property located at approximately 2441 N Rose Park Lane. The annexation process
requires that the City apply a zone at the same time a property is annexed into the City. The City
Council reviewed the annexation petition in April 2022 and referred the annexation petition to the
Commission for a recommendation on the proposed zoning.
The properties involved and the requested zones are below:
1. 2440 N Rose Park Lane
a. This is a City-owned property and
has been shown as a future Regional
Athletic Complex phase in City
plans.
b. The City proposed to zone the
property OS, Open Space, to support
future recreational use.
2. 2441 N Rose Park Lane (“Hunter Stables”)
a. This is a privately owned parcel,
owned by the applicant, JWright.
b. The applicant is proposing the R-
MU, Residential/Mixed-Use, zone to
support an 1,800 dwelling unit
development.
3. 2462 N Rose Park Lane
a. This is a State-owned property
utilized as part of the State’s Jordan
River Off-Highway Vehicle State
Park.
b. The City proposed to zone the
property OS, Open Space, to support
continued recreational use.
Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the zoning map amendment and annexation zoning requests
at their March 8th meeting and forwarded a negative recommendation on both requests. The
meeting can be viewed here with this particular item beginning at 1:55:53. The vote on the motion
was 6 to 4. The Commission’s motion to recommend denial was the following, recommending
denial of:
1. The zoning map amendment, for the reason that it does not comply with the stated zoning
goals of the small area master plan (Rose Park Small Area Plan).
Map of the rezone and annexation properties, showing
the OHV State Park, RAC, and a planned “North Access
Road.”
2. The annexation, based on Plan Salt Lake and the access to open space are not met. And the
2016 Salt Lake Housing Policy points of emphasizing the value of transit-oriented
developments and the livability of neighborhoods.
For the zoning map amendment, the Commission’s motion refers to the Rose Park Small Area
Plan (2001) which has policies that call for the Open Space or Agricultural zoning in the future
for the rezone and associated annexation property. The requested R-MU zone does not align with
those specific zones.
For the annexation, the Commission’s motion refers to the citywide plan, Plan Salt Lake, and one
of its policies that encourages access to parks and recreational spaces within a half mile of all
residents. In its discussion, the Commission noted that despite the property being adjacent to the
Regional Athletic Complex (RAC), use of the RAC is generally restricted to organized groups,
such as leagues, and future residents of the conceptual 1,800 dwelling unit development wouldn’t
be able to freely use the facility. The Commission’s motion also refers to the City Council’s
adopted “Housing Policy Statements” from 2016 that emphasize transit-oriented development and
livability of neighborhoods. The full referenced policies are as follows:
• Emphasize the value of transit-oriented development, transit accessibility, and proximity
to services;
• Address the livability of neighborhoods and concentrations of ageing adults, and plan and
implement strategies that will allow residents to Age in Place.
There are similar policies in both Plan Salt Lake and the City’s adopted housing plan Growing
SLC (2017.)
The Commission’s motion and discussion were focused on the R-MU requests and the
Commission did not offer any concerns regarding the proposed zoning designation of Open Space
for the City and State properties involved in the annexation; however, since the zoning of these
properties was included in the same petition, the Commission simply recommended denial of the
entire petition.
Nine individuals addressed the Commission during the public hearing, including a representative
of the Westpointe Community Council. Comments at the public hearing addressed limited resident
access to the RAC, traffic from the RAC, concerns with limited infrastructure, easement impacts
on the developable area of the property, loss of the horse boarding facility and agricultural lifestyle,
piecemeal annexations of this area of the City, safety related to mosquitoes and canals, parking
issues and congestion on Rose Park Lane, air quality impacts from I-215, and RAC/OHV negative
impacts on potential residents. A comment questioning why this area was appropriate for housing,
while properties to the west in the Northpoint area were not, was also made.
Planning Staff Recommendation to the Planning Commission
The Commission recommendation was opposite that of the Staff recommendation. The Staff
recommendation was to forward a positive recommendation with several conditions related to
infrastructure requirements, water quality, air quality, and noise. Those are detailed on the second
page of the staff report. Two additional conditions regarding HVAC system air filters to mitigate
health impacts from the freeway and mitigation of construction impacts on adjacent property
owners, were added after staff report publication in response to late arriving public comments.
These conditions are located on the attached Staff presentation slides (Exhibit 2b).
The Staff recommendation acknowledged the Rose Park Small Area Plan’s future land use map
designations of Open Space and Agriculture do not correspond with the requested R-MU zone, but
cited the plan’s policy reason for that zoning, which was to ensure those properties maintain
compatibility with the RAC and OHV properties. The recommendation noted that residential and
low-intensity commercial uses are generally compatible with recreational uses. The
recommendation also relied on general policies from Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC that support
more housing throughout the City, including policies supporting housing with access to
recreational uses (RAC/Jordan River Trail), existing infrastructure (I-215 freeway, new “North
Access Road,”) and using underutilized properties for housing.
Since the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, an ordinance has not been prepared
by the Attorney’s Office for the zoning map and annexation requests. If the City Council indicates
support for the requests, the Attorney’s Office will draft an ordinance at that time.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The proposal followed the City’s public input requirements required for a zoning amendment. The
annexation was processed following the same input process. Details on that process are located in
Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report.
The applicant met with the applicable community council on two occasions, but the community
council did not provide any formal written comments to Planning Staff. A community council
representative attended the Commission hearing and their comments focused on the limited or no
access to the RAC facility that any new residents would have due to the facility’s current use
policies.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access)
c) PC Staff Report of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Planning Commission – March 8, 2023
a) Additional Written Public Comments
b) Staff Presentation
c) Applicant Presentation
3) Notice of City Council Hearing
4) Original Petitions
5) Mailing List
EXHIBITS
1. CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 2023
a. Additional Public Comments
b. Staff Presentation Slides
c. Applicant Presentation Slides
4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS
5. MAILING LIST
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134
November 1, 2021 Applicant submits original annexation petition that includes only
the applicant’s property at 2441 N Rose Park Lane.
November 3, 2021 Applicant submits rezone petition for 2350 N property to Planning
Division.
November 18, 2021 Applications assigned to John Anderson, Planning Manager.
Applications subsequently put on hold as applicant works with
City and County to adjust the boundary request of their
annexation to include the 2440 N (City) and 2462 N (State)
properties in order not to create a new peninsula of County land.
March 22, 2022 Salt Lake County Council approves resolution number 5956
agreeing to requested annexation to Salt Lake City. County Council
reviewed the annexation request as the annexation property leaves
a peninsula of County land. County resolution also encourages
City to annex additional land in the area.
March 24, 2022 Applicant resubmits annexation petition to City, now including the
2440 N and 2462 N properties.
April 5, 2022 Salt Lake City Council approves Resolution 6 of 2022 agreeing to
accept annexation petition for further consideration. Petition is
forwarded to Planning Division for a Planning Commission
recommendation on the zoning.
May 5, 2022 Applications re-assigned to Dave Gellner, Senior Planner, for
processing.
May 16, 2022 Notice sent to Westpointe community council. Open house
webpage posted to the Planning website.
May 17, 2022 Mailed noticed provided to nearby property owners within 300
feet of the properties.
October 4, 2022 Applications re-assigned to Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, for
processing.
February 8. 2023 For the February 22nd public hearing, public hearing notice signs
posted on the properties, notices mailed to properties and
residents within 300 feet, and notices posted on City and State
websites. Notices sent on Planning Division listserv.
February 22, 2023 Public hearing canceled due to weather.
February 23, 2023 Project re-noticed for March 8th public hearing. Notice signs,
mailers, online notice, and listserv notice all re-sent out.
March 8, 2023 Planning Commission holds public hearing and provides negative
recommendation on both the zoning amendment and annexation
requests.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering petitions PLNPCM2021-01124/01134:
JWright Communities, LLC, property owner, is requesting a zoning map amendment for a ~6 acre
parcel of land located at 2350 N Rose Park Lane. In conjunction with this request, the property owner
has filed a petition to annex approximately 28 acres of property located at approximately 2441 N Rose
Park Lane. The following petitions are associated with this proposal:
1. Annexation (PLNPCM2021-01124) – A petition to annex into Salt Lake City approximately
28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 N Rose Park Lane. The annexation
requires designating a zone for each property within the annexation area. The properties are
proposed to be zoned as follows:
a. 2440 N Rose Park Lane – OS, Open Space
b. 2441 N Rose Park Lane – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use
c. 2462 N Rose Park Lane – OS, Open Space
2. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01134) – A petition to rezone property located at
approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG-2 – Agricultural to R-MU, Residential
Mixed Use. The zoning is intended to support future development of an 1,800-unit multi-family
residential development. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries.
The annexation process requires that the City apply a zone at the same time a property is annexed.
Although the petition proposes specific zones for the properties, the Council may consider other zones.
The properties at 2350 and 2441 N are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment
storage. The properties at 2440 N and 2462 N are currently vacant. The properties are in or near Council
District 1, represented by Victoria Petro-Eschler.
On March 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend denial of
the associated petitions by the City Council.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments
regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning
this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance
the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE: TBD
TIME: 7:00 PM
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located
at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including
WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments
may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an
email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Daniel
Echeverria at 801-535-71765 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, or via e-mail at daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com.
The application details can be accessed at www.slcpermits.com, by selecting the “planning” tab
and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01124 or PLNPCM2021-01134. Additional
information is also available on the Planning webpage here: https://bit.ly/slc-openhouse-01124
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 make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,
(801)535-7600, or relay service 711.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 2023
a. Additional Public Comments
From: cindy cromer
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 5:09 PM
To: SLC Planning Commission
Subject: Fw: comments about Rose Park Lane
1 It is part of the piecemeal annexation process which guarantees poor enforcement and
coordination of services. Please ask for a briefing on how the Special Improvement District, not
the County, is in charge and what has to happen to get to a comprehensive process instead of
proceeding the way we have been. It is essential to the health of the Great Salt Lake that we
have coordination of governmental efforts near the Lake.
2 This staff report is amazing and contains one of the longest lists of conditions of approval I
have ever seen. But it doesn't require that the necessary road improvements occur PRIOR to
construction. We are seeing a nightmare play out in Northpoint on 2200 West as the trucks for
a million sq. ft. facility make their way down a country road which is no longer a safe place to
travel on foot or by bicycle. And the permits from the County were NOT in place. Neither was
the road you were promised, leading back to my first point about annexation.
3 It is inconceivable that you could conclude that there is no opportunity for housing in
Northpoint, west of 215, but room for 1800 units immediately east of the freeway. It is
unreasonable to decide that future airplane traffic above Northpoint makes it unusable for
residences, but the noise and pollution from the freeway is just fine on Rose Park Lane next to
an off-road vehicle park. It is hard for me to imagine a place more ill-suited for high density
residential use than this one. And you took all sort of precautions with a hotel property in
terms of noise attenuation when you removed it from the airport overlay at the expense of the
organization providing the supported housing, but I see nothing about measuring ambient
levels of sound here.
1
Echeverria, Daniel
From:Mark Sweet
Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:54 AM
To:Echeverria, Daniel
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning 2441 N Rose Park Lane
Questions on purpose and funding.
Question the wisdom of cramming 1,800 condos onto 34 acres between I-215 and a flood control canal.(testing positive
for West Nile Virus).
Or will the DNR's ATV facility be used for this development?
The area is served by a dead end road that is barely two lanes wide. And the nearest fire station is four and half miles
away.
Is the developer paying the impact fees for the cost of;
1- water line upgrades
2- sewer lines.
3- power lines
4- the canal contains gasoline, diesel and Lord knows what other contaminants.
5- how many causeways/culverts will there be.
6- rebuilding/upgrading North Rose Park Lane
7- sound barriers along the freeway.
Will any of these units be designated low income?
The bond issue voted on 20 years ago for the Regional Athletic Complex; called for a dozen plus soccer fields and a
similar number of baseball/softball fields. Are the fields still to be built? Or are they to be replaced with high density
housing?
On days of soccer matches, traffic is terrible/obscene. Adding some 2,000 plus residents to the area will make it all the
more worse.
Mark Sweet
Dear Commission Members:
RE: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134: North Rose Park Lane
Annexation and Zoning Amendment
It has been well established in extensive research (cited herein) that residents,
schools, and workers close to major highways are hugely affected negatively
health wise. This new development proposal sits back to back on I 215, recently
opened to heavy diesel truck traffic. 1800 units speaks loudly to the number of
citizens that will be affected. There also will be a sound issue given heavy diesel
truck traffic.
While PM2.5 particulates are the major concern, it is known that some PM 2.5
contains black carbon (soot produced by incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels)
Additionally, the OHV park will be a major contributor to dust issues,
acknowledged by the staff report
This development needs to be required to:
1. Install the latest air filtration technology in every apartment and public
space in the development. Either have HEPA install a central system, or
provide each apartment with a HEPA filter system;
2. Require that UDOT plant a major pollution absorbing tree barrier on the
west side of the property;
3. The developers work with the state and Davis County to plant a tree
buffer at Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area; and,
4. Notice the applicants leasing/purchasing of the health risks associated
with living close to a major highway as is noted in the staff
recommendation for the sound issue.
https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/mortality-air-pollution-associations-
low-exposure-environments-maple-phase-2
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, JULY 14, 2022 – A comprehensive new study
published today by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) reports increased risks of
mortality in millions of Canadian citizens, including at the lowest levels of
exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5), levels that fall below
current U.S. and other ambient air quality standards. Long-term outdoor PM2.5
exposures as low as 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter were associated with
increased risk of death, suggesting that lowering regulatory standards could
yield further health benefits.
http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/57/3/747.short
ABSTRACT
We examine the effect of traffic pollution on student outcomes by leveraging
variation in wind patterns for schools the same distance from major highways.
We compare within-student changes in achievement for students transitioning
between schools near highways, where one school has greater levels of pollution
because it is downwind of a highway. As students graduate from
elementary/middle school to middle/high school, their test scores decrease,
behavioral incidents increase, and absence rates increase when they attend a
downwind school, relative to when they attend an upwind school in the same
zip code. Even within zip codes, microclimates can contribute to inequality.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-18458-3
Continual exposure to toxic metals through road dust might develop lifetime
cancer risk in local inhabitants.
1
Clark, Aubrey
From:Terry Marasco
Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:56 AM
To:Clark, Aubrey
Cc:Mendenhall, Erin; Petro-Eschler, Victoria; Norris, Nick; Kevin Parke; Westpointe 2
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Please pass this document to all Commissioners
Aubrey, please pass these also. Daniel Medoza at the U led these"
https://www.mdpi.com/1660‐4601/17/18/6931
More frequent peak exposures were associated with reduced math and ELA proficiency, as was greater school
disadvantage. High frequency peak exposures were more strongly linked to lower math proficiency in more advantaged
schools. Findings highlight the need for policies to reduce the number of days with peak air pollution.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748‐9326/abbf7a
Pollution reduction benefits would be greatest in schools located in socioeconomically
disadvantaged areas. Heterogeneity in exposure, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically
disadvantaged schools, points to the need for fine resolution exposure estimation. The economic cost
of absences associated with air pollution is substantial even excluding indirect costs such as hospital
visits and medication. These findings may help elucidate the differential burden on individual schools
and inform local decisions about recess and regulatory considerations for localized pollution sources.
Terry Marasco
Salt Lake City, Utah
"Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear"
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:56 PM Terry Marasco <wrote:
Re: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134: North Rose Park Lane
Annexation and Zoning Amendment
Thank you!
Terry Marasco
Salt Lake City, Utah
"Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear"
PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 20233
b. Staff Presentation Slides
PLANNING COMMISSION // MARCH 8, 2023
NORTH ROSE PARK LANE ANNEXATION AND ZONING AMENDMENT
2350, 2440, 2441, AND 2462 N ROSE PARK LANE
PLNPCM2021-01124/01134
•Requests by JWright Properties (2350/2441 N)
•Two requests:
•Zoning Map Amendment (2350 N Rose Park Lane)
•From AG-2, Agricultural
•To R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use
•Annexation from County to City –Zoning Requests
•Apply R-MU to 2441 N
•Apply OS to 2462 N
•Apply OS to 2440 N
•Intended to accommodate an 1,800 unit multi-family development
on the 2350 N and 2441 N properties
•City and State properties not involved in development
Recommendation: Staff is recommending a positive recommendation
to the City Council with several conditions
REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
2441
(J Wright)
2350
(J Wright)
2440
(City)
2462
(State)
CONTEXT
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
2100 North
Interchange
(Access)
PROCESS AND ZONE
Zoning Map Amendment
•Requires review against standard City considerations
•Consistency with plans, compatibility, impacts to services
Annexation:
•No consideration standards
•City & State property included to comply with State law
regarding creating “peninsulas”
•Requires a zone be applied when annexed
•Council forwarded the annexation to Commission for a
zoning recommendation
•Staff utilized considerations for a rezone
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ZONING AMENDMENT &ANNEXATION PROCESS
•Proposed Zone for J Wright (private)properties
•Height:
•Max.75'(multi-family/mixed-use),
•Max.45'(non-residential)
•Setbacks:
•No front/side;min.25%lot depth/up to 30'rear
setback
•Max.Setback/Build-to Line:
•Min.25%of building must be within 15'of front
lot line
•Open Space:20%of lot area
•Freeway Landscape Buffer:
•20'wide,shade tree for every 300 sq ft
(equivalent to every 15'feet)
•Allowed Use Examples:
•Multi-family,retail,restaurant,office
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
R-MU -RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
2440 (City) & 2462 (State):
•Rose Park Plan (2001) calls for Open Space (OS) or Agriculture (AG)
•Proposed OS –will be used for park/recreation -RAC and OHV facility
2350 & 2441 (JWright)
•Rose Park Plan policy:
•Zone properties OS or AG
•“to be compatible with the State recreational (OHV) and open space
land uses (RAC)”
•Residential compatible with recreational uses
•Citywide policies support additional housing throughout City
•Access to healthy lifestyle (recreational access –sports/trail)
•Redevelopment of underutilized property
•Locating near existing infrastructure (significant planned
improvements)
•Compatibility and Citywide policies support requested zone
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
F
S
t
r
e
e
t
2441
(J Wright)
2350
(J Wright)
2440
(City)
2462
(State)
•Traffic study shows need for road improvements
•Abutting roadway is only semi-improved (no curb/gutter/etc.)
•Inadequate utilities
•Recommended conditions:
•Phased improvements identified in traffic study
•Roadway improvements to widen/improve
adjacent street (Rose Park Lane)
•Sidewalks and crosswalk to link development to
existing sidewalks at RAC
•All necessary utility improvements
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
F
S
t
r
e
e
t
Turn Lane
Signal/
Turn Lanes
New Road
(Partially
funded)
•Improve/Widen
Road
•Add Sidewalk/
Crosswalk
•R-MU has no parking requirement
•Mostly mapped in higher transit areas
•Site has no current transit access
•Recommend “General Context” intended for low/no transit
access areas
•Ex: 1.25 parking stalls for 2-bedroom units, 2 spaces for
every 1,000 sq ft for retail
•R-MU has a maximum front setback (15')
•Public Utilities recommending condition for 50' setback for
canal water quality
•Setbacks conflict (15' vs 50’)
•Recommend condition waiving R-MU setback where canal
setback conflicts
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
R-MU ZONE CONDITIONS
•Freeway -Noise and pollution from vehicles
•Noise attenuation requirements condition
•30 dbs attenuation for bedrooms/25 dbs elsewhere
•Freeway landscaping (already required)help mitigate
pollution
•New condition not in report:
•MERV 13 rated air filters in HVAC systems to reduce
PM 2.5 air pollution from the freeway
•OHV Park (ATVs)-Noise and dust from ATVs:
•Intermittent noise can be very loud
•Dust has negative health impacts
•Recommend sound notice be provided to tenants/future
owners
•Recommend landscape buffer to help capture dust
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
FREEWAY NOISE/POLLUTION
I-215 bordering site on west
OHV State Park bordering site on east
•Applicant original RMF-75 zone request
•Concerns with single-use, no potential for local services (retail)
•Staff discussed with applicant
•Recommending the mixed-use residential zone to allow for services
•Considered other zones and impacts
•General Commercial/Industrial zones
•Higher impact uses, loud outdoor mechanical uses
•Residential/lower intensity commercial (office, retail, restaurant)
•Little to no negative impacts to recreational uses
•Additional recreational users
•Activity and eyes on the recreational spaces
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ALTERNATIVE ZONES/USES
•Applicant included a concept plan,
showing 1,800 dwelling units
•Planned Development would be
required due to having buildings
without street frontage
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CONCEPT SITE PLAN
•Two letters generally opposed to the residential zone
•One letter with conditions related to health/air quality
•No letter from community council
•RAC Use Clarification
•Doesn’t currently have drop-in play hours
•Use requires reservation and insurance policy
•Construction Mitigation
•Concerns regarding future construction activity
•Condition: Work on a condition regarding construction mitigation to limit impacts
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PUBLIC INPUT
RECOMMENDATION
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Staff recommends a positive recommendation to the City
Council with conditions as listed in the report:
1.Roadway/Traffic Improvements
2.Rose Park Lane Improvements
3.Sidewalk Improvements
4.Public Utility Improvements
5.City Drain Lift Station
6.City Drain Setbacks
7.R-MU Setback Modification
8.General Parking Requirement
9.Sound Attenuation
10.State Park Landscape Buffer
11.State Park Noise Disclosure
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
RECOMMENDATION
Additional conditions not in report:
12. HVAC Filters:
•That air filters with a minimum rating of MERV 13,
or equivalent, shall be used in all HVAC
equipment. This applies to any replacement filters.
13.Construction Impacts:
•That City Staff develop a condition to mitigate
impacts on adjacent properties from construction
activity on the 2350 and 2441 properties.
QUESTIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Daniel Echeverria // Senior Planner
daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com
PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 202333
c. Applicant Presentation Slides
Albuquerque | Boise | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Phoenix | Portland | Reno | Salt Lake Ci ty | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C.
