04/06/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
April 6, 2021 Tuesday 2:00 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation.
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times
and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated: 15:54:08
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Chair’s determination that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical
location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may
be present at the anchor location.
The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined that conducting a meeting at an anchor
location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk
to the health and safety of those who may attend in person. For these reasons, the
Council Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all
attendees will connect remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they
feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
•Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or
general comment period, you may do so through the Webex platform. To learn how to
connect through Webex, or if you need call-in phone options, please visit our website or
call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more.
As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an
email:
•24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes
and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council Members. All
agenda-related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the
Council Members and added to the public meeting record. View comments by visiting the
Council Virtual Meeting Comments page.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,
including but not limited to:
•COVID-19, the March 2020 Earthquake, and the September 2020 Windstorm;
•Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
•Police Department work, projects, and staffing, etc.; and
•Other projects or updates.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~ 2:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are
working on related to racial equity and policing in the City. The conversation may include
issues of community concern about race, equity, and justice in relation to law
enforcement policies, procedures, budget, and ordinances. Discussion may include:
•An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;
◦a presentation of recommendations from the School Safety Subcommittee;
and,
•Other project updates or discussion.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Informational: Ranked Choice Voting Overview and Pilot
Project Follow-up ~ 2:50 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an option to participate in the State-
authorized Municipal Alternative Voting Method Pilot Program project, otherwise known
as single-winner ranked-choice voting or instant runoff voting. Discussion will include
how the ranked-choice voting process works, how the elections would be conducted,
relevant bills in the Legislature’s 2021 General Session and public education efforts.
Under ranked choice voting, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. Election
equipment tabulates the preference numbers for each ballot. If none of the candidates
receive more than 50% of the overall vote after the first round of tabulation, the
candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. The voters who had selected the
eliminated candidate as their first choice would then have their votes tabulated for their
second-choice candidate. This process of elimination continues until a candidate crosses
the 50% threshold and is declared the winner.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 16, 2021 and Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
4.Ordinance: Idling of Vehicles Ordinance Amendments ~ 3:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend a section of the Salt
Lake City Code related to idling of vehicles, penalty amendments, and exemption
amendments. The proposed changes include updated language for idling restriction
exceptions, such as during extreme temperatures, operation of equipment in emergency
and law enforcement vehicles, or stopped for traffic control devices. The proposed update
would also allow the City to issue a citation after only one warning.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
5.One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant
& Other Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Follow-up ~ 3:40 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the Mayor’s funding
recommendations and an appropriations resolution that would adopt the One-year
Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2021-22. The plan includes Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding,
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS (HOPWA) funding. The resolution would approve an Interlocal Cooperation
Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 and Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 16, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
6.Tentative Break ~ 4:25 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
7.Informational: Accessory Dwelling Unit Annual Report ~ 4:45 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) annual
report. The report is required to include the number of applications received, the address
of each unit for which an application was submitted, an explanation of why an application
was denied, and a map showing approved accessory dwelling units. This report covers the
time period from October 2018 to December 31, 2020. The report is required by
ordinance to be transmitted to the City Council by February 15, 2021.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
8.Ordinance: Learned Alley Vacation (1025 West North Temple
and 1022, 1028, 1030, and 1032 West Learned Avenue) ~ 5:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would vacate a City-owned alley
adjacent to properties at 1025 West North Temple and 1022, 1028, 1030 and 1032 West
Learned Avenue. The applicant petitioned to vacate the 180-foot long section of public
alley to consolidate the properties immediately abutting the alley. If approved, the
applicant plans to consolidate the lots adjacent to the alley and construct a multi-family
residential structure. The proposed project would still need to meet relevant zoning
requirements and the applicant would need to submit a separate petition. The closure
will not impact traffic or access.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
9.Ordinance: Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation ~ 5:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would vacate a City-owned alley known
as the Fern Subdivision Alley located between 1000 East and 1100 East and between
Wood Avenue and Logan Avenue. The east-west portion of the alley runs behind eight
homes between 1019 East and 1053 East Logan Avenue.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
10.Informational: Engineering Division's Six Year
Pavement Plan and Roadway Selection Committee
Presentation
Written Briefing
The Council will receive a written briefing about the 2020 Six Year Pavement Plan
regarding street conditions and projects in the City. A presentation to the Roadway
Selection Committee is also included. The plan and presentation identify upcoming
street reconstruction locations and estimated costs. The reconstructions are largely
funded by an $87 million voter-approved bond which is part of the Funding Our Future
initiative. Other information provided includes the street network overall pavement
condition, recently completed street reconstructions, and the City’s approach to street
maintenance.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
12.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.