2350 N Rose Park Lane
North Rose Park Lane Annexation and
Zoning Amendment
PLNPCM2021-01124 and
PLNPCM2021-01134
Salt Lake City Planning Commission–
February 22, 2023
Context Aerial
2
Context Aerial
3
Applicant
Parcel to be
Rezoned
Salt Lake City
Parcel to be
Annexed
State of Utah
Parcel to be
Annexed
Applicant
Parcel to be
Annexed and
Zoned
City Boundary
Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001)
4
Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001)
-Policy:
•Retain existing agricultural land uses along Rose Park Lane.
-Policy:
•If properties in the County are annexed into the City, retain the existing
land use development by zoning the properties either agricultural or
Open Space.
-Discussion:
•If and when existing properties in the County are annexed into the City
they should be zoned for either agricultural or open space land uses to
be compatible with the State recreational and open space land uses
between Redwood Road and Interstate-215.
5
Current Zoning
AG-2
BP
PL
M-1
6
Salt Lake County
Zoning: A-5
Proposed Zoning
R-MU
BP
PL
M-1
7
Site Plan
8
Site Plan
9
Site Rendering
10
Conditions of Approval
11
1.That the owner of the 2350 N and 2441 N properties enter into a development agreement with the City that does
the following:
i.Traffic Impact Study Improvements: That the improvements noted in the transportation impact study
addendum (dated 12/23/22), or equivalent improvements as determined by the Transportation Director,
are completed prior to any Certificates of Occupancy being issued for development of the property. If
other uses are proposed on site that differ from those evaluated in the study, the Transportation Director
shall have the ability to require additional traffic studies and may require different off-site improvements
for traffic impacts identified in such studies. (See Consideration 2)
ii.Rose Park Lane Improvements: The developer shall make all public right of way improvements to the
adjacent street Rose Park Lane that would be required by a subdivision process for each phase of their
development in compliance with the improvement standards of Chapter 20.40 “Improvements and Flood
Control” and Chapter 20.12 “Design Standards and Requirements” including, but not limited to, road
widening, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, and park strip landscaping. This may include additional
right-of-way improvement beyond the west-half of the adjacent Rose Park Lane right-of-way. (See
Consideration 2)
iii.Sidewalk Improvements: Sidewalk shall be installed both adjacent to the site and off-site to provide a
complete pedestrian connection from each phase of the development to existing sidewalk infrastructure
along the Regional Athletic Complex. Sidewalk shall have a minimum width of 5 feet. A crosswalk shall
also be installed across Rose Park Lane. The final configuration of the sidewalk and crosswalk is subject
to Transportation, Engineering, and Planning Director approval. (See Consideration 2)
iv.Public Utility Improvements: That the developer complies with all Public Utility Department requirements
to serve the development, including, but not limited to, installation of offsite water and sewer
improvements. (See Consideration 2)
v.City Drain Usage: If future development plans require discharging to City Drain, there may be offsite lift
station upgrades required as determined by the Public Utilities Director. (See Consideration 2)
vi.City Drain Setback: That a 50' setback from the City Drain apply to development of the property,
measured from the average high-water elevation of the City Drain. No buildings or parking pavement
shall be constructed within the setback. Fences, landscaping, sidewalks, and other improvements may
be located within the setback. (See Consideration 3)
Conditions of Approval
12
vii.R-MU Setback Conflicts: That the maximum front setback provisions of the R-MU ordinance in section
21A.24.170.E.8 do not apply where a greater setback is required along the City Drain (canal) or by the
Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback where conditioned to apply along Rose Park Lane. (See
Consideration 3)
viii.Parking Requirement: That any uses comply with the General Context minimum parking requirements
in Table 21A.44.040-A of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. This does not preclude modifications
through the options provided in the Zoning Ordinance. (See Consideration 3)
ix.Sound Attenuation: That residential uses be built with at least 30 dBs of sound attention in sleeping
areas and 25 dBs of attenuation in other areas, due to the proximity to the freeway and noise impacts.
A sound attenuation study would need to be provided to verify compliance, as described in City Code
18.88.020. (See Consideration 4)
x.State Park Adjacent Landscaping: That the landscaped setback requirements of the “Freeway Scenic
Landscape Setback” of 21A.48.110 (or its successor) be applied along the east property line where it
is directly across the street from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area (2462 N Rose Park
Lane). The requirement shall apply where new development occurs within 100' of that portion of the
east property line. (See Consideration 4)
xi.State Park Noise Disclosure: That a disclosure be provided to future residents, tenants, and owners
regarding the potential for high levels of noise from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area. (See
Consideration 4)
North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment
PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134
Salt Lake City Planning Commission –February 22, 2023
4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS
Updated 7/1/20
Zoning Amendment
Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Received By: Date Received: Project #:
Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Name of Applicant: Phone:
Address of Applicant:
E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax:
Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:
Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner:Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,058 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,058, plus fees for newspaper notice.
Plus additional fee for mailed public notices.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
SA
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
N
IN
G
10/28/2021
X
n
JAW Development, LLC; Attn.: Jeffrey D. Wright, P.E. and Jay Bollwinkel 801-302-2200; 801-364-9696
jeff@jwright.biz; jayb@grassligroup.com 801-386-6820; 801-364-9696
n
jeff@jwright.biz 801-302-2200
2350 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
357 West 6160 South, Murray, UT 84107
JWright Communities
Updated 7/1/20
St
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1.Project Description (please attach additional sheets.)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance?
If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planning Counter
PO Box 145471
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
In Person: Planning Counter
451 South State Street, Room 215
Telephone: (801) 535-7700
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
X
X
X
X
X
4842-6277-7292
EXHIBIT A
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PURPOSE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION:
•Acreage: 4.93 acres
•Address: 2350 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 (the “Property”)
•Current Zoning: Agricultural 2 Acre Minimum (AG-2)
•Proposed Zoning: High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-75)
2. A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED: The
Property is currently in Salt Lake City. The intention is to annex in adjoining land from
unincorporated Salt Lake County (the “Annexation Property”)1 and have a single, integrated
multifamily project located on the combined land. The requested rezone will facilitate the
development of this project, and will tie in infrastructure improvements intended for the area to
facilitate development. The conceptual site plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, contemplates,
among other things for both the Property and Annexation Property:
•11 buildings (5 stories – less than 75’ in height);
•164 units per building (500 sq. ft. minimum);
•Total density of 1,804 units;
•Building coverage of 29%;
•Parking Provided: Podium (2 levels each building) (1,760 parking spaces), and Surface
(775 parking spaces) (total of 2,535 parking spaces);
•Parking coverage of 30%; and
•Landscaping coverage of 41%.
3. REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
AREA:
•The Property is adjoined by the following zoning districts:
•North: N/A Unincorporated [Annexation Property (High Density Multi-Family
Residential District (RMF-75)) upon completion of annexation and rezone)]
•East: Open Space (OS)
•South: Single Family Residential (R-1-7000) separated by I-215 and Frontage Rd.
•West: Business Park (BP) separated by I-215
•The Property is located within an agricultural area of the Rose Park Small Area Plan
(adopted 2001), and other details therein are very limited. The Property is generally
located within the Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan (adopted 1992) but the
exact location of the Property is not discussed within such Master Plan. The Northwest
Jordan River/Airport Master Plan highlights the importance of eliminating use conflicts
between adjacent properties. Multi-family residential housing does not conflict with the
surrounding uses detailed above. Further, we intend to preserve open space and existing
1 The Annexation Property adjoins the Property to the north (2441 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116).
The Annexation Property is approximately 17.21 acres. Applicant is simultaneously seeking to annex the
Annexation Property into Salt Lake City with requested zoning of RMF -75.
4842-6277-7292
trees on the Property and the Annexation Property in accordance with the Salt Lake City
Urban Forestry.
•A rezone of the Property would support business park uses in the area, if they develop in
accordance with current zoning. The existing Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex
(RAC) to the east provides an adjacent, complimentary use. Multi-family residential
housing will involve efficient use of the Property and Annexation Property and
coordinate well with existing and planned public infrastructure.
•A rezone of the Property and the Annexation Property will support nearby developments,
including, without limitation, the RAC, and will provide infrastructure improvements for
the area to facilitate development. We have been in contact with the Utah Department of
Transportation, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, and others with respect to constructing
and/or contributing to: (i) Sports Park Boulevard, (ii) the upgrade of the intersection of
Sports Park Boulevard and Redwood Road, (iii) new water and sewer lines through
Sports Park Boulevard, and (iv) a Salt Lake City drain bridge on or near the Property.
The installation of Sports Park Boulevard and the upgrade of the aforementioned
intersection will reduce traffic congestion on Rose Park Lane after RAC sporting events.
The construction of new water and sewer lines and the drain bridge will facilitate
development in the area generally.
4.PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED:
•Property: Parcel Id. No. 08153010030000; AG-2 to RMF-75
•Annexation Property: Parcel Id. No. 08151000240000; Unincorporated to RMF-75
4842-6277-7292
EXHIBIT B
SITE PLAN
[See Attached]
20
21
23
54
13
65
48
68
18
46
12
2
5
44
95
45
56
22
42
11
3
13
5
44
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
DW
N
10
%
PARKING (
T
Y
P
)
25
'
25
'
25
'
25
'
40'Rose
P
a
r
k
L
a
n
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
Utah State Parks
Jordan River OHV Park
I-215
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
Club
House
PLAYGROUND
PERIMETER TRAIL
GATHERING AREA
FENCED DOG AREA
PERIMETER TRAIL
LAWN
SALT LAKE DRAIN
Pool
HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
12 MAY 2021SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Scale: 1" = 100'-0"
0 50' 100'200'
Plotted: 5/12/21 at 9:42am By: dans
P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-103 Site Plan MColor 210512.dwgFile Path:
SLC RAC
TRAIL CONNECTING TO
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
ROAD CONNECTING TO
N REDWOOD RD
23
13
65
48
68
18
46
12
2
5
44
95
45
56
22
42
11
3
13
5
44
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
10%
DWN
DWN
10%
PA
R
K
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
25'
40
'
Ro
s
e
P
a
r
k
L
a
n
e
County
U
t
a
h
S
t
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
s
Jo
r
d
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
O
H
V
P
a
r
k
Salt Lake City
N
R
E
D
W
O
O
D
R
D
JO
R
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
SPOTS PARK BOULEVARD
Cl
u
b
Ho
u
s
e
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
D
R
A
I
N
Po
o
l
HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
13 APRIL 2120SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Scale: 1" = 100'-0"
0 50' 100'200'
Plotted: 4/13/21 at 2:37pm By: tylerr
P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-2013 Site Plan MColor.dwgFile Path:
SLC RAC
TRAIL CONNECTING TO
JORDAN RIVER AND
LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL
ROAD CONNECTING TO
N REDWOOD RD
hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ
$QQH[DWLRQWR6DOW/DNH&LW\
K&&/ h^ KE>z
WƌŽũĞĐƚη͗ZĞĐĞŝǀĞĚLJ͗ĂƚĞZĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ͗
WƌŽũĞĐƚEĂŵĞ͗
W> ^ WZKs/ d, &K>>Kt/E'/E&KZDd/KE
/ƐƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂďŽƌĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ͍ FzĞƐFEŽ
ZĞƋƵĞƐƚ͗
>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͗
EĂŵĞŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗WŚŽŶĞ͗
ĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗
ͲŵĂŝůŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗Ğůůͬ&Ădž͗
ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛Ɛ/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͗
Î WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŵĂLJďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉůĂŶŶĞƌƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ
ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĨŽƌƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘ůůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐǁŝůůďĞĐŽƉŝĞĚĂŶĚ
ŵĂĚĞƉƵďůŝĐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůŽƌĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͕ĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨƉƵďůŝĐ
ƌĞǀŝĞǁďLJĂŶLJŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚƉĂƌƚLJ͘
s/>> KE^h>dd/KE
Î WůĂŶŶĞƌƐĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘WůĞĂƐĞĞŵĂŝů
njŽŶŝŶŐΛƐůĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
t, Z dK&/> d, KDW> d WW>/d/KE
ƉƉůLJŽŶůŝŶĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝƚŝnjĞŶĐĐĞƐƐWŽƌƚĂů͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƐƚĞƉͲďLJͲƐƚĞƉŐƵŝĚĞƚŽůĞĂƌŶ
ŚŽǁƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚŽŶůŝŶĞ͘
Z Yh/Z &
&ŝůŝŶŐĨĞĞŽĨΨϭ͕ϯϰϰ
WůƵƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨĞĞĨŽƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƉƵďůŝĐŶŽƚŝĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͘
^/'EdhZ
/ĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ͕ĂŶŽƚĂƌŝnjĞĚƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĐŽŶƐĞŶƚĂƵƚŚŽƌŝnjŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƚŽĂĐƚĂƐĂŶĂŐĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘
^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨKǁŶĞƌŽƌŐĞŶƚ͗ĂƚĞ͗
6$
/
7
/
$
.
(
&
,
7
<
3
/
$
1
1
,
1
*
ϮϯϱϬE͘ZŽƐĞWĂƌŬ>Ŷ͕͘^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ͕hƚĂŚϴϰϭϭϲ
:tĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕>>͖ƚƚŶ͗͘:ĞĨĨƌĞLJ͘tƌŝŐŚƚ͕W͘ ͘ĂŶĚ:ĂLJŽůůǁŝŶŬĞů ϴϬϭͲϯϬϮͲϮϮϬϬ͖ϴϬϭͲϯϲϰͲϵϲϵϲ
ũĞĨĨΛũǁƌŝŐŚƚ͘ďŝnj͖ũĂLJďΛŐƌĂƐƐůŝŐƌŽƵƉ͘ĐŽŵ
ϯϱϳtĞƐƚϲϭϲϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕DƵƌƌĂLJ͕hdϴϰϭϬϳ
ϴϬϭͲϯϴϲͲϲϴϮϬ͖ϴϬϭͲϯϲϰͲϵϲϵϲ
y
ŶŶĞdžϮϴ͘ϮϴĂĐƌĞƐŝŶƚŽ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ͕ĨƌŽŵƵŶŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJ
KǁŶĞƌΘZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ
March 24, 2022 (via email)Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Hunter Stables
PLNPCM2021-01124
hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ
^ƚ
Ă
Ĩ
Ĩ
Z
Ğ
ǀ
ŝ
Ğ
ǁ
^hD/dd>Z Yh/Z D Ed^
ϭ͘>ĞƚƚĞƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶ
ϭ͘ůĞƚƚĞƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞDĂLJŽƌŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ͘
Ϯ͘WůĞĂƐĞĂŶƐǁĞƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽŶĂŶĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƐŚĞĞƚͬƐ͗
ϭ͘ tŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚ͍
Ϯ͘ tŚĂƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJĂŶŽƚŚĞƌŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJ͕ĐŽƵŶƚLJ͕ŽƌƐƉĞĐŝĂůĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͍
ϯ͘ WůĞĂƐĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨLJĂŶLJůĞŐĂůŽƌĨĂĐƚƵĂůďĂƌƌŝĞƌƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞůLJĂĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽďĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨ
ĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͍
ϯ͘WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗
ϭ͘ĚŝŐŝƚĂů^ŝĚǁĞůůŵĂƉŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͘
Ϯ͘ĚŝŐŝƚĂů;W&ͿĐŽƉLJŽĨƚŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶWůĂƚ͘
ϯ͘dŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶWůĂƚƐŚŽƵůĚƐŚŽǁƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗
Ă͘ƚŚĂƚŝƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĂŶĚĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚďLJĂůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚůĂŶĚƐƵƌǀĞLJŽƌ͖
ď͘ĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůLJĚƌĂǁŶƚŽƐĐĂůĞ͖
Đ͘ĂĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůĞŐĂůĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͖
Ě͘ƚŽƚĂůĂĐƌĞĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͖ĂŶĚ
Ğ͘ƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞďůŽĐŬƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕ŝƚLJƚƚŽƌŶĞLJ͕ŝƚLJZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͕
ĂŶĚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͘
ϰ͘EĂŵĞĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘
ϱ͘WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐǁŚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶ͘
x ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐĂŶĚŶŽƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƌĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘
x dŚĞƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘
&/>>/E't/d,^>d>< KhEdz> Z<͛^K&&/
Î WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĂĐŽƉLJŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵƵƐƚĂůƐŽďĞĨŝůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJůĞƌŬ͛Ɛ
KĨĨŝĐĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐZĞĐĞŝƉƚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͛ƐŽĨĨŝĐĞ͘dŚĞŽƵŶƚLJůĞƌŬ͛ƐŽĨĨŝĐĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚ͗ϮϬϬϭ^ŽƵƚŚ^ƚĂƚĞ
^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ZŽŽŵ^ͲϭϭϬϬ
/EKDW> d WW>/d/KE^t/>>EKd Wd
ͺͺͺͺͺͺ/ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞŝƚĞŵƐĂďŽǀĞƚŽďĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞŵLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞ
ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞĚ͘/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐǁŝůůŶŽƚĂĐĐĞƉƚŵLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƵŶůĞƐƐĂůůŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝƚĞŵƐĂƌĞ
ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƉĂĐŬĂŐĞ͘
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ
W d/d/KEdKEE yWZKW Zdz/EdK^>d>< /dz:hZ/^/d/KE
;ƚŚŝƐƉĂŐĞŵĂLJďĞĚƵƉůŝĐĂƚĞĚŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJͿ
EĂŵĞŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ĂƚĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
127,&( 7KHUHZLOOEHQRSXEOLFHOHFWLRQRQWKHDQQH[DWLRQSURSRVHGE\WKLVSHWLWLRQEHFDXVH8WDKODZGRHV
QRWSURYLGHIRUDQDQQH[DWLRQWREHDSSURYHGE\YRWHUVDWDSXEOLFHOHFWLRQ
,I\RXVLJQWKLVSHWLWLRQDQGODWHUGHFLGHWKDW\RXGRQRWVXSSRUWWKHSHWLWLRQ\RXPD\ZLWKGUDZ\RXU
VLJQDWXUHE\VXEPLWWLQJDVLJQHGZULWWHQZLWKGUDZDOWRWKH6DOW/DNH&LW\5HFRUGHU,I\RXFKRRVHWR
ZLWKGUDZ\RXUVLJQDWXUH\RXVKDOOGRVRQRODWHUWKDQGD\VDIWHU6DOW/DNH&LW\UHFHLYHVQRWLFHWKDWWKH
SHWLWLRQKDVEHHQFHUWLILHG
ƐĂŶŽǁŶĞƌŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŽ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ:ƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ͕/ĂŐƌĞĞƚŽƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶ͘
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ
:tĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕>>͖ƚƚŶ͗͘:ĞĨĨƌĞLJ͘tƌŝŐŚƚ͕W͘ ͘ĂŶĚ:ĂLJŽůůǁŝŶŬĞů
ϯϱϳtĞƐƚϲϭϲϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕DƵƌƌĂLJ͕hdϴϰϭϬϳ
01/0 138z/7. 1z
233 z/ z53!z
/6-49z/ z2)3z)( vz
vz
vddz
"z oCz z z z ?CMZJz BlQrz do\bz BC^\dCz =ZBzd=rzeK=ez #z oCz =Vz =_Cz eKCz
\oZC_dz \DzeLCz ^_\z C_frz MBCZeMGCBz Mz eKCz =hg=@KCBz =^^QM@=eM\[z =[Bz eK=ez eKCz de=eCWCZedz KC_CMZz @\Ze=M[CBz
=[Bz eKCz MZH_X=fM\[z ^_\mMBCBz M[z eKCz =fg=@KCBz ^Q=Zdz =[Bz \eKC_z CpKM?Medz =_CzM[z =QQz _Cd^C@edz e_lCz =[Bz @\__C@ez
e\ez eKCz ?Cdez \EzWrz \l_z PZ\oQCBJC
z "z =Qd\z =@OZ\oQCBJCz eK=ez #z oCz K=mCz _C@CMmCBz o`MefC[z M[dkl@eM\Zdz
_CJ=_BMZJz eKCz ^_\@Cddz I_z oKM@Kz #z oCz =Wz =_Cz =^^QrM[Jz=ZBz eKCz2=Qez*=OCz Mfrz 0Q=[ZMZJz 2e=Fz K=nCz
MZBM@=eCBzeKCrz=_Cz=m=MQ=?QCze\z=ddMdezVCzMZzW=ON[JzeKNdz=^^QM@=eM\Zz
$ - +)-
%""-,'-
-
0_\^C_erz/o[C_z
0_]^C_irz/oZC_z
,\e=_rz
1CdMBMZJzM[z2=Sfz*=OCz\l[ftz 5e=Kz
+rz@\YMddM\[zCp^M_Cdz &zz
wz $z%z#z oCz<x A
Ta:z;z eKCz\oZC_zdz \DzeKCz_C=Qz ^_\^C`erz BCd@_M?CBz MZz eKCz =fj=@KCBz=^^QM@=eM\Zz B\z=leQz \_MuCBz=dzWrz\z _z =JC[edz '=sz\QQoMZPCRz z e\z_C^_CdCZezVCzldz
_CJ=_BMZJz eKCz =fj=@KCBz =^^QM@=eM\[z =[Bz g\z =^^C=_z \Zz Wrz z\l_z ?CK=QDz ?CH_Cz =[rz =BVM[Mde_=eMmCz \_z
QCJMdQ=eMmCz ?\Brz M[z eKCz Merz@\ZdMBC_MZJz eKMdz =^^QM@=eM\[z >Bze\z =@ez M[z=QQz _Cd^C@edz =dz \l_z =JCZez M[z V=eeC_dz
^C_f=MZMZJze\zeKCz=ef=@KCBz=^^QM@=eM\Zz
0_\^C_irz/o[C_z
0_\^C_erz/oZC_z
=hCyMdzB=rz\Dz
z z ^C_d\Z=Urz=^^C=_CBz ?CH_CzWCz
eKCz dMJZC_dz \DzeKCz =JCZez =lez cu=eM\Zz oKz BQrz =@P[\oQCBJCBz e\z XCz
eK=ezeKCrzCpC@leCBzeKCzd=WCz
$!!- + *-
&##-,(-
-
,\e=_tz
1CdMBMZJzMZz2=Qez*=OCz\lZerz5e=Kz
+rz@\VWNddM\ZzCq^M_Cdz
145 W 200 S – Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 – 801-364-9696 – www.grassligroup.com
0DUFK, 202
Mayor Mendenhall
Salt Lake City
451 S. State Street, Suite 306
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Subject: Annexation of Acres on 2664 North Rose Park Lane
Dear Mayor Mendehall,
We formally request the annexation of the above referenced parcel to be classified as RMF75
zoning. We have attended the Westpointe Community Council and presented our project twice
to gather input. We are now ready to proceed with Planning Commission review of our project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jay Bollwinkel, Principal
MGB+A, Inc.
145 W 200 S – Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 – 801-364-9696 – www.grassligroup.com
ϭ͘What is the current use of the land? – ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ
Ϯ͘What services are currently provided by another municipality, county, or special district? -
EŽŶĞ
ϯ͘Please identify any legal or factual barriers that would negatively affect the probability of
annexation of the subject property? – EŽŶĞ
tĞŚĂǀĞƌĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŚŝƐĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚǁŽ;ϮͿƉƵďůŝĐůLJ
ƉĂƌĐĞůƐ͕ƉĞƌƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJ͘dŚĞƐĞƉĂƌĐĞůƐĂƌĞŽǁŶĞĚďLJ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJŽƌƉ͘
;ƉĂƌĐĞůηϬϴϭϱϭϬϬϬϯϬϬϬϬϬͿĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨhƚĂŚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶƐŽĨWĂƌŬƐΘZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶͲ;ƉĂƌĐĞůη
ϬϴϭϱϭϬϬϬϮϵϬϬϬϬͿ͘
Property Owners:
Jeff Wright
JWright Communities, LLC
357 W 6160 S
Murray, UT 84107
All ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞproperty owners support this annexation
1
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
TO: CITY RECORDER’S OFFICE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH:
The undersigned owner (the “Petitioner”) of a portion of the Property (defined below)
submits this Petition for Annexation (this “Petition”) and respectfully represents the following:
1.This Petition is made in accordance with the requirements of Utah Code § 10-2-
403.
2.The real property subject to this Petition: (i) contains land that is privately-owned
by the Petitioner, (ii) contains land that is publicly owned by Salt Lake City Corp.
and the State of Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, (iii) contains
approximately 28.28 acres, (iv) is located within the unincorporated area of Salt
Lake County, (v) is contiguous to the northern boundary of Salt Lake City’s
limits, and (vi) is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto (the
“Property”).
3.The signature affixed hereto is that of the Petitioner and who, by so affixing its
signature, states and confirms that:
a.the Petitioner is the owner of all private land area within the Property;
b. the Property is accurately described and depicted on the recordable map,
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, which was prepared by a licensed surveyor
and which is made a part hereof by such reference;
c.in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-403(2)(a)(i)(A), a notice of intent to
file a petition was properly filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City,
Utah, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and
d.in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-403(2)(a)(i)(B), a notice was properly
mailed to each “affected entity”, including, without limitation, the public
entities that own a portion of the Property, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” , as evidenced by that certificate of completion
attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
4.The Petitioner hereby designates the following person as the sole sponsor, and the
contact sponsor, for this Petition. The sponsor’s contact information is as follows:
Jay Bollwinkel
145 W 200 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
jayb@grassligroup.com
5.The Property is not, in whole or in part, subject to any other petition for annexation
that was previously filed that has not been denied, rejected, or granted, in
accordance to Utah Code § 10-2-403(4).
2
WHEREFORE, Petitioner hereby requests that this Petition be considered, accepted, and
certified by the Salt Lake City Recorder in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-405.
DATED this day of March 2022.
PETITIONER:
JWright Communities
By:
Name: Jeffery D. Wright
Its:
NOTICE: THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC ELECTION ON THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY
THIS PETITION BECAUSE UTAH LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN ANNEXATION TO
BE APPROVED BY VOTERS AT A PUBLIC ELECTION. IF YOU SIGN THIS PETITION AND
LATER DECIDE THAT YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE PETITION, YOU MAY WITHDRAW
YOUR SIGNATURE BY SUBMITTING A SIGNED, WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL WITH THE
RECORDER OR CLERK OF SALT LAKE CITY. IF YOU CHOOSE TO WITHDRAW YOUR
SIGNATURE, YOU SHALL DO SO NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SALT
LAKE CITY RECEIVES NOTICE THAT THE PETITION HAS BEEN CERTIFIED.
CONTACT SPONSOR:
By:
Name: Jay Bollwinkel
Its:
23rd
3
EXHIBIT “A”
Recordable Map or Plat
[See Attached]
4
4852-6058-5424.4
5
EXHIBIT “B”
Notice of Intent to File Petition & Notice to Affected Entities
[See Attached]
6
7
8
9
10
11
EXHIBIT “C”
Certificate of Completion
[See Attached]
12
13
14
5. MAILING LIST
Name Mailing Address City/State ZIP
PROVO-JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY 1545 WEST 1000 NORTH SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ATTN Nancy B Regier
UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS & RECREATION 1596 W North Temple SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
STATE OF UTAH AND PROVO-JORDAN RIVER
PARKWAY AUTHORITY STATE OFFICE BUILDING RM 404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
JWRIGHT COMMUNITIES 357 W 6160 S MURRAY UT 84107
ATTN RHONDA DEVEREAUX
HAPPY HORSE RANCH LLC 88 E EDGECOMBE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ERIC PORTER 2800 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ATTN: PROPERTY MANAGER
STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS AND 1594 W NORTHTEMPLE ST # 116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ATTN: JEFF WRIGHT
JWRIGHT COMMUNITIES, LLC 357 W 6160 S MURRAY UT 84107
ATTN: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
ETG LV TR 2125 N 2800 W BRIGHAM CITY UT 84302
ATTN: TAX ADM DIV 513-5346
ROSE PARK STAKE OF CHURCH OF JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150
PARK MANAGEMENT II, LLC 1302 W MILLBRIDGE LN WEST BOUNTIFUL UT 84087
ATTN: HAMILTON PARTNERS
HAMILTON I-215 LOGISTIC CENTER LLC 222 S MAIN ST # 1760 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
LBA RVI-COMPANY XLIII, LLC PO BOX 847 CARLSBAD CA 92018
CURRENT RESIDENT 2441 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2575 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2800 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2462 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2440 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2350 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2075 W 2670 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2075 W 2670 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2476 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2596 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2520 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2390 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2320 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CURRENT RESIDENT 2220 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ATTN DANIEL ECHEVERRIA
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114
CAP Plan,
Matrix, &
Policy
Goals/Metrics
Council Briefing
July 18, 2023
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson,
Aaron Price, and Mike Atkinson
Capital Asset Planning Model
Funding Sources
Funding Source Description
Transportation Fund Quarter Cent Sales Tax - Transportation and Streets projects
Bonds General Obligation and Revenue
Special Assessment Area Central Business District - Economic Promotion
Grants Federal, State, County
Class C Roads State Gas Tax
General Fund Most flexible funding source, can be spent on any project
Public/Private Partnerships Potential future funding source
Impact Fees Fire, Parks, Police, and Transportation/Streets
Donations Individuals and foundations
Capital Asset Plan Elements
Division Master Plans Division specific documents
RDA & Public Utilities Input Strategic Collaboration
10 Year Division
Capital Planning Long-term capital planning
Annual Constituency
Requests
Reviewed to align with
internal requests & not
ranked
Impact Fee Facilities Plans Determine Impact Fee
Eligibility
Capital Asset Plan
Funding Sources
Committees
Finance
Committee
Provide detailed
information on
Funding Sources
CAP Committee
Internal project
ranking and
submittal to CDCIP
Board
CAP Committee Scoring
General Fund
Capital Asset Plan
CAP Manager
Funding Sources
Final Scoring & Budget
Finance
Committee
CAP Committee
Once projects have
been evaluated by the CAP
Committee, they are forwarded to
the CDCIP Board for
recommendation to the Mayor
and City Council.
Mayor City Council
Criteria Critical
Failure
Legal
Obligation
Risk: Life,
Health &
Safety
Outside
Funding
Completed
Project
Design
Promote
Equity
Environmental
Conservation Beautification Efficient
Investment
Workforce
Support
Community
Request
Points
(0-4):4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Y/N
[Project
Name]
Submitting a request:
When submitting a request, please provide answers to the following questions in addition to any information
available related to the criteria.
1. Describe the project.
2. What is the problem the department is trying to solve?
3. Who will the project serve, and how will it improve services?
4. What is the requested timing of project completion, and what is the implication if the request is delayed or denied?
5. Is this a replacement or a new capital asset project?
6. Is there an estimated cost at this time?
7. What is the current annual maintenance and the estimated future annual maintenance?
8. Has the capital asset project been scoped?
9. Has the capital asset project been designed?
*Criteria has been developed in accordance with Resolution 29 of 2017 and the Mayor's Goals of: Our Growth, Our
Environment, Our Communities, Our City Family.
CAP Matrix*
2019 Council Policy Goals and Metrics
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-Level Cost Estimate
Bring all facilities out of deferred
maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding need identified in
Public Services’ Facilities Dashboard that
tracks each asset
$6.8 million annually or
$68 million over ten years
Expand the City's urban trail network
with an emphasis on East-West
connections
Total paved/unpaved network miles; number
and funding for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line completed
$21 million for 9-Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition index of
the City's street network from poor to
fair
Overall Condition Index (OCI); pavement
condition survey every five years
$133 million cost estimate
(in addition to existing
funding level)
Implement the Foothill Trails Master
Plan
Distance of improved trails completed;
number and funding for improved trailheads $TBD
Advance the City’s sustainability goals
through building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and maintenance
projects over creating new assets
Number, funding level and ratio of renewed
assets vs. new assets $TBD
2023 Mayor Goals – CIP Related
Our Environment
•Work with the City’s Sustainable Infrastructure Steering Committee to draft and propose internal
policy requiring capital projects to consider environmental justice impacts and incorporate green
and sustainable infrastructure.
•Complete Foothills Trails Master Plan evaluation and Plan addendum in collaboration with key
stakeholders and indigenous leaders.
Our Community
•Develop a 5-Year Strategic Plan for Planned Growth to more effectively utilize impact fees for
community benefits.
•Complete the Neighborhood Byway Design Guidebook and finish design and/or construction of at
least four neighborhood byways throughout the city.
•Implement action items on the Vision Zero program to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities.
•Propose adoption of Life on State to improve transportation and land uses along the corridor.
THANK YOU
Presented by Department of Finance
CAP Matrix*
Cri�cal Failure:
When reviewing this criterium, par�cular focus should be paid to whether the request will
prevent a cri�cal failure of a structure. Does this project follow the Sustainability Ordinance?
Legal Obliga�ons:
When reviewing this criterium, considera�ons include coming into compliance with ordinances
and execu�ve orders, various contractual agreements, or state and federal mandates.
Risk: Life, Health, and Safety:
When reviewing this criterium, par�cular focus should be paid to whether the request will
correct various types of code viola�ons or increase safety/reduce crime.
Outside Funding:
This criterium assesses whether there is outside funding support for a par�cular ini�a�ve,
including federal and state grants, coordina�on with other agencies, public/private
partnerships, or dona�ons. When analyzing outside funding, it should be noted how much of
the funding will s�ll need to be provided by the City in addi�on to any outside support.
Project Design Complete:
This is in accordance with Resolu�on Number 29 of 2017 which states, "The Council intends to
follow a guideline of approving construc�on funding for a capital project in the fiscal year
immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less
accurate as more �me passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-es�ma�ng project costs by
funding capital projects in a �mely manner.”
Promote Equity:
Considera�on should be given to underserved areas of the city in order to improve the
infrastructure of the city as a whole ("close the gap amongst neighborhoods") rather than
improving some areas and allowing others to deteriorate. A map showing the condi�on of the
infrastructure of the city could help in performing this analysis.
Environmental Conserva�on:
This criterium involves analyzing whether a project provides environmentally sustainable
solu�ons or helps preserve natural resources (watersheds, rivers, green space, etc.)
Efficient Investment:
The main considera�ons for efficient investment are whether a project func�ons to increase
revenue or reduce expenses. Projec�ons on this front should be as accurate as possible and
veted through the Department of Finance.
Workforce Support:
This criterium focuses on whether a project supports the physical, mental, or economic well-
being of City employees, in keeping with the Mayor's goal of suppor�ng "Our City Family".
Beau�fica�on:
This relates to aesthe�c improvements including Art incorpora�on, Historic Preserva�on, Site
Beau�fica�on, and other opportuni�es that express the City's value for the arts and improving
quality of life through projects that go beyond func�onal efficiency.
Community Request:
While the financial limita�ons of any municipality inhibit the ability to act on every request - the
concerns and desires of our residents are vital to understanding how best to allocate our limited
resources, therefore, projects that are closely aligned with community requests should be given
proper considera�on.
*Criteria has been developed in accordance with Resolu�on 29 of 2017 and the Mayor's Goals
of: Our Growth, Our Environment, Our Communi�es, Our City Family.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY24
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: August 15, 2023
RE: Budget Amendment Number 1 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024
Budget Amendment Number One includes ten proposed amendments, ($2,139,398) in revenues and $14,892,993 in
expenditures of which $250,000 is from General Fund Balance, requesting changes to five funds. Most expenses in
this budget amendment are housekeeping items found in section D. The transmittal included a separate ordinance
for item D-2 that would correct a fee in the Consolidated Fee Schedule or CFS. The budget amendment and the CFS
amendment will be listed as two separate items with two separate ordinances and votes on a Council formal
meeting agenda.
Fund Balance
If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance (including Funding Our Future) would be
projected at 11.38% which is $7,190,963 below the 13% minimum target. The FY2024 annual budget had a
projected Fund Balance slightly above 13% of ongoing General Fund revenues. The decrease from 13% to 11.38% is
caused by an $8.5 million estimate of expense changes (e.g., prepaid expenses, accounts payable outstanding). This
is shown in the Fund Balance projections table on page three of this staff report. The actual expense changes are
pending confirmation by the annual financial audit which is typically completed in December. The Finance
Department does an expense change projection each year using a conservative approach (estimates expenses on the
high-end). The actual amount could vary from the $8.5 million estimate. Historically the amount has ranged from
approximately $4 million to $8 million. The projected Fund Balance does not include unused FY2023 budgets that
drop to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year. The General Fund typically sees $2 million to $3 million drop to
Fund Balance annually, which would increase the fund balance percentage. It also does not include actual revenues
through the end of the last fiscal year. Those amounts are confirmed by the annual financial audit.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration for additional information about the $8.5
million of estimated expense changes and whether the estimates may have changed since the annual budget
deliberations in May and June.
Two Straw Poll Requests
The Administration is requesting straw polls for two items: A-1 Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at
Riverside Park ($218,000 to the CIP Fund), and A-2 Funding for fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Initiative
($250,000 from the General Fund Balance). Additionally, the Council may wish to note that item A-3 is a request
to refund Impact and Permit Fees for the Ivory University House which has a separate briefing and staff report.
The total amount being refunded is approximately $2.4 million.
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
Project Timeline:
Set Date: August 15, 2023
1st Briefing: August 15, 2023
Public Hearing: Sept. 5, 2023
2nd Briefing: Sept. 5 or 12, 2023 (if needed)
Potential Action: Sept. 19, 2023
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments
As this is the first budget amendment of the new fiscal year, there are no revenue projection updates to report at
this time.
Fund Balance Chart
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures.
Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#1.
Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 11.38%.
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment that reduces revenue by ($2,139,398)
and new expenses of $14,892,993. The amendment proposes changes in five funds, with no
increases in FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $250,000 from the General Fund
balance. The proposal includes ten initiatives for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Impact Fees Update
The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as
of 7/20/23. As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2024 and
FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated in October 2020. The Administration
is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $273,684 More than two years away -
Parks $16,793,487 More than two years away -
Police $1,402,656 More than two years away -
Transportation $6,304,485 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items
(Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions
from the transmittal for some of these items)
A-1: Donation for Northeast Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park ($218,000 Donation to
the CIP Fund)
The Council approved $300,000 of parks impact fees in FY2023 CIP to add four light poles and structures to the
northeast ballfield at Riverside Park (the red marker in the below map). There are currently three baseball fields
used by the leagues and a fourth practice field. This would be the first city-owned baseball field to receive lighting.
The City received a donation of $218,000, which will allow the northwest ballfield to also be lit by the project. The
total project budget would be $518,000.
Straw Poll Request: The Administration requested a straw poll to allow for the receipt of the contract for the
entire project.
A-2: One-time Additional Funding for Fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Events ($250,000 from
General Fund Balance)
The Council approved $500,000 in Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023 for downtown street enhanced activation
over the 2023 summer. The Council re-appropriated the funds in the FY2024 annual budget and expanded the
scope to include open streets events in the fall. This item is requesting an additional $250,000 for a total budget
of $750,000. The additional funding would be used to purchase street infrastructure (e.g., bollards, Trax barriers,
and parking signs) instead of renting it. The street infrastructure would be stored by the Streets Division when not
in use. The Administration stated the street infrastructure would be available for other special events to use.
The open streets event this fall would be shorter than the versions held over the summer the past few years. The
events would be run for eight weeks instead of 15 weeks and not include Thursdays. The events would still be on Main
Street from South Temple to 400 South. Main Street would be closed from Noon to 2am on Fridays and Saturdays.
The events this fall would have enhanced activation and programming on every block including a “street market.”
During the annual budget, the Council discussed how the end of temporary pandemic regulations made holding the
open streets events more difficult such as permitting price and timing flexibility and loosening of outdoor dining and
retail rules. The Administration stated a new permit was created to facilitate temporary extensions of premises during
open streets events. Another adjustment is that the Economic Development Department is applying for the special
event permit which includes taking on liability as the permit holder. The Downtown Alliance will continue to provide
event management and support services.
Policy Questions:
➢Calendar Year 2024 Open Streets Funding Needs – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to coordinate funding and timing of potential downtown Open Streets events in 2024
and potential implementation of a permanent pedestrian mall on Main Street. A study is currently
underway to provide options for creating a Main Street pedestrian mall downtown. The study results are
expected to be available next year. The study website is available at https://open-main-street-
deagis.hub.arcgis.com/
➢Larger Activation and Programming Budget – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what the
larger activation and programming budget ($185,000 instead of $45,000) could be used for and what
differences the public could see downtown.
➢City-owned Street Infrastructure Available to Other Special Events – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how the street infrastructure would be made available to other special events such as
whether a first-come first served approach is used, and would the cost be at fair market rental values or
discounted.
➢Permitting Changes and Liability – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether there are
legislative changes to City Code or policies that could further facilitate open streets events. The Council
may also wish to ask whether the event budget should include a line item for liability since the Economic
Development Department is taking on that potential cost as the permit holder.
➢Coordination with 200 South Reconstruction Project – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
whether the 200 South street reconstruction project could be an impediment to the fall open streets
events as currently envisioned.
A-3: Funding Impact Fees and Permit Fees Refund to Ivory University House ($754,483.23 from
General Fund Balance and $1,648,715 from Impact Fees)
A Public Benefits Analysis has been transmitted to the Council pertaining to the refunding of building permits and
impact fees to Ivory University House L3C. The total amount being refunded is approximately $2.4 million. This
amount consists of $754,483 in building permit fees and $1,648,715 in impact fees. Should the Public Benefits
Analysis be approved by the Council, a budget will need to be in place for the refunds to happen. This will be
accounted for by showing negative revenue for both the Impact Fees and Permit Fees being refunded.
Staff note: This item is scheduled to have a separate Council briefing and staff report. The Administration
transmitted a public benefits analysis separately from this budget amendment. The below tables are copied from the
public benefits analysis showing a breakout of the impact fees and permit fees by type.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section (None)
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section (None)
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: AFSCME MOU Allocations (Budget Neutral – reallocating existing $511,001 Non-departmental
General Fund budget to the appropriate department budgets)
This is a follow up housekeeping item from the adopted annual budget which included a $511,001 line item for salary
adjustments based on the negotiated Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the American Federation
of State, County, and Municipal Employees or AFSCME local union. The proposal is to move the $511,001 out of Non-
departmental and into the six department budgets with AFSCME represented employees. There wasn’t enough time
between the conclusion of negotiations and Council adoption of the annual budget to include this breakout in the
FY2024 Key Changes spreadsheet.
AFSCME MOU Allocations – 911 Dispatch GF $104,175
AFSCME MOU Allocations – CAN GF $3,963
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Police GF $55,928
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Justice Courts GF $40
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Lands GF $36,737
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Services GF $310,158
D-2: Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) Change (Budget Neutral)
Correction to CFS - Engineering Fees: During the FY24 budget, an increase in the engineering fee for lane closure was
recommended by the administration. The intent was to separate the fee for sidewalk and lane closures, charging a
higher rate for lane closures as justified by cost analysis. The increased fee was inadvertently applied to both sidewalk
and lane closures. This correction will create a separate line item for these two types of closures with the appropriate
fee applied to each.
Staff note: The below table is a red lined version showing the proposed corrections to the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
The transmittal included a separate ordinance for this amendment to the CFS. The budget amendment and the CFS
amendment will be listed as two separate items and votes on a Council formal meeting agenda.
D-3: Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope (Budget Neutral - $1,359,130 in the CIP Fund)
The CIP application for "Three Creeks West - Roadways" includes only a single residential stretch of 1300 S, North of
California Ave. that fronts ten residential properties and the Jordan River. This constituent application was two-part,
with roadway reconstruction and utilities.
This FY22-23 CIP request was submitted as follows: "Reconstruct a block of 1300 South and a block of 1000 West
along Jordan River and install badly needed sewers. Will improve multimodal transportation, park access, public
safety, and basic sanitation, expanding on the success of Three Creek Confluence Park."
The subsequent estimate did not fully account for new utilities, nor was it eligible for utilities, as improvements for
private development (which the applicant would benefit from) are not paid for by the City. Furthermore, if the sewer
line was installed the property owners fronting a new line would be required by the health code to tie in at their own
expense. After the City engaged with the impacted property owners not all of them agreed. Therefore, we proposed to
move forward with this application with a scope limited to roadway reconstruction. No additional funds are required.
The Engineering Division provided the following potential project timeline for the rescoped project. It’s important to
note that construction could extend into 2025 pending resolution of permit complexities related to working adjacent
to the Jordan River:
-Fall 2023 – Advertise RFQ for Design Consultant
-Winter 2023 / 2024 – Project Design
-Spring 2024 – Construction Bidding & Contracting
-Summer to Fall 2024 potentially extending to 2025 – Construction
D-4: Reallocate Bond Funds from 1700 East to 2100 South Reconstruction ($1.5 Million Reallocation
in CIP Fund)
Public Services Engineering and CAN Transportation are recommending moving the bond funds from 1700 East to
2100 South to supplement the expanded scope and community-desired elements. The following are reasons that
support the delay in the funding for the construction of 1700 East:
-There is a high likelihood that Highland High School will be rebuilt in the next few years, which would
likely damage the pavement and result in some needed design changes to accommodate the new school
layout.
-Public Utilities is planning a potential storm drain upgrade that would require significant roadway
excavation shortly after the original 1700 East reconstruction project timeline.
-The remaining bond funding is not adequate to fully reconstruct the segment of roadway and safety
improvements necessary for a large school.
-Certain elements of the desired 2100 South reconstruction project may not be completed without this
adjustment.
The Engineering Division provided the below table summarizing the total project funding and sources for
reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business District (700 East to 1300 East). Construction level
designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid when exact costs would be
known. Additional funding based on the current designs might be needed and would come to the Council in a future
budget opening. Alternatively, elements of the project designs could be removed to stay within existing budget
constraints. The Division is evaluating increased eligibility for transportation impact fees.
Source Amount
Original 2100 South Bond Amount $8,000,000
Impact Fees $660,410 or more
Class C $814,027 minimum
Remaining contingency from 300 West
project that can be applied to 2100 South
$850,000
2022-2023 CIP Complete Streets $300,000
Anticipated funding from 2023-2024 CIP $2,750,000 (of $3,293,000 – the
remainder goes to Virginia Street)
Anticipated funding from BA1 $1,500,000
Total $14,874,437
Note: Public Utilities elements are funded separately and not reflected in the table
The project webpage is publicly available at www.2100southslc.org
D-5: Rescope Bridge Rehabilitation Funding as Local Match to Federal Funding for Rebuilding Three
Bridges over the Jordan River ($6,348,507 in the CIP Fund)
The City anticipates receiving approximately $21.6 million to help rebuild three City bridges over the Jordan River at
650 North, 200 South, and 500 South. UDOT would serve as the funding administrator as well as perform the design
and construction of the bridges. The City would own and be responsible for maintenance of the rebuilt bridges. The
first rebuild could begin in calendar year 2024 but is more likely in 2025. The funding is from the Federal Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law’s new Bridge Formula Program. Utah, like other states, are annually awarded funds over five years
determined by a formula. The minimum annual award for every state is at least $45 million. The Federal funding goes
through UDOT which ultimately selects and awards funding to individual projects.
The Council approved $2,648,507 in FY2021 CIP to rehabilitate the bridges at 650 North and 400 South over the
Jordan River. Inspections later determined the bridges should be fully rebuilt partly as a result of damage from the
March 2020 earthquake and continued deterioration. $3.7 million was approved by the Council in FY2023 CIP for
rebuilding the 650 North bridge. The combined $6,348,507 is proposed to be rescoped as local matching funds to the
Federal funding.
The 500 South bridge would be fully covered by $7.2 million of Federal funding. The 650 North and 200 South
bridges have a 6.77% required local match for the $14.4 million grant which would be $974,880. This leaves a
remaining budget of $5,373,627. The Engineering Division anticipates a significant amount of the $5.3 million would
be needed to relocate public utilities. Private utilities are relocated at no cost to the City as a requirement of their
franchise agreements. Utility relocations must be coordinated by the City before construction begins. This budget
request includes that any remaining funding be used to rebuild the 400 South bridge over the Jordan River if any of
the $5.3 million is remaining after the other three bridge rebuilds and public utilities relocations.
Policy Questions:
➢Potential to Add Funding from the Public Utilities Department – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to estimate the cost of relocating publicly owned utilities as part of the bridge rebuilds and
consider including funding in future Public Utilities budget proposals to leverage more funding sources
and avoid potential General Fund subsidization of an enterprise fund.
➢New Amenities with Bridge Rebuilds – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how the
bridge rebuilds could bring new amenities to the impacted neighborhoods such as wider bridge decks,
bike lanes, public art, lighting, traffic calming, etc. The 650 North bridge in particular would need to be
coordinated with the upcoming 600 North / 700 North corridor transformation project that will construct
many improvements and new amenities. Note some of the improvements and amenities could be partially
eligible for impact fee funding if they are growth related.
➢Timing Bridge Rebuilds to Minimize East-West Travel Disruptions – The Council may wish to discuss
with the Council what options exist to spread out the bridge rebuilds so impacts to neighborhoods are less
and what other mitigation resources could be helpful. Alternatively, there might be cost savings from
combining multiple bridge rebuilds under a single contract.
➢Status of the City’s Other Bridges and Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
what the status of the City’s other bridges is, and what funding needs are anticipated in the coming years.
D-6: Occupied Vehicle Mitigation Team Allocation (Budget Neutral – reallocating existing $45,000 in
Public Services to the Fleet Fund and IMS Fund)
For FY24, Salt Lake City Council approved 3 new FTEs for homelessness mitigation. One-time and ongoing funds
were placed in Public Services Compliance General Fund budget. Some one-time funding for items related to this
team belongs in other funds, namely Fleet and IMS. This request is to move the funds to the appropriate fund.
D-7: Fleet Vehicle Purchases Re-appropriation ($14,424,993 from Fleet Fund Balance to Fleet Vehicle
Replacement Fund)
The Public Services Department is requesting the Council re-appropriate funds originally appropriated in FY2022 and
FY2023 for vehicle purchases. These vehicles were unavailable to purchase before the end of FY2023 because of
supply chain issues and limited ordering windows offered by vehicle manufacturers. The vehicles are still needed. If
the re-appropriation is approved, then the vehicles would be ordered as soon as they become available.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Donations
(None)
Section I: Council Added Items
(None)
ATTACHMENTS
(none)
ACRONYMS
AFSCME - American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods
CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
FOF – Funding Our Future
IMS – Information Management Services
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
Date Received: 08/09/2023
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 08/09/2023
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 8, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: RE-RE-TRANSMITTING FY24 Budget Amendment #1
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Hunt (801) 535-7926 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY24 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $-754,483.23 $204,200.00
CIP FUND 218,000.00 218,000.00
CIP: IMPACT FEE FUND -1,648,715.00 0.00
FLEET FUND 36,800.00 14,461,793.00
IMS FUND 9,000.00 9,000.00
TOTAL $-2,139,398.23 $ 14,892,993.00
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 9, 2023 15:16 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY24 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for FY24.
Revenue
FY23‐FY24 Annual Budget
FY23‐24 Amended Budget
Revised Forecast
Amended Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Property Taxes
129,847,140
129,847,140
129,847,140
‐
Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 ‐
Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 ‐
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 ‐
Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 ‐
Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 ‐
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 ‐
Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 ‐
Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 ‐
Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 ‐
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 ‐
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 ‐
Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 ‐
Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 ‐
Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 ‐
Additional Sales Tax (1/2%) 49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 ‐
Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 ‐
Because of this budget amendment’s timing, there are no updates for Y24 projections available.
The City has begun closing out the FY23 and will provide updates to Council as the audit
progresses.
Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#1.
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2023 Budget Projected FY2024 Budget
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 91,575,871 104,708,623 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 52,104,924 59,700,381
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60% 27.04% 27.30% 14.51% 13.29% 13.43% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 95,174,631 108,307,383 7,595,457 43,548,704 51,144,161
Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60% 24.81% 25.30% 14.51% 11.10% 11.51% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - (754,483) (754,483) BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - 205,000 205,000 BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - - - BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - - BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - Change in Revenue - - - - - - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 88,232,021 100,864,773 7,595,457 42,999,220 50,594,677
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60% 23.00% 23.57% 14.51% 10.96% 11.38%
Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923
Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 11.38%.
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $(2,139,398.23) in revenue and
$14,892,993.00 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in 5 funds, with zero increases in
FTEs. The proposal includes 10 initiatives for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at
Riverside Park CIP $218,000.00
Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Sean Fyfe, Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Sean Fyfe, Mary Beth Thompson
The City will be receiving a donation for ball field sports lighting in Riverside Park. A budget of $300,000 currently exists
for the project, but the quote for the cost of the lighting is $368,000. The installation of the lighting could start around
mid-September to mid-October.
The Administration, understanding that public comment is necessary before an official vote, would like to request a
straw poll to allow for the receipt of the contract for the entire project.
A-2: Funding for Open Streets Initiative GF $250,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Roberta Reichgelt
For questions, please include Lorena Riffo Jenson, Roberta Reichgelt, Mary Beth Thompson
The Department of Economic Development (DED) is requesting additional funding for the Open Streets event on Main
Street in downtown Salt Lake City this fall. Funding for infrastructure costs such as UTA Trax bollards, street maintenance,
and no-parking signage will cost an estimated $250,000, and after including operations and activation costs by The
Downtown Alliance totaling $500,000, the total costs exceed the $500,000 City Council allocated for the event. DED is
requesting funding for these additional costs in the amount of $250,000 for Open Streets infrastructure, which is a one-
time cost that will service the event for the year and for future Open Streets events.
A-3: Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to
Ivory University House GF ($754,483.23)
CIP/Impact Fund ($1,648,715.00)
Department: CAN & Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto, Blake Thomas, Kimberly Chytraus,
Katie Lewis, Randy Hillier, Mike Atkinson
A Public Benefits Analysis has been transmitted to the Council pertaining to the refunding of building permits and impact
fees to Ivory University House L3C. The total amount being refunded is approximately $2.4 million. This amount consists
of $754,483 in building permit fees and $1,648,715 in impact fees. Should the Public Benefits Analysis be approved by the
Council, a budget will need to be in place for the refunds to happen. This will be accounted for by showing negative revenue
for both the Impact Fees and Permit Fees being refunded.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: AFSCME MOU Allocations GF ($511,001.00)
AFSCME MOU Allocations – 911 Dispatch GF $104,175.00
AFSCME MOU Allocations – CAN GF $3,963.00
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Police GF $55,928.00
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Justice Courts GF $40.00
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Lands GF $36,737.00
1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Services GF $310,158.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson
Update the AFSCME MOU allocations for fiscal year 2024.
D-2: Consolidated Fee Schedule Change NA $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Lisa Hunt
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Lisa Hunt
Correction to CFS - Engineering Fees: During the FY24 budget, an increase in the engineering fee for lane closure was
recommended by the administration. The intent was to separate the fee for sidewalk and lane closures, charging a higher
rate for lane closures as justified by cost analysis. The increased fee was inadvertently applied to both sidewalk and lane
closures. This correction will create a separate line item for these two types of closures with the appropriate fee applied to
each.
D-3: Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope CIP $0.00
Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP
Goates, Dustin Petersen
For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen
The CIP application for "Three Creeks West - Roadways" includes only a single residential stretch of 1300 S, North of
California Ave. that fronts ten residential properties and the Jordan River. This constituent application was two-part, with
roadway reconstruction and utilities.
This FY22-23 CIP request was submitted as follows: "Reconstruct a block of 1300 South and a block of 1000 West along
Jordan River and install badly needed sewers. Will improve multimodal transportation, park access, public safety, and
basic sanitation, expanding on the success of Three Creek Confluence Park."
The subsequent estimate did not fully account for new utilities, nor was it eligible for utilities, as improvements for private
development (which the applicant would benefit from) are not paid for by the City. Furthermore, if the sewer line was
installed the property owners fronting a new line would be required by the health code to tie in at their own expense. After
the City engaged with the impacted property owners not all of them agreed. Therefore, we proposed to move forward with
this application with a scope limited to roadway reconstruction. No additional funds are required.
D-4: 1700 E. to 2100 S. Project Budget Reallocation CIP $0.00
Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP
Goates, Dustin Petersen
For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen
Public Services Engineering and CAN Transportation are recommending moving the bond funds from 1700 East to 2100
South to supplement the expanded scope and community-desired elements. The following are reasons that support the
delay in the funding for the construction of 1700 East:
1. There is a high likelihood that Highland High School will be rebuilt in the next few years, which would likely damage the
pavement and result in some needed design changes to accommodate the new school layout.
2. Public Utilities is planning a potential storm drain upgrade that would require significant roadway excavation shortly
after the original 1700 East reconstruction project timeline.
3. The remaining bond funding is not adequate to fully reconstruct the segment of roadway and safety improvements
necessary for a large school.
2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
4. Certain elements of the desired 2100 South reconstruction project may not be funded without this request.
D-5: Bridge Projects Funding Rescope for UDOT
Match CIP $0.00
Department: Public Services - Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP
Goates, Dustin Petersen
For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen
City Council previously approved $2,648,507 in FY21 for the rehabilitation of the 650 N bridge over the Jordan River and
the 400 S bridge over the Jordan River. After the March 2020 earthquake, damage sustained to the 650 N bridge made it
necessary to replace/reconstruct the bridge, and rehabilitation was no longer recommended. Subsequently, the City
Council approved $3,700,000 in FY23 for the reconstruction of the 650 N bridge over the Jordan River. The combined
available CIP funding from FY 21 and FY23 for bridge replacements/rehabilitation is $6,348,507.
City Engineering received notice from UDOT in early July 2022 that the following three (3) bridges were eligible for
replacement with Federal Bridge Formula Program (BFP) funding: 1) 650 N bridge over the Jordan River, 2) 200 S bridge
over the Jordan River and 3) 500 S bridge over the Jordan River. The Engineering Division received a letter from UDOT
on June 29, 2023, that they would be proceeding with the approval of the proposed BFP funding for the 650 N and 200 S
bridges since no potential habitats were found for an endemic orchid, as previously suspected. The total approved project
value for these two (2) bridge replacement projects is $14,400,000 which will require a 6.77% local match by Salt Lake
City. The 500 S bridge BFP funding should be approved in August/September 2023 however no local match will be
required since this bridge will be funded 100% by BFP funding.
For these bridge replacements, UDOT will serve as the funding administrator as well as perform the design and
construction of the bridges. Additionally, the City is required to coordinate private and public utility relocations prior to
the reconstruction of each bridge. Public utility relocation must be funded by the City.
As a result, Engineering is requesting that the $6,348,507 in available bridge CIP funding from FY21 and FY23 be made
available to pay for 1) 6.77% local match requirement and 2) any necessary public utility relocations (private utilities would
be required to relocate their respective utilities under their respective franchise agreements at no cost to the City). Any
remaining funding after the match and public utility relocation costs would be applied to the design and reconstruction of
the 400 S bridge over the Jordan River.
D-6: Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS GF ($45,800.00)
Fleet $36,800.00
IMS $9,000.000
Department: Public Services - Compliance Prepared By: Dustin Petersen
For questions, please contact Dustin Petersen
For FY24, Salt Lake City Council approved 3 new FTEs for homelessness mitigation. One-time and ongoing funds were
placed in Public Services Compliance General Fund budget. Some one-time funding for items related to this team belongs
in other funds, namely Fleet and IMS. This request is to move the funds to the appropriate fund.
D-7: Fleet Encumbrances GF $14,424,993.00
Department: Public Services - Fleet Prepared By: Dustin Petersen
For questions, please contact Dustin Petersen
This is the Fleet encumbrance rollover for vehicles that were committed with the funds in FY23 or earlier but have not been
received or completed. A detailed list of vehicles is included in the Backup Documentation
3
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
4
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Administration Proposed Council Approved
umber/Name
Fund
Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time
FTEs
Section A: New Items
1 Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at
Riverside Park CIP 218,000.00 218,000.00 One-time -
2 Funding for Open Streets Initiative GF - 250,000.00 One-time -
3 Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory
University House Impact Fee (1,648,715.00) - One-time -
3 Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory
University House GF (754,483.23) - One-time -
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Non Dept GF - (511,001.00) Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - 911 Dispatch GF - 104,175.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - CAN GF - 3,963.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Police GF - 55,928.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Justice Courts GF - 40.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Public Lands GF - 36,737.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Public Services GF - 310,158.00 Ongoing -
2 Consolidated Fee Schedule Change NA - - Ongoing -
3 Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope CIP - - One-time -
4 1700 E. to 2100 S. Project Budget Reallocation CIP - - One-time -
5 Bridge Projects Funding Rescope for UDOT Match CIP - - One-time -
6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS GF - (45,800.00) One-time -
6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS Fleet 36,800.00 36,800.00 One-time -
6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS IMS 9,000.00 9,000.00 One-time -
7 Encumbrances - Fleet Fleet - 14,424,993.00 One-time -
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section F: Donations
-
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Consent Agenda #
Section I: Council Added Items
Total of Budget
Amendment Items
(2,139,398.23) 14,892,993.00 - - -
1
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Initiative Number/Name
Fund
Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1:
General Fund GF (754,483.23) 204,200.00 - - -
Impact Fee Fund Impact Fee (1,648,715.00) - - - -
Fleet Fund Fleet 36,800.00 14,461,793.00
CIP Fund CIP 218,000.00 218,000.00 - - -
IMS Fund IMS 9,000.00 9,000.00 - - -
Total of Budget Amendment (2,139,398.23) 14,892,993.00 - - -
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (Fund 1000) 448,514,918 (754,483.23) 447,760,434.77
Curb and Gutter (FC 20) 3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41) 1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46) 1,700,000 1,700,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48) 4,681,185 4,681,185.00
Water Fund (FC 51) 176,637,288 176,637,288.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52) 289,941,178 289,941,178.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53) 19,865,892 19,865,892.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56) 403,513,000 403,513,000.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57) 25,240,459 25,240,459.00
Golf Fund (FC 59) 12,710,067 12,710,067.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60) 3,925,000 3,925,000.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61) 32,108,969 36,800.00 32,145,769.00
IMS Fund (FC 65) 36,254,357 9,000.00 36,263,357.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69) 9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71) 5,597,763 5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72) 8,919,917 8,919,917.00
Other Special Revenue (FC 73) 400,000 400,000.00
Donation Fund (FC 77) 500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78) 14,659,043 14,659,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81) 32,341,586 32,341,586.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86) 30,199,756 (1,430,715.00) 28,769,041.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85) 3,888,581 3,888,581.00
Risk Fund (FC 87) 60,932,137 60,932,137.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 (2,139,398.23) - - - - 1,621,492,052.77
2
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 10) 448,514,918 204,200.00 448,719,118.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20) 3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41) 1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46) 1,700,000 1,700,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48) 6,044,119 6,044,119.00
Water Fund (FC 51) 177,953,787 177,953,787.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52) 301,832,622 301,832,622.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53) 22,947,474 22,947,474.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56) 520,438,997 520,438,997.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57) 28,263,792 28,263,792.00
Golf Fund (FC 59) 17,938,984 17,938,984.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60) 3,800,385 3,800,385.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61) 32,498,750 14,461,793.00 46,960,543.00
IMS Fund (FC 65) 38,702,171 9,000.00 38,711,171.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69) 9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71) 5,597,763 5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72) 8,919,917 8,919,917.00
Other Special Revenue (FC 73) 400,000 400,000.00
Donation Fund (FC 77) 500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78) 10,212,043 10,212,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81) 34,894,979 34,894,979.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86) 29,708,286 218,000.00 29,926,286.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85) 3,370,012 3,370,012.00
Risk Fund (FC 87) 63,574,655 63,574,655.00
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 - - - - 1,783,807,002.00
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
3
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 07/20/2023
Area
Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash
Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 $ 1,402,656
Impact fee - Fire
8484002
$ 273,684
B
Impact fee - Parks
8484003
$ 16,793,487
C
Impact fee - Streets
8484005
$ 6,304,485
D
$ 24,774,312 E = A + B + C + D
Calendar Fiscal
Month Quarter
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Police Fire Parks Streets
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,558,788 $ 2,558,788
202306 (Jun2023) 2023Q4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Current Month
202307 (Jul2023)
202308 (Aug2023)
202309 (Sep2023)
202310 (Oct2023)
202311 (Nov2023)
202312 (Dec2023)
202401 (Jan2024)
202402 (Feb2024)
202403 (Mar2024)
202404 (Apr2024)
202405 (May2024)
202406 (Jun2024)
2024Q1
2024Q1
2024Q1
2024Q2
2024Q2
2024Q2
2024Q3
2024Q3
2024Q3
2024Q4
2024Q4
2024Q4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
202407 (Jul2024)
202408 (Aug2024)
202409 (Sep2024)
202410 (Oct2024)
202411 (Nov2024)
202412 (Dec2024)
202501 (Jan2025)
202502 (Feb2025)
202503 (Mar2025)
202504 (Apr2025)
202505 (May2025)
202506 (Jun2025)
2025Q1
2025Q1
2025Q1
2025Q2
2025Q2
2025Q2
2025Q3
2025Q3
2025Q3
2025Q4
2025Q4
2025Q4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
202507 (Jul2025)
202508 (Aug2025)
202509 (Sep2025)
202510 (Oct2025)
202511 (Nov2025)
202512 (Dec2025)
202601 (Jan2026)
202602 (Feb2026)
202603 (Mar2026)
202604 (Apr2026)
202605 (May2026)
202606 (Jun2026)
2026Q1
2026Q1
2026Q1
2026Q2
2026Q2
2026Q2
2026Q3
2026Q3
2026Q3
2026Q4
2026Q4
2026Q4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
1,103,628
113,748
3,960
26,929
95,407
1,065,383
95,762
53,972
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
1,103,628
113,748
3,960
26,929
95,407
1,065,383
95,762
53,972
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2023Q1
2023Q1
2023Q1
2023Q2
2023Q2
2023Q2
2023Q3
2023Q3
2023Q3
2023Q4
2023Q4
202207 (Jul2022)
202208 (Aug2022)
202209 (Sep2022)
202210 (Oct2022)
202211 (Nov2022)
202212 (Dec2022)
202301 (Jan2023)
202302 (Feb2023)
202303 (Mar2023)
202304 (Apr2023)
202305 (May2023)
Total
FY
20
2
6
FY
20
2
5
FY
20
2
4
FY
20
2
3
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Total $ 34,095,480 $ 3,419,972 $ 6,924,471 $ 2 ,751,037
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8484001
8484002
8484005
$ 16,793,487
8484003 C
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Sum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation YTD Sum of Police Allocation
Description Cost Center Budget Amended Encumbrances Expenditures Remaining Appropriation
IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 $ 9,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000
Grand Total $ 9,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000
Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Sum of Fire Allocation Sum of Fire Allocation Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Sum of Fire Allocation
Description Cost Center Budget Amended Encumbrances Expenditures Remaining Appropriation
Fire Training Center 8417015 $ (499,533) $ - $ (499,533) $ -
$ 3,079 $ 3,021 $ - 58.00
$ 9,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000 $ 2,200,000 $ - $ 2,200,000 $ -
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202
IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004
IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006
Grand Total $ 1,712,546 $ 3,021 $ 1,700,467 9,058.00
Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Description
Cost Center
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Parks Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 $ 261,187 $ - $ 261,187 $ -
Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 $ -
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 $ 16,959 $ 1,705 $ 15,254 $ -
JR Boat Ram 8420144 $ 3,337 $ - $ 3,337 $ -
RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 $ 395,442 $ - $ 395,442 $ 0
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 $ 2,638 $ 2,596 $ - $ 42
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 $ 23,262 $ 23,000 $ - $ 262
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 $ 1,056 $ - $ - $ 1,056
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 $ 1,570 $ - $ - $ 1,570
9line park 8416005 $ 16,495 $ 855 $ 13,968 $ 1,672
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 $ 2,946 $ - $ - $ 2,946
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 $ 6,398 $ - $ - $ 6,398
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 $ 12,431 $ 4,328 $ - $ 8,103
IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 $ 9,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 $ 9,350 $ - $ - $ 9,350
9Line Orchard 8420136 $ 156,827 $ 132,168 $ 6,874 $ 17,785
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 $ 275,000 $ - $ 253,170 $ 21,830
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 $ 1,042,694 $ 240,179 $ 764,614 $ 37,902
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 $ 56,109 $ - $ 1,302 $ 54,808
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 $ 608,490 $ 443,065 $ 93,673 $ 71,752
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 $ 156,565 $ 44,791 $ 30,676 $ 81,099
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 $ 555,030 $ 52,760 $ 402,270 $ 100,000
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 $ 254,159 $ 133,125 $ 13,640 $ 107,393
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 $ 122,281 $ - $ 1,310 $ 120,971
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 $ 150,736 $ - $ - $ 150,736
Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 $ 160,819 $ - $ 2,781 $ 158,038
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 $ 420,000 $ 156,146 $ 104,230 $ 159,624
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 $ 179,323 $ - $ 712 $ 178,611
Bridge to Backman 8418005 $ 266,306 $ 10,285 $ 4,262 $ 251,758
900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 $ 287,848 $ - $ - $ 287,848
Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 $ 300,000 $ - $ 678 $ 299,322
Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ 300,000
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 $ 319,139 $ - $ - $ 319,139
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 $ 327,678 $ - $ - $ 327,678
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 $ 428,074 $ 5,593 $ 23,690 $ 398,791
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 $ 446,825 $ 18,467 $ 14,885 $ 413,472
Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ 450,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 $ 510,000 $ 9,440 $ 34,921 $ 465,638
Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 $ 499,563 $ - $ 106 $ 499,457
RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 $ 521,564 $ - $ - $ 521,564
Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 $ 867,962 $ - $ 2,906 $ 865,056
Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 3,096 $ 996,905
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 $ 1,304,682 $ 41,620 $ 62,596 $ 1,200,466
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 $ 3,177,849 $ 524,018 $ 930,050 $ 1,723,781
Pioneer Park 8419150 $ 3,149,123 $ 69,208 $ 94,451 $ 2,985,464
Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 $ 4,350,000 $ - $ - $ 4,350,000
Grand Total $ 24,106,716 $ 1,913,351 $ 4,236,078 $ 17,957,287
Streets Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Description
Cost Center
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Street Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Street Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 $ 1,292 $ - $ 1,292 $ -
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 $ 15,026 $ 11,703 $ 3,323 $ -
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 $ 13,473 $ - $ 13,473 $ -
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 $ 70,000 $ - $ 70,000 $ -
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 $ 25,398 $ 25,398 $ - $ -
Trans Master Plan 8419006 $ 13,000 $ - $ 13,000 $ -
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 $ 63,955 $ - $ 63,955 $ -
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 $ 50,000 $ - $ 50,000 $ -
Gladiola Street 8406001 $ 16,109 $ 12,925 $ 940 $ 2,244
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 $ 44,400 $ - $ 38,084 $ 6,316
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 $ 6,500 $ - $ - $ 6,500
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 $ 29,817 $ 17,442 $ - $ 12,374
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 $ 35,392 $ - $ 16,693 $ 18,699
500 to 700 S 8418016 $ 22,744 $ - $ - $ 22,744
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 $ 28,000 $ - $ - $ 28,000
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 $ 58,780 $ 17,300 $ 11,746 $ 29,734
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 $ 35,300 $ - $ - $ 35,300
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 $ 37,422 $ - $ - $ 37,422
300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 $ 42,833 $ - $ - $ 42,833
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 $ 90,000 $ - $ - $ 90,000
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 $ 104,500 $ - $ - $ 104,500
Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 $ 110,000 $ - $ - $ 110,000
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 $ 281,586 $ 124,068 $ 40,300 $ 117,218
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 $ 124,593 $ - $ - $ 124,593
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 $ 181,846 $ - $ 542 $ 181,303
200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 $ 252,000 $ - $ - $ 252,000
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 $ 780,182 $ 46,269 $ 393,884 $ 340,029
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 $ 625,000 $ - $ - $ 625,000
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 $ 836,736 $ 55,846 $ 45,972 $ 734,918
700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 $ 1,120,000 $ - $ 166 $ 1,119,834
1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 $ 3,111,335 $ 1,192,649 $ 224,557 $ 1,694,129
Grand Total $ 8,267,218 $ 1,503,600 $ 987,926 $ 5,775,692
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2023
(First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending
June 30, 2024.
In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor’s Action: Approved Vetoed
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2023.
Published: .
2
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Jaysen Oldroyd
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2023
(First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending
June 30, 2024.
In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor’s Action: Approved Vetoed
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2023.
Published: .
2
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Jaysen Oldroyd
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2023
(Amendments to Lane and Sidewalk Closure Fees on the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule)
An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to separately
address lane closures and sidewalk closures.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule;
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be
amended to separately address fees related to lane closures and sidewalk closures as shown in the
attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees and fee information set forth in Exhibit A
are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the
City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule
shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2023.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on .
Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2023.
Published:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date: 7/28/23
By:
EXHIBIT A
Public Way Obstruction Permits
Short term (One Week)
Sidewalk Canopy $19 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Dumpster/pod $50 Each, Per Week (Construction
barricades)
14.32.405
Sidewalk closure $98 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Lane closure $350 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Long term (1 month increments)
Sidewalk Canopy $79 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Dumpster/pod $198 Each, Per Week (Construction
barricades)
14.32.405
Sidewalk closure $394 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Lane Closure $1,400 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2023
(Amendments to Lane and Sidewalk Closure Fees on the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule)
An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule separately address
lane closures and sidewalk closures.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule;
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be
amended to separately address fees related to lane closures and sidewalk closures as shown in the
attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees and fee information set forth in Exhibit A
are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the
City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule
shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2023.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on .
Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2023.
Published:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date:
By:
EXHIBIT A
Public Way Obstruction Permits
Short term (One Week)
Sidewalk Canopy $19 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Dumpster/pod $50 Each, Per Week (Construction
barricades)
14.32.405
Lane or sSidewalk closure $350$98 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Lane closure $350 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Long term (1 month increments)
Sidewalk Canopy $79 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Dumpster/pod $198 Each, Per Week (Construction
barricades)
14.32.405
Lane or sSidewalk closure $1,400$394 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Lane Closure $1,400 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Alejandro Sanchez (Aug 9, 2023 15:08 MDT)
Email: alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com
Signature:
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: _______________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: RE-TRANSMITTING FY24 Budget Amendment #1
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Hunt (801) 535-7926 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY24 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $-754,483.23 $250,000.00
CIP FUND 218,000.00 218,000.00
CIP: IMPACT FEE FUND -1,648,715.00 0.00
FLEET FUND 0.00 1,461,793.00
IMS FUND 0.00 9,000.00
TOTAL $-2,185,198.23 $ 1,893,793.00
08/03/2023
08/03/2023
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 3, 2023 09:54 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY24 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for FY24.
Because of this budget amendment’s timing, there are no updates for Y24 projections available.
The City has begun closing out the FY23 and will provide updates to Council as the audit
progresses.
Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast
Amended Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 -
Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 -
Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 -
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 -
Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 -
Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 -
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 -
Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 -
Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 -
Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 -
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 -
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 -
Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 -
Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 -
Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 -
ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 -
Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 -
Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#1.
Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 11.38%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 91,575,871 104,708,623
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 52,104,924 59,700,381
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%13.29%13.43%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) (8,556,220)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 95,174,631 108,307,383 7,595,457 43,548,704 51,144,161
Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.81%25.30%14.51%11.10%11.51%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - (754,483) (754,483)
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - 205,000 205,000
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - - -
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - -
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - -
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - -
Change in Revenue - - - - - -
Change in Expense
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 88,232,021 100,864,773 7,595,457 42,999,220 50,594,677
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%23.00%23.57%14.51%10.96%11.38%
Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923
FY2024 Budget
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
FY2023 Budget Projected
Fund Balance Projections
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $(2,185,198.23) in revenue and
$1,893,793.00 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in 5 funds, with zero increases in
FTEs. The proposal includes 10 initiatives for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at
Riverside Park CIP $218,000.00
Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Sean Fyfe, Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Sean Fyfe, Mary Beth Thompson
The City will be receiving a donation for ball field sports lighting in Riverside Park. A budget of $300,000 currently exists
for the project, but the quote for the cost of the lighting is $368,000 . The installation of the lighting could start around
mid-September to mid-October.
The Administration, understanding that public comment is necessary before an official vote, would like to request a
straw poll to allow for the receipt of the contract for the entire project.
A-2: Funding for Open Streets Initiative GF $250,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Roberta Reichgelt
For questions, please include Lorena Riffo Jenson, Roberta Reichgelt, Mary Beth Thompson
The Department of Economic Development (DED) is requesting additional funding for the Open Streets event on Main
Street in downtown Salt Lake City this fall. Funding for infrastructure costs such as UTA Trax bollards, street maintenance,
and no-parking signage will cost an estimated $250,000, and after including operations and activation costs by The
Downtown Alliance totaling $500,000, the total costs exceed the $500,000 City Council allocated for the event. DED is
requesting funding for these additional costs in the amount of $250,000 for Open Streets infrastructure, which is a one-
time cost that will service the event for the year and for future Open Streets events.
A-3: Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to
Ivory University House GF ($754,483.23)
CIP/Impact Fund ($1,648,715.00)
Department: CAN & Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto, Blake Thomas, Kimberly Chytraus,
Katie Lewis, Randy Hillier, Mike Atkinson
A Public Benefits Analysis has been transmitted to the Council pertaining to the refunding of building permits and impact
fees to Ivory University House L3C. The total amount being refunded is approximately $2.4 million. This amount consists
of $754,483 in building permit fees and $1,648,715 in impact fees. Should the Public Benefits Analysis be approved by the
Council, a budget will need to be in place for the refunds to happen. This will be accounted for by showing negative revenue
for both the Impact Fees and Permit Fees being refunded.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: AFSCME MOU Allocations GF ($511,001.00)
AFSCME MOU Allocations – 911 Dispatch GF $104,175.00
AFSCME MOU Allocations – CAN GF $3,963.00
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Police GF $55,928.00
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Justice Courts GF $40.00
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Lands GF $36,737.00
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Services GF $310,158.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson
Update the AFSCME MOU allocations for fiscal year 2024.
D-2: Consolidated Fee Schedule Change NA $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Lisa Hunt
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Lisa Hunt
Correction to CFS - Engineering Fees: During the FY24 budget, an increase in the engineering fee for lane closure was
recommended by the administration. The intent was to separate the fee for sidewalk and lane closures, charging a higher
rate for lane closures as justified by cost analysis. The increased fee was inadvertently applied to both sidewalk and lane
closures. This correction will create a separate line item for these two types of closures with the appropriate fee applied to
each.
D-3: Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope CIP $0.00
Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP
Goates, Dustin Petersen
For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen
The CIP application for "Three Creeks West - Roadways" includes only a single residential stretch of 1300 S, North of
California Ave. that fronts ten residential properties and the Jordan River. This constituent application was two -part, with
roadway reconstruction and utilities.
This FY22-23 CIP request was submitted as follows: "Reconstruct a block of 1300 South and a block of 1000 West along
Jordan River and install badly needed sewers. Will improve multimodal transportation, park access, public safety , and
basic sanitation, expanding on the success of Three Creek Confluence Park."
The subsequent estimate did not fully account for new utilities, nor was it eligible for utilities, as improvements for priva te
development (which the applicant would benefit from) are not paid for by the City. Furthermore, if the sewer line was
installed the property owners fronting a new line would be required by the health code to tie in at their own expense. After
the City engaged with the impacted property owners not all of them agreed. Therefore, we proposed to move forward with
this application with a scope limited to roadway reconstruction. No additional funds are required.
D-4: 1700 E. to 2100 S. Project Budget Reallocation CIP $0.00
Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP
Goates, Dustin Petersen
For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen
Public Services Engineering and CAN Transportation are recommending moving the bond funds from 1700 East to 2100
South to supplement the expanded scope and community-desired elements. The following are reasons that support the
delay in the funding for the construction of 1700 East:
1. There is a high likelihood that Highland High School will be rebuilt in the next few years, which would likely damage the
pavement and result in some needed design changes to accommodate the new school layout.
2. Public Utilities is planning a potential storm drain upgrade that would require significant roadway excavation shortly
after the original 1700 East reconstruction project timeline.
3. The remaining bond funding is not adequate to fully reconstruct the segment of roadway and safety improvements
necessary for a large school.
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
4. Certain elements of the desired 2100 South reconstruction project may not be funded without this request.
D-5: Bridge Projects Funding Rescope for UDOT
Match CIP $0.00
Department: Public Services - Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP
Goates, Dustin Petersen
For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen
City Council previously approved $2,648,507 in FY21 for the rehabilitation of the 650 N bridge over the Jordan River and
the 400 S bridge over the Jordan River. After the March 2020 earthquake, damage sustained to the 650 N bridge made it
necessary to replace/reconstruct the bridge, and rehabilitation was no longer recommended. Subsequently, the City
Council approved $3,700,000 in FY23 for the reconstruction of the 650 N bridge over the Jordan River. The combined
available CIP funding from FY 21 and FY23 for bridge replacements/rehabilitation is $6,348,507.
City Engineering received notice from UDOT in early July 2022 that the following three (3) bridges were eligible for
replacement with Federal Bridge Formula Program (BFP) funding: 1) 650 N bridge ov er the Jordan River, 2) 200 S bridge
over the Jordan River and 3) 500 S bridge over the Jordan River. The Engineering Division received a letter from UDOT
on June 29, 2023, that they would be proceeding with the approval of the proposed BFP funding for th e 650 N and 200 S
bridges since no potential habitats were found for an endemic orchid, as previously suspected. The total approved project
value for these two (2) bridge replacement projects is $14,400,000 which will require a 6.77% local match by Salt L ake
City. The 500 S bridge BFP funding should be approved in August/September 2023 however no local match will be
required since this bridge will be funded 100% by BFP funding.
For these bridge replacements, UDOT will serve as the funding administrator as well as perform the design and
construction of the bridges. Additionally, the City is required to coordinate private and public utility relocations prior to
the reconstruction of each bridge. Public utility relocation must be funded by the City.
As a result, Engineering is requesting that the $6,348,507 in available bridge CIP funding from FY21 and FY23 be made
available to pay for 1) 6.77% local match requirement and 2) any necessary public utility relocations (private utilities woul d
be required to relocate their respective utilities under their respective franchise agreements at no cost to the City). Any
remaining funding after the match and public utility relocation costs would be applied to the design and reconstruction of
the 400 S bridge over the Jordan River.
D-6: Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS GF ($45,000.00)
Fleet $36,800.00
IMS $9,000.000
Department: Public Services - Compliance Prepared By: Dustin Petersen
For questions, please contact Dustin Petersen
For FY24, Salt Lake City Council approved 3 new FTEs for homelessness mitigation. One -time and ongoing funds were
placed in Public Services Compliance General Fund budget. Some one -time funding for items related to this team belongs
in other funds, namely Fleet and IMS. This request is to move the funds to the appropriate fund.
D-7: Fleet Encumbrances GF $1,424,993.00
Department: Public Services - Fleet Prepared By: Dustin Petersen
For questions, please contact Dustin Petersen
This is the Fleet encumbrance rollover for vehicles that were committed with the funds in FY23 or earlier but have not been
received or completed. A detailed list of vehicles is included in the Backup Documentation
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at
Riverside Park CIP 218,000.00 218,000.00 One-time -
2 Funding for Open Streets Initiative GF - 250,000.00 One-time -
3 Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory
University House Impact Fee (1,648,715.00) - One-time -
3 Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory
University House GF (754,483.23) - One-time -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Non Dept GF - (511,001.00)Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - 911 Dispatch GF - 104,175.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - CAN GF - 3,963.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Police GF - 55,928.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Justice Courts GF - 40.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Public Lands GF - 36,737.00 Ongoing -
1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Public Services GF - 310,158.00 Ongoing -
2 Consolidated Fee Schedule Change NA - - Ongoing -
3 Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope CIP - - One-time -
4 1700 E. to 2100 S. Project Budget Reallocation CIP - - One-time -
5 Bridge Projects Funding Rescope for UDOT Match CIP - - One-time -
6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS GF - (45,000.00) One-time -
6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS Fleet - 36,800.00 One-time -
6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS IMS - 9,000.00 One-time -
7 Encumbrances - Fleet Fleet - 1,424,993.00 One-time -
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
-
Consent Agenda #
Total of Budget
Amendment Items
(2,185,198.23) 1,893,793.00 - - -
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section I: Council Added Items
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1:
General Fund GF (754,483.23) 205,000.00 - - -
Impact Fee Fund Impact Fee (1,648,715.00) - - - -
Fleet Fund Fleet - 1,461,793.00
CIP Fund CIP 218,000.00 218,000.00 - - -
IMS Fund IMS - 9,000.00 - - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items (2,185,198.23) 1,893,793.00 - - -
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,917 (754,483.23) 447,760,433.77
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,149 6,044,149.00
Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 32,498,750.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 38,702,171.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 8,919,917.00
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 400,000.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 34,894,979.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 (1,430,715.00) 28,277,571.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,038 (2,185,198.23) - - - - 1,766,728,839.77
Administration Proposed Council Approved
2
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1
Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 205,000.00 425,742,408.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825.00
Water Fund (FC 51)132,752,815 132,752,815.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 18,699,722.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)384,681,671 384,681,671.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,952,672 24,952,672.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)14,726,016 14,726,016.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,426,032 1,461,793.00 31,887,825.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 9,000.00 30,532,167.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)26,614,153 26,614,153.00
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)287,250 287,250.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,779,253 25,779,253.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,658,558 33,658,558.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 218,000.00 35,678,387.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,169,767 3,169,767.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000.00
- Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,525,603,402 1,893,793.00 - - - - 1,527,497,195.00
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
3
Impact Fees - Summary Confidential
Data pulled 07/20/2023
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D
24,774,312$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$
202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$
202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$
202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$
202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$
202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$
202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$
202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$
Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
FY
2
0
2
4
FY
2
0
2
5
FY
2
0
2
6
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Police Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
A
Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Fire Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Fire Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Fire Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fire Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00
IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B
IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$
Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00
Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Parks Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$
Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$
RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$
FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$
900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$
Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ 678$ 299,322$
Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$
Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$
Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$
RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$
Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$
Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$
Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$
Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$
Streets Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Street Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Street Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$
500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 11,746$ 29,734$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$
200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$
700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$
1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$
Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$
Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8484002
24,774,312$
8484003
8484005
16,793,487$
6,304,485$
$273,684
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
8484001
1,402,656$
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2023
(First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending
June 30, 2024.
In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2023.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
___ _______
Jaysen Oldroyd
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2023
(First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending
June 30, 2024.
In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2023.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
___ _______
Jaysen Oldroyd
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ___ of 2023
(Amendments to Lane and Sidewalk Closure Fees on the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule)
An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to separately
address lane closures and sidewalk closures.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule;
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be
amended to separately address fees related to lane closures and sidewalk closures as shown in the
attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees and fee information set forth in Exhibit A
are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the
City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule
shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of ____________ 2023.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2023.
Published: __________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date:_______7/28/23_____________________
By: ___________________________________
EXHIBIT A
Public Way Obstruction Permits
Short term (One Week)
Sidewalk Canopy $19 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Dumpster/pod $50 Each, Per Week (Construction
barricades)
14.32.405
Sidewalk closure $98 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Lane closure $350 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Long term (1 month increments)
Sidewalk Canopy $79 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Dumpster/pod $198 Each, Per Week (Construction
barricades)
14.32.405
Sidewalk closure $394 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Lane Closure $1,400 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ___ of 2023
(Amendments to Lane and Sidewalk Closure Fees on the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule)
An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule separately address
lane closures and sidewalk closures.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule;
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be
amended to separately address fees related to lane closures and sidewalk closures as shown in the
attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees and fee information set forth in Exhibit A
are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the
City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule
shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of ____________ 2023.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2023.
Published: __________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
EXHIBIT A
Public Way Obstruction Permits
Short term (One Week)
Sidewalk Canopy $19 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Dumpster/pod $50 Each, Per Week (Construction
barricades)
14.32.405
Lane or sSidewalk closure $350$98 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Lane closure $350 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Long term (1 month increments)
Sidewalk Canopy $79 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Dumpster/pod $198 Each, Per Week (Construction
barricades)
14.32.405
Lane or sSidewalk closure $1,400$394 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Lane Closure $1,400 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405
Signature:
Email:
Alejandro Sanchez (Aug 3, 2023 09:44 MDT)
alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com
CITY COUNCIL // AUGUST 15, 2023
NORTH ROSE PARK LANE ANNEXATION AND ZONING AMENDMENT
2350, 2440, 2441, AND 2462 N ROSE PARK LANE
PLNPCM2021-01124/01134
•Requests by JWright Properties (2350/2441 N)
•Two requests:
•Zoning Map Amendment (2350 N Rose Park Lane)
•From AG-2, Agricultural
•To R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use
•Annexation from County to City –Zoning Requests
•Apply R-MU to 2441 N
•Apply OS to 2462 N
•Apply OS to 2440 N
•Intended to accommodate an 1,800 unit multi-family development
on the 2350 N and 2441 N properties
•City and State properties not involved in development
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial of annexation and
zoning amendment
REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
2441
(J Wright)
2350
(J Wright)
2440
(City)
2462
(State)
CONTEXT
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
$1m from State
for road planning
“Sports Park Blvd”
2100 North
Interchange (Access)
Roughly paved
road
Horse boarding
facility
Single family
neighborhood,
elementary and
middle schools
(South of RAC)
Zoning Map Amendment
•Requires review against standard City considerations
Annexation:
•No consideration standards
•Requires a zone be applied when annexed
•Council forwarded the annexation to Planning
Commission for a zoning recommendation
•Staff used considerations for a rezone
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ZONING AMENDMENT &ANNEXATION PROCESS
•Proposed zone for J Wright (private)properties
•75'height
•Limited front setbacks to engage street
•20%open space requirement
•Allowed Use Examples:
•Multi-family and low intensity commercial
(i.e.retail,restaurant,office)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
R-MU -RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE
2440 (City) & 2462 (State):
•Rose Park Plan (2001) calls for Open Space (OS) or Agriculture (AG)
•Proposed OS –matches City and State use of properties
2350 & 2441 (J Wright -Private)
•Rose Park Plan policy:
•Zone properties OS or AG
•“to be compatible with the State recreational (OHV) and open space
land uses (RAC)”
•Citywide policies
•Access to healthy lifestyle/open space (RAC/Jordan River trail)
•Redevelopment of underutilized property
•Locating near existing infrastructure (significant planned City
improvements –RAC/Sports Park Blvd)
•Transit access (currently none)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
F
S
t
r
e
e
t
2441
(J Wright)
2350
(J Wright)
2440
(City)
2462
(State)
•Traffic study provided by applicant
•Recommends phased improvements to support
development
•Intersection upgrades, road improvements (500 units)
•Full build-out only possible if Sports Park Boulevard built
•Freeway noise and air quality impacts
•Could be mitigated with noise attenuating materials (similar to
airport requirements)
•MERV 13 HVAC filters to reduce pollution
•Landscaping (trees)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS &FREEWAY IMPACTS
Turn Lane
Signal/
Turn Lanes
New Road
•Improve/Widen
Road
•Add Sidewalk/
Crosswalk
•Two letters generally opposed to the residential zone
•One letter with conditions related to health/air quality (freeway)
•Public comments at PC generally opposed (9 comments)
•Air quality, infrastructure, traffic, RAC access limits
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PUBLIC INPUT
Recommended denial of zoning and annexation:
1.Rezoning
•Doesn’t comply with Rose Park Plan
•Calls for Open Space or Agricultural zoning.
2.Annexation
•Doesn’t align with Plan Salt Lake policies regarding
open space/recreation access
•Plan Salt Lake emphasizes open space
availability –RAC not accessible to general
public
•Doesn’t align with 2016 Council Housing Policy
Statements that emphasize transit proximity and
the livability of neighborhoods.
•Transit not available in area
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
•Commission didn’t offer concerns with the City and
State property annexation/zoning.
Staff recommended approval based on R-MU zone
compatibility with RAC, utilization of City improvements
(RAC/Sports Park Blvd), and proximity to open space (RAC
/Jordan River Trail).
Included 13 conditions:
•Required, phased street improvements (striping, Rose Park
Lane, sidewalks, utilities, traffic lights, Sports Park Blvd
completion)
•Air quality mitigations (HVAC filters, landscaping)
•Noise mitigations (freeway sound attenuation, OHV park
noise notice)
•Setback and parking modifications
•Road construction impact mitigations
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Daniel Echeverria // Senior Planner
daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:August 15, 2023
RE: RESOLUTION: IVORY UNIVERSITY HOUSE PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on a public benefit analysis conducted by the City Finance Department for a project
that would provide 465 units of new student housing at the University of Utah. The project, which is under
construction at 434 South Mario Capecchi Drive, is being developed by Ivory University House L3C, a “low-
profit limited liability company” (see Section A3 below for more information). The public benefit analysis was
performed to assess whether Salt Lake City could and should waive impact and permit fees, as well as providing
refunds for fees the project has already paid. The public benefit analysis concludes that “While the project is not
income restricted, it will be rent restricted and will address critical affordable housing needs of students.” The
amount waived or refunded would total just over $2.4 million. In return, over a period of ten years, Ivory
University House would pledge the same sum to fund need-based scholarships administered by the University of
Utah and reserved for Salt Lake City students.
Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis and consider adopting a resolution which would
authorize impact fee and permit fee waivers and refunds for Ivory University House L3C.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 15, 2023
Public Hearing: September 1
Potential Action: September 19
Page | 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND
A.The Student Housing Project.
1.Project Overview. Ivory University House is currently under construction on 5.4 acres at 434
South Mario Capecchi Drive. The developer holds a 99-year ground lease on the property, which is
owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and was formerly the site of an LDS
church and a parking lot. At completion it would consist of four buildings with 465 apartment-style
units for 621 University of Utah students. It would also include community rooms, classrooms, and
an outdoor study area.
The total project cost is estimated at $96 million and is financed through conventional (non-
governmental) sources, along with a $10 million donation from the Clark and Christine Ivory
Foundation. The first of the four buildings, Building A is scheduled for completion in Fall 2023.
Building B is scheduled for Fall 2024, Building C for Fall 2025, and Building D for Winter 2026.
In response to a staff question, Ivory University House stated:
“[A]ll Ivory University House (IUH) residents go through the same application
process. This process includes completing an online application, interviewing with
an IUH team member, confirming their agreement to the lease terms and code of
conduct, then receiving a room assignment. We are careful to comply with the Fair
Housing Act and do not give preference to any protected class.”
2.Rent Restrictions. Ivory University House L3C would enter into a restricted rent agreement with
Salt Lake City that would index rents at the equivalent of 30% of the monthly income limit set
annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a one-person household
at 80% AMI or below in the Salt Lake City Metro Area (see chart below). However, unlike HUD
units, these would not be income restricted. In addition, since this is student housing, rents would
be calculated by bedroom rather than by unit, with a limit of one student occupant per bedroom.
For example, the unit types and maximum monthly rent per bedroom in 2022 would be the
following:
Bedrooms /
Units
Maximum Rent per
Bedroom (% of AMI)
2022 Maximum
Rent per Bedroom
Large studios with full kitchen 144 80%$1,434
Small studios with kitchenette 243 75%$1,344
Three-bedroom, three-bath 234 bedrooms
in 78 units
55%$986
Page | 3
Finally, utilities are usually included in the amount of maximum rent under HUD limits but in this
case, there would be an additional utility fee with an initial maximum of $55 per month. This could
increase by not more than 3% per year. The City’s Division of Housing Stability would monitor
compliance of deed restriction terms, including annual updates to HUD parameters.
3.About L3Cs (Low-profit Limited Liability Companies). The Ivory University House project
is being developed by Ivory University House L3C. This type of legal entity is relatively new and is
not as widely known as nonprofit or LLC business types. An L3C must have a primarily charitable or
educational purpose but it is allowed to earn a small profit, defined as one to ten percent, which can
be used to fund additional charitable projects (for additional information, see
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title48/Chapter3A/C48-3a-P13_1800010118000101.pdf). Since these
entities can make a profit, they are not exempt from Federal income taxes and donations to them
cannot be deducted from the contributor’s income taxes.
Page | 4
B. The Public Benefits Analysis.
1.Legal Framework. Utah Code requires that before a municipal legislative body decides to
appropriate any funds to a for-profit entity, it must receive a public benefits analysis and hold a
public hearing. The public hearing for this item is scheduled for September 1, 2023.
2.Public Benefits Identified. In finding that the City fees proposed to be waived for Ivory
University House L3C are appropriate and “proportionate to the public benefit it provides,” the
Administration identified the following specific public benefits.
a. The University of Utah’s housing shortage, illustrated by a wait list for on-campus housing
at 2,280 students, increases the pressure on the housing market in Salt Lake City. The
creation of 465 units of privately financed housing for 621 students at affordable rent levels
would increase the City’s overall housing stock and contribute to a reduction in demand by
students in the Salt Lake City rental market.
b. Construction of additional student housing located adjacent to the University of Utah
reduces campus traffic, enhancing the health and safety of the surrounding communities.
c. All of the project’s units will be subject to a voluntary, deeded, restrictive use agreement for
30 years. This will restrict rents to levels considered affordable at 80% AMI under annual
HUD standards, though income levels will not be restricted.
d. At least 25% of Ivory University House residents will receive additional, need-based rental
assistance, which will further contribute to student support and access to affordable
housing. These students will have a choice of any unit type available and not be segregated
in any way from other students. They also would be allowed to seek any additional aid
needed to fund their studies.
3.Waiver and Reimbursement Amounts. The proposed waivers and reimbursements for City
permit and impact fees would total $2,403,198 for the full project. Ivory University House L3C
already paid $754,483 in permit fees for the two phases of project construction, and $1,648,715 in
impact fees. (See the tables on the transmittal’s pages 3 and 4.)
a.Permit Fees. Permit fees are typically paid into the general fund and are set at a rate based on
the City’s cost for reviewing and administering building permits and inspections. With a waiver,
these services would be provided by the City at no cost, apart from the fees paid to the Public
Utilities Department, which may not be waived. This allocation would appear in an upcoming
budget amendment.
b.Impact Fees. Under Utah Code, a city may exempt a “low-income housing” project from
impact fees, but that term is not defined by the State. Meanwhile, City Code allows a 100%
exemption for rental housing that does not exceed HUD affordability guidelines for a household
whose income is 60% or below AMI. The Administration recommends an impact fee waiver for
Ivory University House L3C, because “while the Project is not income restricted, it will be rent
restricted and will address critical affordable housing needs of students.”
C.Scholarships. The terms of the property lease for Ivory University House require that all profits from its
operations be donated to student scholarships at the University of Utah. The resulting Ivory University
House Scholarship Fund will be administered directly by the University of Utah in accordance with the
University’s typical eligibility requirements and criteria for need-based scholarships. University policy states
that it “prohibits discrimination, harassment, or prejudicial treatment of a student because of their race,
color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, or status as an
individual with a disability, as a disabled veteran, or as a veteran of the Vietnam era.”
Page | 5
Neither Ivory University House L3C nor the owner of the leased property, the LDS Church, would be
involved in the selection of scholarship recipients, and these scholarships would be applicable to several
different housing options, including but not limited to Ivory University House. This housing will have a code
of conduct similar to that of on-campus housing, which includes a prohibition on alcohol and drugs. Ivory
University House has committed to the LDS Church to apply this rule but stated that, “Any student who
desires to live in the community consistent with the code of conduct is welcome.” Information about the
code of conduct and links to other resources can be found at https://www.housing.utah.edu/living-the-
u/resident-policies-responsibilities-2.
1.Scholarships for City Residents. If Salt Lake City agrees to not charge permit and impact fees,
and to refund amounts paid earlier—which would combine for a total of $2,403,198—Ivory
University House would work with the University of Utah to earmark need-based scholarships for
Salt Lake City residents in the same amount, paid over a period of ten years. These would be funded
by the operations of the project and, as stated in the public benefits analysis (see section B above):
“Depending on a student’s needs, these scholarships may come in the form of
tuition stipends, paid internships, or housing assistance. In essence, University
House will invest the value of fees waived directly into the individual lives of
some of the City’s residents who otherwise lack financial access to opportunity.”
2.Determining City Residence. The criteria for determining which students would qualify as Salt
Lake City residents has not yet been developed or formalized between the University, Ivory
University House, and the City. One issue will likely be when and how long a student would need to
live within City boundaries to be considered a resident. It also may be worth considering that the
University of Utah grants in-state tuition benefits to any existing student who completes 12
consecutive months in Utah, but this criteria might not make sense for determining Salt Lake City
residence. The partners in this project have stated that they are “open to tailoring that definition in
such a way to have the greatest impact for SLC residents in need.” (See Policy Question 1 below).
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration and the Attorney’s Office about whether details of the
developer’s commitment to provide scholarships to Salt Lake City residents need to be worked into the
proposed resolution. For now, the plan is apparently to use a separate agreement for this information. In
either case, the Council may wish to discuss the following issues:
-How would student residence be demonstrated? For example, would it be
based on the address of a parent (or other financially responsible party)? Open
only to students who have graduated from a high school located within Salt
Lake City? Or some other way?
-Is it sufficiently certain that the University of Utah would agree to provide
need-based financial aid to Salt Lake City residents with the first $2.4 million
of Ivory University Housing L3C donations? It appears from the transmittal
that the goal is to provide what is technically referred to as need-based
financial aid, which tends to support greater equity, rather than merit-based
scholarships.
-How would compliance with these terms be audited over the ten years the
agreement is in force?
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration why 25% was chosen as the share of Ivory University
Housing residents who would receive need-based rental assistance, and how the level of rental
assistance for each resident will be determined. This 25% is in addition to the number who would
receive financial aid though the University of Utah from the Ivory University Housing Scholarship Fund.
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Finance Director
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
____________________________________________ ____________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 3, 2023
Darin Mano
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Authorizing the refund of certain building fees and an exemption from impact
fees incurred in the development of a student housing project by Ivory University House L3C.
Ivory University House L3C will pledge to use these funds toward scholarships funded by the
operations of Ivory University House in an amount equal to the fees refunded: Public Benefit
Analysis under Utah Code Section 10-8-2.
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Kimberly Chytraus, City Attorney (801) 535-7685
Blake Thomas, Director of Community & Neighborhoods Department
Randy Hillier, Policy and Budget Analyst (801) 535-6606,
DOCUMENT TYPE: Public Benefits Analysis and Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Salt Lake City Council provide a refund of
certain building fees and an exemption from impact fees incurred in the development of a student
housing project by Ivory University House L3C (“University House”). Because of the timing of
development, University House has paid the fees described herein, so if the fee waiver is granted
the City will refund the paid amounts. University House has also committed that, if the fees are
refunded, it will pledge scholarships funded by the operations of Ivory University House in an
amount equal to the fees refunded (an amount over $2,400,000) for Salt Lake City residents to be
paid over a period of ten years.
A portion of the Impact Fees being refunded, specifically the Fire Fee in the amount of $79,515,
will need to be obtained from the general fund through an upcoming budget amendment since
these fees have already been spent.
Katherine Lewis (Jul 13, 2023 14:57 MDT)
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 13, 2023 15:02 MDT)07/13/2023
07/13/2023
BUDGET IMPACT: NA
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Alejandro Sanchez (Jul 13, 2023 15:01 MDT)
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
SUBJECT: Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by Fee Waiver and Refund to Ivory
University House
INTRODUCTION
It is recommended that the Salt Lake City Council provide a refund of certain building fees and
an exemption from impact fees incurred in the development of a student housing project by Ivory
University House L3C (“University House”). Because of the timing of development, University
House has paid the fees described herein, so if the fee waiver is granted the City will refund the
paid amounts. University House has also committed that, if the fees are refunded, it will pledge
scholarships funded by the operations of Ivory University House in an amount equal to the fees
refunded (an amount over $2,400,000) for Salt Lake City residents to be paid over a period of ten
years.
University House is developing a student housing project at 434 South Mario Capecchi Drive,
Salt Lake City, Utah known as the Ivory University House (the “Project”). The Project is being
developed in two separate phases. University House paid the permit fees for the Project in the
amount of $754,483.23, broken down as follows:
Permit 1st Phase Fees
Paid
2nd Phase Fees
Paid
Total
Building Permit Fee $211,114.98 $211,117.77 $422,232.75
Plan Check Fee $137,224.74 $137,226.55 $274,451.29
Utah State Surcharge $2,111.15 $2,111.18 $4,222.33
Fire Sprinkler $3,398.41 $3,398.41 $6,796.82
Plumbing $8,080.71 $9,572.78 $17,653.49
Electrical $4,315.60 $5,805.61 $10,121.21
Mechanical $6,429.83 $12,575.51 $19,005.34
Fire Alarm Permit Not yet applied for Not yet applied for Not yet applied for
Total $372,675.42 $381,807.81 $754,483.23
University House initially applied for a permit fee waiver under Salt Lake City Code (“City
Code”) Section 18.20.220, but such waiver is only available to a nonprofit organization building
affordable housing (limited to households under 80% of the City’s average median income
(“AMI”))1. As discussed herein, because University House operates on a nonprofit basis and rent
1 Code Section 18.20.220 (E) establishes the standard for a fee waiver request by a nonprofit organization: “HAAB
[Housing Advisory and Appeals Board] may recommend granting the waiver or deferral if it finds that the project or
projects, and the sponsoring nonprofit organization furthers the city’s established low income housing goals to
provide housing for persons or families under eighty percent (80%) of the city ’s median income, as defined by the
United States department of housing and urban development, and also meets all applicable guidelines established for
any such programs by the United States department of housing and urban development. HAAB may recommend that
2
is considered affordable under the HUD standard described below, it is recommended that the
Project’s actual fees be refunded as described herein.
In addition, the Administration is seeking an exemption and reimbursement of impact fees for
the Project. Ivory paid the impact fees for the Project in the amount of $1,648,715, broken down
as follows for 465 units:
Impact Fee
Permit
Fee per
Unit
1st Phase Paid
(280 units)
2nd Phase Paid
(185 units)
Total
Fire Fee $171 $47,880 $31,635 $79,515
Park Fee $3,078 $861,840 $569,430 $1,431,270
Police Fee $59 $16,520 $10,915 $27,435
Roadway Fee $242 $67,760 $42,735 $110,495
TOTAL $994,000 $654,715 $1,648,715
City Code Section 18.98.060 provides for an exemption from the payment of impact fees for
housing that meets certain rent restrictions and income restrictions, ranging from 60% - 80%
AMI2. While the Project is not income restricted, it will be rent restricted and will address critical
affordable housing needs of students. It is recommended that the Project be granted an impact fee
waiver and the paid impact fees be refunded to University House, in the actual amount of the
impact fees, which is $1,648,715.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Utah Code section 10-8-2 states municipalities may appropriate funds for “corporate purposes
only.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(i). Those purposes are, in the judgment of the municipal
legislative body, any purpose that “provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being,
peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the city.” Utah Code § 10-8-2(3). A
municipal legislative body must determine that the “net value received for any money
appropriated” is “measured on a project-by-project basis over the life of the project.” Utah Code
§ 10-8-2(3)(a). The municipal legislative branch “may consider intangible benefits received by
the municipality in determining net value received.” Utah Code § 10-8-2(3)(c). Moreover, a
“determination of value received, made by the municipality’s legislative body, shall be presumed
valid unless it can be shown that the determination was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.” Utah
Code § 10-8-2(3)(b).
Prior to the municipal legislative body making a decision to appropriate any funds for a
corporate purpose, a public hearing must be held. If the entity receiving the benefit from the City
waivers may be granted for remodeling or construction of offices for nonprofit housing cor porations if it finds that
such remodeling or construction will save the corporation money and that such savings will be applied to a specific
housing project.”
2 City Code Section 18.98.060 in relevant part provides: “The following housing may be exempt from the payment
of impact fees, to the following extent:
“1. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for rental housing for which the annualized rent
per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income
equals sixty percent (60%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD;”
3
is a for-profit entity, then a study (“Study”) that demonstrates the purpose for the appropriation
must be undertaken and posted for review by the public at least 14 days before a public hearing
on the issue. Utah Code § 10-8-2(3)(e). The factors to be considered in the Study are set forth
under Utah Code as:
(i) what identified benefit the municipality will receive in return for any money or
resources appropriated;
(ii) the municipality’s purpose for the appropriation, including an analysis of the way
the appropriation will be used to enhance the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being,
peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality; and
(iii) whether the appropriation is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the
reasonable goals and objectives of the municipality in the area of economic development,
job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, job preservation, the preservation of
historic structures and property, and any other public purpose.
Utah Code § 10-8-2(3)(e)(i)-(iii). This Study examines each of these factors below.
BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT
The Developer. University House is a low-profit limited liability company, wholly owned by the
Ivory University House Trust, with the Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation as its beneficiary (a
501(c)(3) private foundation). University House leases the underlying real property from The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is an express requirement of that Lease that
University House donate all profits to student scholarships at the University of Utah. This
contractual obligation that University House not retain any profits ensures that University House
will operate the Project on a nonprofit basis in order to continue leasing the property.
The Project. Ivory University House is the only privately funded, philanthropically driven
student housing project in Salt Lake City and Utah. The Project is located on 5.4 acres bordered
by South Campus Drive, Mario Capecchi Drive, and Research Road. The Project is financed
through conventional financing and a $10,000,000 personal donation from the Ivory family. The
total Project cost is estimated to be approximately $96,000,000. It will have four buildings and
465 apartments. There are three unit types: 144 studios with a full kitchen, 243 studios with a
kitchenette, and 78 units with 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms.
The Project will also include community rooms, classrooms, and outdoor study areas. The single
living structure is designed to allow students to focus on their studies with common areas to
promote student engagement. The Project is across the street from the University of Utah, with a
TRAX station a 3-minute walking distance and the Student Life Center a 5-minute walking
distance.
The Ground Lease. The property is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
and is ground leased to University House with a ground lease term of 99 years. The terms of the
ground lease require that all profits, i.e., “the amount gross revenue exceed the costs and
expenses associated with operating [the Project]” be donated by University House to a
4
scholarship fund and housing assistance for students attending the University of Utah. The
ground lease can only be assigned to a tax-exempt charitable organization (a 501(c)(3)).
Affordable Housing. The maximum rent per bed will be at or below 30% of the monthly
income limit set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for a single
person household of 80% AMI or below. Since the project is student housing, rents will be
calculated by bedroom rather than by unit, with a limit of one student occupant per bedroom.
There will be an additional utility fee of an initial maximum of $55 per month, which may
increase not more than 3% per year (note that utilities are usually included in the amount of
maximum rent under HUD’s limits). The rent restriction will be evidenced by a restrictive use
agreement recorded against the leasehold interest held by University House (meaning the
restriction is in place as long as University House is leasing the land). HUD considers rent for
persons at 80% of AMI as affordable for low-income households. The amount of rent may be
adjusted with changes to HUD’s schedule.
Maximum Monthly Rent Per Bedroom by Unit Type
Unit Type Maximum Rent per
Bedroom - AMI
2022 Maximum
Rent per Bedroom
# of
Bedrooms
Single Bedroom Unit: 440 - 455 sq ft 80% $1,434 144
Single Bedroom Unit: 345 sq ft 75% $1,344 243
3-Bedroom Unit (per bedroom) 55% $986 234
Source: AMI data as per HUD’s FY 22 Income Limit Documentation System for the Salt Lake City,
UT HUD Metro FMR Area
Note: Units will be rent restricted but not income restricted.
Note: Maximum rent is assessed per bedroom and based on 30% of income for the applicable AMI
for a household size of one and will be updated annually based on AMI data as per HUD’s Income
Limit Documentation System for the Salt Lake City, UT HUD Metro FMR Area.
In addition to voluntarily restricting rents across the board, University House and the University
and Utah have committed that no less than 25% of the Project residents will receive additional
housing assistance. This will ensure that even students with the most financial need will have the
opportunity to live at the Project.
The Scholarship Fund. All profits from the housing project will be donated to a new
scholarship fund called the Ivory University House Scholarship Fund and will provide
scholarships, internships, or housing assistance for students at the University of Utah. The fund
was seeded by an additional $6,000,000 gift from the Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation and
is administered by the University of Utah, with priority given to students with the most financial
need. Applications for the first year recently opened and the fund has already received over 450
5
applications, one third of which came from students with significant financial needs. University
House has committed that if the fees are refunded, it will pledge scholarships funded by the
operations of the Project in an amount equal to the fees waived for Salt Lake City residents to be
paid over a period of ten years.
TERMS OF ASSISTANCE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED
I. Terms of Assistance
A. Waiver of Permit Fees. Under the City Code, a request to waive permit fees is reviewed
by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (“HAAB”), who reviews the request in a public
meeting and forwards its recommendation to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods.
The waiver is available to nonprofit organizations who are developing housing for persons or
families under eighty percent (80%) of AMI. The Director may approve the waiver. The permit
fees are typically paid into the general fund to cover the cost of the services of reviewing and
administering the permit, including building inspections. With a waiver, those services are
provided by the City at no cost. Fees paid to Public Utilities may not be waived. The total
amount of fees waived by the City is calculated as $754,483.23, plus the actual costs of the fire
alarm permit fees.
B. Exemption of Impact Fees. An exemption of impact fees is also approved by the Director
of Community and Neighborhoods. A 100% exemption is available for rental housing for which
the annualized rent per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income
of a family whose annual income equals sixty percent (60%) of AMI. There are additional
exemptions available for nonrental housing with higher income restrictions. Such rent and
income restrictions are documented and enforced through the recordation of a restrictive use
agreement on the property. The City’s exemption is allowed pursuant to the Utah Code,3 which
provides that the City can give an exemption for “low income housing”. The Utah Code does not
provide a definition for “low income housing” and the City relies on its Code for the definition.
The total amount of the impact fees that could be waived is $1,648,715.
II. Public Benefits Provided by Fee Waiver and Exemption
The Project is not strictly eligible for the permit fee waiver or impact fee exemption under the
City Code because University House, as a L3C, is a for-profit entity, and the Project is not
income restricted to residents whose income is at or below 60% AMI. However, because the
Project will provide significant and much needed benefits to the City, the Administration
proposes the fee waiver and impact fee exemption as appropriate for the Project.
University House, while a low-profit entity, has agreed to donate all its profits to the University
of Utah for a scholarship fund. Therefore, any proceeds will be reinvested in the student
population and into the housing located in Salt Lake City. University House estimates that the
3 11-36a-403 Other provisions of impact fee enactment. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity may
include a provision in an impact fee enactment that: (a) provides an impact fee exemption for: (i) development
activity attributable to: (A) low income housing; . . . and (b) except for an exemption under Subsection (1)(a)(i)(A),
establishes one or more sources of funds other than impact fees to pay for that development activity.
6
benefit to the student population and community will be over $1 billion over the life of the
ground lease. Student housing is not typically eligible for affordable housing subsidies available
to other types of housing developments, however, creation of 465 units at affordable rent levels
brings a significant benefit to the Salt Lake City housing market.
Increasing the housing stock within Salt Lake City in the form of student housing contributes to a
decrease in demand for students in the Salt Lake City rental market. The rent restriction will help
insulate students from the massive rate increases that continue to impact the rental market, driven
in part by the housing demand.
The proposed development offers a significant public benefit to Salt Lake City. It includes the
construction of privately financed student housing, comprising 465 units with rents below 80%
of the area median income. Additionally, 100% of the units will be subject to a voluntary deeded
restrictive use agreement for the 99-year lease period, and 25% of students will receive
additional rental assistance. These efforts will provide crucial student support and access to
affordable housing, all without any current public subsidy. In view of these benefits, the fees
waived by the City for this development are proportionate to the public benefit it provides.
III. Ivory University House will Benefit Salt Lake City Residents
Ivory University House is a unique philanthropic project. As with any innovative project,
it doesn’t fit neatly into any existing box. It has taken collaboration between The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and University House to
make this project a reality. University House and the University of Utah intend to honor their
partnership with the City by pledging scholarships funded by the operations of the Project in
amount equal to fees waived (in an amount over $2,400,000) for Salt Lake City residents to be
paid over a period of ten years. Depending on a student’s needs, these scholarships may come in
the form of tuition stipends, paid internships, or housing assistance. In essence, University House
will invest the value of fees waived directly into the individual lives of some of the City’s
residents who otherwise lack financial access to opportunity.
IIV. Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents.
The City places a high value on health and safety. Housing an additional 621 students in the
Project will reduce the number of cars commuting to campus, which has a positive
environmental impact on air quality. Fewer cars also means fewer accidents that could occur in
heavy campus traffic. Reducing campus traffic enhances the health and safety of the surrounding
communities. The Project is located within walking distance of a TRAX station, providing easy
access to public transportation to the students who will live in the Project. Additionally, every
student is provided a public transit pass.
V. Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals.
Support of the Project helps accomplish the goals of the City in affordable housing. Salt Lake
City faces a critical housing shortage. The University of Utah draws students from all over to the
University, and similarly faces a housing shortage for its students. As of last year, the University
of Utah had a wait list of 2,280 students seeking an on-campus living experience. The
7
University’s housing shortage increases the pressure on the housing needs in Salt Lake City,
given the large numbers of students who need affordable housing. The Project is being
developed on a site that was not previously used for residential purposes, thus the redevelopment
of the site is a true increase in housing units without any displacement. The ability to house 621
students in the Project will mean there are 621 fewer people who need housing in Salt Lake City.
The Project is also better suited to meeting the needs of the student population that a typical
housing project in the city.
Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan envisions Salt Lake City as a place for a growing,
diverse population to find housing opportunities that are safe, secure, and enrich lives and
communities, recognizes the changing nature of the city, and provides the foundation for creating
goals and strategies to manage the housing needs of tomorrow. The City’s support of the Project
through the fee waivers and refunds meets the housing plan goals by expanding housing
opportunities, addressing systematic failures in the rental market, and contributing to the diverse
housing types available for the student population. University House has created a new approach
to satisfy a fundamental need in our housing stock and this innovation is mutually beneficial to
the purposes in Growing SLC.
Within Growing SLC, the Council adopted policy statements to be used for evaluating and
appropriating City funds for housing. The priorities relevant to the Project are as follows:
(1) Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: (i) Avoiding displacement of
existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and (ii) Retaining and expanding the diversity
of AMI and innovative housing types.
(2) Include collaboration with community and private sector partners to enable opportunities
for in kind contributions, creative financing and service delivery models.
(3) Include affordable housing in transit-oriented developments because access to public
transit increases access to opportunities. Moderate increases in density should be encouraged
along transit corridors.
(4) Incentivize affordable housing within areas of high opportunity.
The project will also have the added benefit of providing scholarship assistance to Salt Lake City
residents.
CONCLUSION
Approval of a permit fee and impact fee waiver and refunds supports many of the City’s goals
with respect to the creation of affordable and diverse housing. Additionally, the Project will
create a broad public benefit through its philanthropic mission. Although the Project does not
meet the codified requirements for a permit fee waiver and impact fee exemption, the Project
fulfills a specific need and provides public benefits to the City that satisfy the requirements of
Utah Code § 10-8-2. For these reasons, the Administration requests that City Council approve
the requested permit fee and impact fee waiver and refunds.
8
REFERENCES This analysis has been available in the City Recorder’s Office, Room 415,
City & County Building, 451 South State Street since __________, 2023. The City Council
will hold a public hearing on whether to adopt a resolution approving the proposed study.
The public hearing will be held _______________.
RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2023
Authorizing Impact Fee and Permit Fee Waivers and Refunds
for Ivory University House L3C
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Department of Community and Neighborhoods has
proposed the waiver and refund of certain permit and impact fees (the “Fee Waiver”) paid by the
Ivory University House L3C, a low-profit limited liability company (“University House”); and
WHEREAS, University House is developing a student housing project at 434 South
Mario Capecchi Drive (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project will offer 465 units for 621 University of Utah students with a
maximum rent per bed at or below 30% of the monthly income limit set by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for a single person household of 80% area median income
(“AMI”) or below; and
WHEREAS, all profits from the Project will be donated to a new scholarship fund at the
University of Utah, with priority given to students with the most financial need, and if the Fee
Waiver is granted, then University House will pledge scholarships for Salt Lake City residents in
the amount of the Fee Waiver over a period of ten years; and
WHEREAS, the Project provides rent rates at or below 80% AMI and significant public
benefits but does not meet the City code requirements to waive permit fees or impact fees for
affordable housing because University House is legally a for-profit entity and the Project is not
income restricted as the residents will be students; and
WHEREAS, Utah Code section 10-8-2 states that municipalities may appropriate funds
for “corporate purposes only,” and those purposes are, in the judgment of the municipal
2
legislative body, any purpose that “provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being,
peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the city.” Utah Code § 10-8-2(3); and
WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(3)(e) allows public entities to provide
nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to for-profit entities after a public hearing and conducting
a study to consider intangible benefits received by the municipality in determining net value
received for the appropriation; and
WHEREAS, the City performed an analysis (the “Analysis”) of the public benefits of
providing the Fee Waiver to University House, which Analysis was included in the transmittal to
the City Council before the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has, following the giving of not less than 14 days public
notice, conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of
Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the
conclusions set forth therein and all comments made during the public hearing;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and
hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Fee Waiver is
appropriate under these circumstances.
2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to waive and refund the
fees consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as
recommended by the City Attorney’s office.
3
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ________ 2023.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By: ______________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
___________________________
Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney
Date: ______________________ June 5, 2023
UNALLOCATED PROGRAM INCOME
FUNDING PROPOSALS & NEXT STEPS
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION //August 15, 2023
$23,000,000
$21,000,000
ACCUMULATED FUNDS
PROGRAM INCOME SOURCE
4/30/23
BALANCE
HUD REGULATIONS
CDBG $6,255,941
HOME $9,427,209
American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)$48,805
NON-RESTRICTED
Renter Rehab Program $1,716,265
Miscellaneous Bank Funds $1,759,136
Riverpark $3,608,786
TOTAL $22,816,142
$23,000,000
$21,000,000
PROPOSED FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
TYPE PROJECT/PROGRAM LEAD HUD - CDBG HUD - HOME/
ADDI
NON-
RESTRICTED
DEVELOPMENT
RDA NOFA RDA $6,476,014
1159 West Temple (Book Cliffs)HASLC $3,000,000
ACQUISITION Strategic, Opportunity Area, or CLT
Property Acquisition
CAN, HASLC,
and/or RDA $5,755,941
RENTAL ASSISTANCE Tenant Relocation Assistance Housing Stability $180,000
NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENTS
Neighborhood Business Improvement
Program Housing Stability $250,000
Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure
Improvements
Transportation/
Engineering $250,000
TENANT &
HOMEOWNER
LOAN FUND
Homebuyer Program Housing Stability $1,000,000
Community Land Trust Housing Stability $1,144,187
Home Repair Program Housing Stability $500,000
NOAH Renter Rehab Program Housing Stability $1,200,000
PUBLIC SERVICES
First Step House, Employment
Non-profit
organizations
$26,492
First Step House, Peer Support $22,892
SL Donated Dental $5,308
The Inn Between $5,308
DEBT SERVICE Line of Credit Payoff n/a $3,000,000
TOTAL:$6,255,941 $9,476,014 $7,084,187
$23,000,000
$21,000,000
HUDPROGRAM INCOME
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
MOVING FORWARD - BEST PRACTICES & TRANSPARENCY
•Beginning with the FY24 fiscal year, program income (PI) generated from
HUD-funded activities will be recaptured on an annual basis.
•PI will be estimated and considered as part of the annual HUD application
process, with final funding allocations by the City Council.
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
NEXT STEPS – HUD FUNDS
1.If the Council indicates support for the Administration’s proposed funding
allocations, Housing Stability will finalize and transmit a substantial amendment to
the HUD 5-Year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and 1-Year Action Plan (Action Plan).
2.Housing Stability will work with Council Staff to initiate the 30-day minimum
required public input process, including public noticing and a public hearing.
3.After public input, City Council considers and adopts resolutions for the Con Plan
and Action Plan substantial amendments.
4.Once adopted, Housing Stability submit the substantial amendments to HUD.
5.HUD has 30-days to approve the amendments.
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
HUD TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS
•There will be strict expenditure/timeliness requirements once the Consolidated Plan
and Annual Action Plan are amended to recognize the funds.
•CDBG and HOME have different timeliness requirements. CDBG requirements are
more immediate.
•CDBG Example: Of the $11,853,704 in total CDBG resources, the City shall only be
allowed to have $5,096,644 ($3,397,763 X 1.5) remaining on May 1, 2024.
Annual Grant $3,397,763
Reallocated Funds $1,200,000
Current Program Income $1,000,000
Dormant Program Income $6,255,941
TOTAL $11,853,704
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS: CDBG
Property Acquisition:$5,755,941
•Acquisition of property for future housing development (80% AMI and <).
•CAN with work with the RDA and/or Housing Authority to identify and purchase a
property or multiple properties. The Council could identify policy priorities such as:
o High Opportunity Property Acquisition
o Community Land Trust Acquisitions
o Missing Middle Housing
West Side Improvements: $250,000
•Sidewalk and/or related infrastructure improvements on the West Side, to promote
safety, accessibility, and connectivity.
•Funding will likely be leveraged with an existing infrastructure project to maximize
community impact.
Façade Program:$250,000
•Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (aka Façade Program), providing
grants of up to $50,000 for for-profit businesses.
•Housing Stability will increase the amount of funding available to allocate through
this year’s application round, from $925,000 to $1,175,000.
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS: HOME
RDA NOFA:$5,755,941
•Gap financing for the development of affordable housing.
•Funding to be issued through the RDA’s annual Housing Development Loan
Program (HDLP) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).
•The RDA can move forward with issuing the NOFA and selecting projects for
funding while the HUD substantial amendments are in process. HUD will need to
approve the substantial amendments before contractual obligations are issued.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – 1159 WEST TEMPLE:
$3,000,000
•Gap financing for a Housing Authority of Salt Lake City project that is adjacent to
City-owned property by Smith’s Ballpark and will include ~55 units, of which ~11
will be 3-bedroom units to expand housing opportunities for families. Affordability
will range from 25% to 60% AMI.
•Funding would be leveraged with allocations already approved by the RDA Board
and would be subject to the underwriting and lending standards outlined in the
RDA’s HDLP policy.
$23,000,000
$21,000,000
NON-RESTRICTEDPROGRAM INCOME
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
MOVING FORWARD - BEST PRACTICES & TRANSPARENCY
•The Administration proposes that a Tenant and Homeowner Loan Fund (THLF) be established.
•The THLF would be a self-replenishing fund that utilizes principal and interest payments to
fund new housing actives that directly support tenants and homeowners.
•Revolving programs may include:
o Homebuyer Program
o Community Land Trust (“CLT”)
o Home Repair Program
o NOAH Renter Rehab
•As program income continues to be generated from projects and activities funded with non-
restricted funds, future program income shall be deposited into the THLF pending annual
budget allocations by the City Council.
COMMUNITYLAND TRUSTHOME REPAIR
PROGRAM
NOAHRENTER REHAB
PROGRAM
HOMEBUYER
PROGRAM
TENANT & HOMEOWNERLOAN FUND
If the Council indicates general
support for the establishment of a
Tenant and Homeowner Loan
Fund (THLF) and related
programs, the Administration will
return with draft legislative
policies for the Council’s
consideration.
PROG
R
A
M
I
N
C
O
M
E
ANNU
A
L
B
U
D
G
E
T
ANNUAL BUDGET
ANNUAL BUDGET
PROGR
A
M
I
N
C
O
M
E
ANNUA
L
B
U
D
G
E
T
ANNUA
L
B
U
D
G
E
T
PROGR
A
M
I
N
C
O
M
E
PRO
G
R
A
M
I
N
C
O
M
E
ANN
U
A
L
B
U
D
G
E
T
NEXT STEPS – NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS: NON-RESTRICTED –TENANT & HOMEOWNER LOAN FUND (REVOLVING)
Homebuyer Program:$1,000,000
•Provides mortgage financing for low- and moderate-income households to
further affordable homeownership.
Community Land Trust: $1,144,187
•Provides affordable homeownership opportunities, as homebuyers
purchase the housing improvements and ground lease the land from the
City at a below-market rate.
Home Repair Program:$500,000
•Provides grants and loans to low- and moderate-income homeowners to
address emergency and chronic structural, plumbing, electrical, and
mechanical home repair and replacement needs.
NOAH Renter Rehab Program:$1,200,000
•Provides loans to individuals who own naturally occurring affordable
housing that is offered for rent, primarily single-family homes and small-
scale multifamily buildings, and want to make the necessary repairs to
maintain habitability in return for rent restrictions. (new program)
Note: Legislative polices need to be established for these programs.
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS: NON-RESTRICTED –ONE TIME ALLOCATIONS
Rental Assistance:$180,000
•A pilot Tenant Relocation Program to help tenants who are directly impacted by
new development to find new living arrangements they can afford and to offset
the cost of relocation. This funding would be combined with $180,000 approved
through the FY24 Budget.
Public Services:$60,000
•To bring the following CDBG Public Service applications up to the full funding
request:
o First Step House, Employment: $26,492
o First Step House, Peer Support: $22,892
o SL Donated Dental: $5,308
o The Inn Between: $5,308
Debt Service:$3,000,000
•To pay off two lines of credit that were utilized years ago to assume shares in
some of the mortgage loans issued by the Homebuyer program.
$6,500,000
$21,000,000
QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
1.Is the Council supportive of the Administration’s proposed funding allocations?
Ø If so, the Administration will transmit the necessary HUD substantial amendments and initiate the
public input process.
2.Is the Council supportive of establishing a Tenant and Homeowner Loan Fund (THLF)
and linking the following programs to the THLF?
o Homebuyer Program
o Community Land Trust (“CLT”)
o Home Repair Program
o NOAH Renter Rehab
Ø If so, the Administration will return to the Council with draft legislative polices.
Dormant Housing Funds Summary Chart
HUD -
CDBG
HUD - HOME/
ADDI
NON-
RESTRICTEDTYPEPROJECT/PROGRAM LEAD Next Steps
Advertised as part of the RDA's upcoming Notice of
Funding Availability, and Housing Stability Division
prepare substantial amendments transmittalRDA NOFA RDA $6,476,014
$3,000,000
DEVELOPMENT
ACQUISITION
Housing Stability Division coordinates with City Housing
Authority for potential direct award to this development,
and prepare substantial amendments transmittal1159 West Temple (Book Cliffs)HASLC
Strategic, Opportunity Area, or CLT CAN, HASLC,Housing Stability Division prepare substantial
amendments transmittal$5,755,941Property Acquisition and/or RDA
Pending transmittals of the final Thriving in Place Plan
RENTAL ASSISTANCE Tenant Relocation Assistance Housing Stability $180,000 and the new Five-year Housing Plan, and Council
briefing(s)
Neighborhood Business
Improvement Program
Housing Stability Division prepare substantial
amendments transmittal
Housing Stability Division prepare substantial
amendments transmittal
Housing Stability $250,000
$250,000
NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENTS Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure
Improvements
Transportation/
Engineering
Homebuyer Program $1,000,000 Housing Stability draft new or amendments to existing
policies for transmittals and Council briefing(s)TENANT &
HOMEOWNER LOAN
FUND
Community Land Trust
Home Repair Program
NOAH Renter Rehab Program
First Step House, Employment
First Step House, Peer Support
SL Donated Dental
$1,144,187
$500,000Housing Stability
$1,200,000
$26,492 Housing Stability proceed with one-time allocations to
these nonprofits to bring them back up to the board and
mayoral funding recommendation amounts$22,892
$5,308
$5,308
PUBLIC SERVICES
DEBT SERVICE
Non-profit organizations
n/a
The Inn Between
Housing Stability proceed with payoff and closing these
lines of creditLine of Credit Payoff $3,000,000
TOTAL:$6,255,941 $9,476,014 $7,084,187
Last updated July 27, 2023
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: June 1, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Recommended funding allocations and establishment of a Tenant and Homeowner Loan
Fund (“THLF”) utilizing unallocated program income generated by activities within the Housing Stability
Division
STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department,
385-315-3315, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com
Tony Milner, Director, Housing Stability Division, 801-535-6168, tony.milner@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information only
RECOMMENDATION: Briefing and policy discussion
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On February 7, 2023, the Department of Community and
Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and the Division of Housing Stability briefed the City Council on certain funds
that are available for housing and community development activities. The February briefing not only
included a summary of unallocated program income funds, but also included a summary of U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) funds that have already been budgeted and are
being utilized during the current fiscal year. Currently, this transmittal focuses solely on the unallocated
program income, a portion of which is non-restricted and a portion of which is subject to HUD
requirements and needs to be recognized through the HUD Consolidated Plan framework.
Program income continues to be generated from the approximate 575 outstanding homebuyer and housing
rehab loans, which currently have a balance of approximately $25 million. The cumulative program
income balance has increased from $20,412,990 as of November 30, 2022 to $22,816,142 as of April 30,
2023. Beginning on July 1, 2023, with the start of the 2024 fiscal year, program income generated from
HUD-restricted funds, including Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) and Home Investment
Lisa Shaffer (Jun 1, 2023 11:15 MDT)06/01/2023
06/01/2023
Partnerships Program (“HOME”), will be recaptured and allocated annually through the HUD funding
process. Program income generated from non-restricted funds is proposed to be deposited into a revolving
loan fund, as detailed below, pending annual budget allocations by the Council.
I. Tenant and Homeowner Loan Fund
It is the Administration’s priority to utilize a portion of the non-restricted funding to capitalize a
revolving loan fund that would be established through legislative action as the Salt Lake City
Tenant and Homeowner Loan Fund (“THLF”). This would ensure that a portion of the program
income that has been generated over decades continues to produce revenue for ongoing housing
activities. As proposed, the THLF would support programs and activities that provide assistance
directly to tenants and homeowners, complementing the RDA’s housing funds that are targeted to
developers. The THLF is proposed to be structured as follows:
• On an annual basis, the Council shall allocate revenue from the THLF to revolving
programs and initiatives that may include the City’s Community Land Trust (“CLT”),
Homebuyer Program, and Home Repair Program, as well as a new program intended to
support naturally occurring affordable housing (“NOAH”). This will ensure that the
THLF is a self-replenishing fund that utilizes principal and interest payments to fund new
housing actives that directly support tenants and homeowners.
• In addition to revolving programs and initiatives, the THLF could be strategically used to
fund non-revolving initiatives such as the Tenant Relocation Assistance program that is
proposed in the Thriving in Place (“TIP”) draft plan.
• As program income continues to be generated from projects and activities funded with
non-restricted funds, future program income shall be deposited into the THLF pending
annual budget allocations by the City Council.
In addition to establishing the THLF through City Council action with legislative policies, the
Administration is preparing to transmit draft legislative polices for the Council’s consideration for
each of the programs anticipated to be funded by the THLF.
II. Available Funds
Since the February 2023 briefing, the unallocated program income has continued to generate new
revenue with the following balances as of April 30, 2023:
PROGRAM INCOME SOURCE 4/30/23 BALANCE
HUD
REGULATIONS
CDBG $6,255,941
HOME $9,427,209
American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) $48,805
NON-
RESTRICTED
Renter Rehab Program $1,716,265
Miscellaneous Bank Funds $1,759,136
Riverpark $3,608,786
TOTAL $22,816,142
*Note: ADDI is a discontinued HUD initiative that was provided through the HOME program. As such, the ADDI
program income is treated as HOME PI and used in accordance with HOME regulations.
Program income generated as a result of activities originally funded through CDBG and HOME
programs retain their federal identity in perpetuity and are subject to all federal requirements. The
non-restricted program income has either been generated by activities originally funded with non-
federal funds or by activities originally funded with a federal grant that was closed-out and
federal restrictions severed.
III. Funding Eligibility, Requirements, and Restrictions
Information on eligible uses of funds, requirements, and restrictions is as follows:
• Non-Restricted Funds: The non-restricted program income does not have specific
requirements or restrictions, HUD or otherwise. However, the Administration
recommends that these funds continue to be allocated to housing activities in a revolving
nature and be used in part to capitalize the THLF.
• HUD-Restricted Funds: Refer to Exhibit A for a summary of area median income
(“AMI”) restrictions and eligible uses of CDBG and HOME program income. The
CDBG “Public Services” category, which is typically available to allocate up to 15% of
the City’s annual CDBG award to non-profit organizations, is not an eligible use. This is
because the amount of historical program income generated on an annual basis is unable
to be determined for the program income. As such, HUD has advised the City to allocate
the funds to eligible uses other than Public Services.
IV. Steps to Utilize Funds
To utilize the funds, revenue and expenditures must be budgeted through the City’s annual budget
process. In addition, to utilize the dormant CDBG and HOME program income, HUD will require
that the funds be recognized in the Consolidated Plan framework. The City’s 2020 – 2024
Consolidated Plan (“Con Plan”), which covers the HUD 2020 – 2024 program years and the
City’s 2021 – 2025 fiscal years, estimates resources and identifies activities to address housing
and community development needs over this period. The Con Plan is carried out through annual
Action Plans, which provide a concise summary of the actions, activities, and the specific federal
and non-federal resources that will be used each year to address the priority needs and specific
goals identified by the Con Plan. The steps required to recognize the funds in the Con Plan
framework are as follows:
1. The City Council shall approve funding allocations for the dormant CDBG and HOME
program income, to be incorporated into the 2023-24 fiscal year along with the standard
HUD allocations that have already been approved. To be consistent with how the City
approves of HUD funding allocations, the Council may wish to amend Resolution 9 of
2023, the resolution adopting HUD funding allocations for the 2023-24 fiscal year, to
incorporate the program income allocations.
2. The Administration shall utilize the funding allocations to prepare substantial
amendments to the FY 2023 – 2024 Annual Action Plan and Con Plan.
3. Public noticing and hearing requirements shall be carried out pursuant to the 2020-2024
Citizen Participation Plan, which is Appendix C of the Con Plan.
4. The City Council shall approve substantial amendments to the FY 2023 – 2024 Action
Plan and Con Plan.
5. The Administration shall submit the substantial amendments to HUD for review and
approval.
V. Timely Use of Funds
Once the funds are recognized through the Con Plan framework, they will be subject to HUD’s
timeliness requirements. A summary of these requirements is as follows:
• CDBG:
If the dormant CDBG program income funds are recognized in the 2023 – 2024 Action
Plan, as the Administration is proposing, they will be factored into the timeliness
calculation that will occur on May 2, 2024. HUD calculates the ratio of unexpended
funds to the City’s annual grant award 60 days prior to the end of the fiscal year. To do
this, HUD sums the amount of program income the City has on hand with the amount of
funds remaining in the CDBG line of credit and divides by the amount of the annual grant
award. If the ratio is less than or equal to 1.5, then the City has met the timely
performance requirement. If the ratio is more than 1.5, then the City is considered
untimely and future HUD funds could be at risk.
• HOME
HOME funds must be committed to specific projects within twenty-four (24) months of
the City’s receipt of funds. Commitment means the City has entered into a legally
binding agreement with subrecipients for the completion of an eligible HOME activity.
HOME funds cannot be committed until:
o All necessary financing for the project has been secured
o A budget and implementation schedule have been established
o Underwriting and subsidy layering analysis have been completed
o Construction is scheduled to start within twelve months of the agreement date
o Environmental review requirements have been met
If HOME funds are not committed within 24 months or fully expended within sixty (60)
months, they will be recaptured by HUD.
VI. Proposed Allocations
The Administration proposes the following funding allocations, considering the various eligible
uses and timeliness requirements of the different funding sources:
TYPE PROJECT/PROGRAM LEAD HUD -
CDBG
HUD -
HOME/
ADDI
NON-
RESTRICTED
DEVELOPMENT RDA NOFA RDA $6,476,014
1159 West Temple (Book Cliffs) HASLC $3,000,000
ACQUISITION Strategic, Opportunity Area, or
CLT Property Acquisition
CAN, HASLC,
and/or RDA $5,755,941
RENTAL
ASSISTANCE Tenant Relocation Assistance Housing Stability $180,000
NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENTS
Neighborhood Business
Improvement Program Housing Stability $250,000
Westside
Sidewalk/Infrastructure
Improvements
Transportation/
Engineering $250,000
TENANT &
HOMEOWNER
LOAN FUND
Homebuyer Program Housing Stability $1,000,000
Community Land Trust Housing Stability $1,144,187
Home Repair Program Housing Stability $500,000
NOAH Renter Rehab Program Housing Stability $1,200,000
PUBLIC
SERVICES
First Step House, Employment
Non-profit
organizations
$26,492
First Step House, Peer Support $22,892
SL Donated Dental $5,308
The Inn Between $5,308
DEBT SERVICE Line of Credit Payoff n/a $3,000,000
TOTAL: $6,255,941 $9,476,014 $7,084,187
Additional information on the proposed projects and activities is as follows:
1. DEVELOPMENT
RDA NOFA, $6,476,014
1159 S West Temple, up to $3,000,000
• RDA NOFA
Funding would be allocated to specific projects via a competitive Notice of
Funding Availability (“NOFA”) through the RDA’s Housing Development Loan
Program (“HDLP”).
• 1159 S West Temple (Book Cliffs Lodge)
Due to the inter-governmental relationship between the City and the Housing
Authority of Salt Lake City (“HASLC”), the Administration inquired with
HASLC on development projects that, once a funding gap is filled, are shovel-
ready and would be on a development schedule that would meet HUD’s
timeliness requirements. The project, located at 1159 S West Temple and known
as Book Cliffs Lodge, has not been able to obtain competitive 9% Low Income
Housing Tax Credits and continues to have a funding gap. HASLC applied for
non-competitive 4% tax credits, which are anticipated to be obtained this
summer, leaving a ~$3,000,000 funding gap. As such, up to $3,000,000 is
proposed to be combined with the funding already allocated by the RDA to
provide construction financing for the project. Funding would be allocated
subject to the underwriting and lending standards outlined in the RDA’s HDLP
policy. The project is adjacent to City-owned property by Smith’s Ballpark and
will include 55 units, of which 11 will be 3-bedroom units to expand housing
opportunities for families. Affordability will range from 25% to 60% of the area
median income (“AMI”).
2. ACQUISITION
Strategic, East Side, and/or CLT Property Acquisition, $5,755,941
• Due to strict timeliness requirements for CDBG, the acquisition of property is the
likeliest way for the City to meet spend down requirements. As such, the
Administration recommends allocating the majority of CDBG program income
for the acquisition of property, as follows:
o A partnership between CAN, RDA, and/or the HASLC to identify and
purchase property that is either located in a strategic location or in a high
opportunity area for the future development of affordable housing; or
o Single-family homes and/or missing middle typology housing that will
be incorporated into to the City’s CLT, with the City retaining ownership
of the land in perpetuity and homeowners purchasing the housing units.
3. RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Tenant Relocation Assistance, $180,000
• Funding to help tenants who are directly impacted by new development to find
new living arrangements they can afford and to offset the cost of relocation. This
funding would be combined with $180,000 proposed through the Mayor’s
Recommended FY24 Budget, for a total of $360,00 to assist approximately 60
displaced households in a pilot program.
4. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
Neighborhood Building Improvement Program, $250,000
Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, $250,000
• Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (“NBIP”)
The Council has expressed interest in committing a portion of CDBG program income to the NBIP, aka the façade program. The Administration recommends allocating $250,000 to the NBIP, which would be combined with the $925,000 already allocated through the FY24 HUD funding process. This will bring the FY24 total to $1,175,000, which is almost double that of the previous fiscal year’s budget. Housing Stability has already issued a competitive application process and will increase the number of projects awarded funded if the Council appropriates these additional funds.
• Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements
The Council has expressed interest in committing a portion of CDBG program
income to sidewalk and/or infrastructure improvements, with a focus on the
City’s west side. The Administration recommends allocating $250,000 to this
initiative, to be combined with other CDBG infrastructure funds that are
unexpended and continue to be factored into the CDBG timeliness ratio,
including:
o $322,000, FY 21-22 bus stop improvements
o $92,789, FY 22-23 bus stop improvements
o $550,000, FY 22-23 Ballpark TRAX pedestrian crossing
5. REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES
Tenant and Homeowner Loan Fund (“THLF”): $3,844,187
• The Administration recommends allocating a significant portion of the non-
restricted funds to the THLF, which is proposed to be a revolving resource that
supports programs providing direct assistance to residents. Funding is proposed
to be earmarked as follows:
o Homebuyer Program, $1,000,000
Provides mortgage financing for low- and moderate-income households
to further affordable homeownership.
o Community Land Trust, $1,144,187
Homebuyers purchase the housing improvements and ground lease the
land from the City at a below-market rate. To maximize affordability,
mortgages are issued through the Homebuyer Program to CLT
homebuyers.
o Home Repair Program, $500,000
Provides grants and loans to low- and moderate-income homeowners to
address emergency and chronic structural, plumbing, electrical, and
mechanical home repair and replacement needs.
o NOAH Renter Rehabilitation Program, $1,200,000
Provides loans to individuals who own naturally occurring affordable
housing that is offered for rent, primarily single-family homes and small-
scale multifamily buildings, and want to make the necessary repairs to
maintain habitability in return for rent restrictions.
6. PUBLIC SRVICES
First Step House, Salt Lake Donated Dental, The Inn Between, $60,000
• During the FY24 HUD funding allocation process, the City Council reduced the
funding award for certain program from the Mayor’s recommended amount. The
Council expressed interest in utilizing dormant program income to bring these
programs back up to the Mayor’s recommended level. The ”Public Services”
category is not an eligible use of the dormant CDBG program income. As such,
the Administration recommends funding these programs with non-restricted
funds for a total of $60,000 divided as follows:
o First Step House, Employment Preparation and Placement Program,
provides supportive employment services to high-risk, high-need
individuals caught in the cycles of relapse, mental illness, incarceration,
homelessness, and underemployment, $26,492
o First Step House, Peer Support Services, salaries and administration
costs to provide peer-based supportive services, delivered by certified
Peer Support Specialists, $22,892
o Salt Lake Donated Dental Services, Community Dental Project, salaries,
supplies, and lab to support homeless and low-income individuals with
dental services, $5,308
o The Inn Between, End of Life Care and Medical Respite, provides
homeless individuals who need hospice or other end of life care and
temporary medical respite housing for homeless individuals experiencing
a medical crisis, $5,308
7. DEBT SERVICE
Line of Credit Payoff, $3,000,000
• The Administration recommends that funds be allocated to pay off two lines of
credit (“LOC”) that were utilized years ago to assume shares in some of the
mortgage loans issued by the Homebuyer program. The LOCs were secured by
the homebuyers’ properties and loan proceeds. As of May 2023, the LOCs have
an outstanding balance of $1.34 million and $1.84 million, for a total of $3.18
million.
PUBLIC PROCESS: A public process will be carried out pursuant to the 2020-2024 Citizen
Participation Plan, which is Appendix C of the Con Plan.
EXHIBITS:
A. Eligible Uses of CDBG and HOME Program Income Funds
EXHIBIT A: ELIGIBLE USES of CDBG & HOME PROGRAM INCOME FUNDS
CDBG PI FUNDS
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES CON PLAN
ELIGIBLE
TYPICAL
NATIONAL
OBJECTIVE
DETAILS
HOUSING
Rehabilitation: Single and Multi-Unit Residential YES LMI households;
prevent or eliminate
blight; meet
unfunded, urgent
local need
May rehabilitate or reconstruct or
convert structures, provide
homeownership assistance, and
housing counseling. Includes all
activity costs such as applicant
intake, construction specs and
procurement, and construction.
All activities must result in
achievement of a CDBG national
objective, typically by providing
housing to an LMI household.
Construction of Housing (limited) YES
Direct Homeownership Assistance YES
Housing Counseling YES
Public Housing Modernization YES
Energy Efficiency Improvements YES
Rehabilitation Administration YES
Lead-Based Paint/Lead Hazard Abatement YES
Code Enforcement YES
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & FACILITIES
Senior Centers NO LMI households;
prevent or eliminate
blight; meet
unfunded, urgent
local need
May acquire, construct,
reconstruct, or rehabilitate a
public facility or improvement. All
activities must result in
achievement of a CDBG national
objective, typically by providing
access to a facility or
improvement to an LMI clientele
or to LMI persons residing in a
qualified area.
Facility for Persons with Disabilities NO
Homeless Facilities (not operating costs) NO
Youth Centers/Facilities NO
Neighborhood Facilities YES
Parks, Recreational Facilities YES
Parking Facilities YES
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities NO
Flood and Drainage Facilities NO
Water/Sewer Improvements NO
Sidewalks YES
Child Care Centers NO
Fire Stations/Equipment NO
Health Facilities NO
Removal of Architectural Barriers NO
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Acquisition of Property YES LMI persons,
families, or area;
prevent or eliminate
blight; meet
unfunded, urgent
local need
May buy, clean up, demolish,
dispose of, and relocate
occupants from a property for an
eligible public purpose.
Disposition YES
Clearance and Demolition YES
Clean-up of Contaminated Sites/Brownfields YES
Relocation YES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Commercial/ Industrial Building Rehabilitation YES LMI persons,
families, or area;
businesses
providing LMI jobs
or services; prevent
or eliminate blight;
meet unfunded,
urgent need
May assist commercial or
industrial activities. All activities
must result in achievement of a
CDBG national objective,
typically by creating or retaining
permanent LMI jobs or serving
an LMI area. Project examples
range from working capital loans,
to neighborhood store
expansion.
Commercial/Industrial Land Acquisition/
Disposition
NO
Commercial/Industrial Infrastructure
Development
NO
Commercial/Industrial Building Construction NO
Micro-Enterprise Assistance NO
Note: Public Services and Administration/Planning activities are not listed, as they cannot be funded with the Dormant PI.
Note: "LMI" is low and moderate-income, which is generally defined as 80% of the area median income (“AMI”) and below.
Note: CDBG funds for Housing activities must be utilized for permanent housing and not transitional or emergency shelters.
HOME PI FUNDS
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS CON PLAN
ELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES TYPES OF ASSISTANCE
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) YES Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
limit 60% AMI.
Development and Homebuyer
assistance limit is 80% AMI<.
5 or > units: 20% of units must be
at 50% AMI <.
All funds must be for 80% AMI
and below. Can be used on mixed
income developments, number of
affordable units is based on
Funding amount.
HOME allows multiple forms
of financial assistance or
subsidy: grants, loans,
interest subsidies, loan
guarantees, equity
investments to be provided
for eligible projects. Once a
commitment is made with
HOME PI funds, the project
must be completed in a four-
year timeframe.
New Construction- Rental &
Homeownership
YES
Rehabilitation YES
Reconstruction YES
Program Staff - Specific to TBRA YES
Acquisition YES
Project Related Soft Costs YES
Homebuyer Assistance; DPA or
Acquisition
YES
Note: Any construction, rehabilitation, soft costs, and acquisition costs are eligible as part of a complete project not as stand-alone costs.
Note: Rehabilitation includes conversion to an existing structure, adaptive reuse, site improvements & infrastructure.
Note: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance is referred to as “TBRA”, Down-Payment Assistance is “DPA”.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 6/29/2023
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 6/29/2023
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/29/2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Elizabeth Hanna
member of the Police Civilian Review Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
June 29, 2023
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Mano,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Police
Civilian Review Board
Elizabeth Hanna to be appointed for a three year term ending the first Monday in
September 2026 and starting from date of City Council advice.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
cc: file
City Council Announcements
August 15, 2023
For Your Information:
A.Notification of removal of Artworks from the City’s Public Art
Collection:
The Mayor approved the recommendation from the Salt Lake Art Design Board
to remove the following artworks from the City’s public art collection:
a. Wayne Chubin’s Friends of the Park, which was originally placed on the
façade of the storage building within Herman Franks Park (700 East 1300
South).
b. Thomas Tessman’s Pierpont Benches, which were originally located on the
Pierpont Walkway between 200 South & Pierpont Avenue.
The recommendations are based on multiple programmatic priorities:
1. Both artworks could not be located and are now considered lost; and
2. Deaccession of both artworks has been recommended as a course of action
by a professional assessment of our public art collection.
An informational transmittal was received in the Council Office on August 8
satisfying the 45-day advance notice requirement in City Code before an artwork
in the City’s collection may be removed.
Information Needed:
B. November & December Council Meetings:
Due to General Election Day, the date of Council meetings in November AND
when the Council convenes as the Board of Canvassers is changing, too.
November meetings: The Council has typically avoided holding Council
Meetings on Election day. Since the elections have been moved to November 21,
this conflicts with a scheduled Council Meeting. Does the Council want to
reschedule? It could work to reschedule the November 21 (election day) Council
Meeting to November 28, 2023.
Does November 28th work for Council Members or would you prefer
another schedule?
Below are the current meetings scheduled and possible conflicts for each
Tuesday.
➢November 7, 2023 – Reschedule Nov 21? Possible Conflicts: Mpact
Conference (Formally Railvolution) – so far no Council Members are
planning to attend, but City staff may be.
➢November 14, 2023 – Currently RDA, Council Work Session & Formal
scheduled.
➢November 21, 2023 – Currently Council Work Session, Formal. General
Election Day – reschedule to Nov 7 or Nov 28?
➢November 28, 2023 – Reschedule Nov 21? No conflicts
December meetings:
The Recorder’s office is coordinating with the County on adding District 7 to the
ballot, timeline for counting votes and providing final numbers. We are asking
that the final election results be provided by December 5 at 4:00 p.m. so that the
Council meeting dates don’t need to change. However, in case that’s not possible,
could Council Members hold December 6, Wednesday, as a tentative meeting
date to quickly convene as the Board of Canvassers?
➢December 5, 2023 - Currently Council Work Session & Formal
scheduled. Plan to include the Board of Canvassers meeting here, too.
➢Tentative - December 6, 2023 – If needed for the Board of
Canvassers; Possible Limited Formal
➢December 12. 2023 - Currently RDA, Council Work Session & Formal
scheduled.
If a meeting is needed on December 6th, what time works for Council
Members? (Council Members can attend remotely in order to hold the
meeting.)
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an
individual;
§52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205( l )(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;
§52-4-205(l )(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) if 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;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(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.
Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a)the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or
detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
Salt Lake City CouncilDarin Mano August 15, 2023
4
44
08/16/2023
Closed Session - Sworn Statement
Final Audit Report 2023-08-16
Created:2023-08-15
By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAawj1U4q2areAH6HHc2p9FYeJCaGOTlSn
"Closed Session - Sworn Statement" History
Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com)
2023-08-15 - 10:44:29 PM GMT
Document emailed to Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) for signature
2023-08-15 - 11:03:55 PM GMT
Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com)
2023-08-16 - 3:55:02 AM GMT
Document e-signed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2023-08-16 - 5:02:15 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2023-08-16 - 5:02:15 PM GMT