13.Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed
meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes
including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or
mental health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real
property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public
discussion of the transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the
best possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any
form of a water right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property
under consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on
the best possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property
would be offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public
body approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or
systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal
misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged
pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the
pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include
alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least
two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
1SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS March 2021
AND FIRST SET OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS
AND FIRST SET OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Continued Racial Disparity in the Students that are
interacting with School Resources Officers (SROs)
ISSUE: Despite a dramatic decrease in the overall number of citations given to students
by SROs and reduction in racial disparity in these citations (due to recent juvenile justice
reform efforts, the 2018 MOU between SLCPD and SLCSD, and School-Based Law
Enforcement Training for both SROs and school administrators), there is still some
disparity in the number of citations given to Hispanic students in some schools. For
example, high school
citations for 2013-2014 were
125 White Hispanics v 18
White Non-Hispanic
students. For 2019-2020, 20
White Hispanics v 2 White
Non-Hispanic got citations.
This reveals significant
reductions in amount of
citations and disparity as
well, but disparity is still
present in 2019-2020.
ASSOCIATED RECOMMENDATIONS
Early in the work of this subcommittee we were made aware of the impending
expiration of the current Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) the
governs the work of the School Resource Officers (SROs) as it expires at the end
of 2020-21 school year. However, it has since been communicated to the
subcommittee that the expiration date will be extended until the REP
recommendations are complete. This subcommittee wants to commend this
adjustment and appreciates this recognition of the process underway.
1
20
125
2
18
2019-2020
2013-2014
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Non-Hispanic Hispanic
Number of Citations
2SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS March 2021
AND FIRST SET OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Additionally, two commissioners were invited to participate in the “SRO
Oversight Committee”, which brings together Salt Lake City School District and
Police Department personnel to review the SRO program twice a year.
Concerns about barriers to services for at-risk youth &
the contributions to the School to Prison Pipeline
ISSUES:
The Promising Youth Project (PYP) - is a comprehensive crime, violence, and
gang reduction program. The purpose of the Promising Youth Project is to provide
promising youth with the opportunities and support needed to unlock their
promising potential. The project achieves this by utilizing evidence-based practices
and program to assess, case-manage, and connect youth to community resources.
In order to be successful, the Promising Youth Project designed a program
dedicated to serving the needs of Salt Lake City and its residents. The Promising
Youth Project contains two program components in order to meet the needs of
our community. The Promising Youth Project contains a (1) School-based Violence,
Crime, & Gang Reduction Program and (2) the Promising Youth Summer
Opportunity an adventure, life skills, leadership program.
PYP is currently housed within the SLCPD
The hiring protocols at the SLCPD hinder the ability to attract and onboard
youth/community advocates (practices within the backgrounds investigation
portion of hiring is off-putting to potential new-hires for several reasons including,
but not limited to long hold periods due to background checks before employment
(average 30-60 days), home-visit inspections done by an officer in the home of the
candidate (which is off-putting to candidates, especially those who identify as
people of color), and a myriad of disqualifiers that prove to weed out highly
qualified candidates at high rates.
2
3SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS March 2021
AND FIRST SET OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
ASSOCIATED RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to strengthen the resources available to at-risk students we recommend
the following shifts to existing programming:
The REP School Safety subcommittee recommends that the PYP program be
moved from the SLCPD and into the City's Youth and Family Services division.
This move is intended to allow the program to:
▪Improve PYP’s ability to recruit qualified and passionate staff who can
most effectively bond with the students.
▪Reduce barriers for youth participation who require a safe space to
meet with their advocates or receive mental health services. Youth
coming into Police Department offices is a barrier.
▪In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made
aware that moving the program to the City would threaten current
funding sources (i.e. COPS grant) and they asked to have more time to
allow this fledgling program to flourish under their oversight.
▪We recommend that this be revisited in February 2022 (to allow
changes to be included in the next budget cycle) to determine if a
move might still be needed or if adjustments described here and in
red below were sufficient to ensure that this important program
can most effectively deliver services.
We recommend that this program be given adequate space and resources
(computers, cell phones, desks, curricula, risk assessments, etc.) to more
effectively meet the needs of the youth they are currently serving and to expand
their program to serve more youth.
▪In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made
aware that funding for supplies as described above has been found.
We were also informed that PYP staff will now share offices with SROs
in the schools to improve ability to meet with students and to further
improve coordination between the two programs.
We recommend increased funding to this program to ensure continued service
to the community and to allow increased collaboration with other City and
private programs for the benefit of the program’s targeted population.
▪While current grant funding is in place for the coming year, it is still
the recommendation of this committee that secure, long-term funding
for this program be found be adding it as a line item in the SLCPD
budget when current funding expires.
4SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS March 2021
AND FIRST SET OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
We further recommend that all (10) SROs be allowed to work with the PYP
Summer program throughout the summer.
▪Currently, only a few of the SROs are allowed to participate in the
summer program and selection is based on seniority. This results in a
breakdown of any rapport and relationships that SROs have developed
with at-risk youth during the school year.
▪This adjustment would allow continued coordination between the
youth and the SROs to reduce the number of youth who drop out of
the program for this reason, which places youth at increased risk of
involvement in delinquent behavior and referral to the juvenile justice
system. Therefore, the positive improvements that youth have gained
throughout the school year may be lost during the summer.
▪This adjustment would allow School Resource Officers to continue
learning, training, and collaborating with Youth Support Advocates
while engaging with youth in pro-social, healthy, and positive
environments.
▪In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made
aware that the funding for the SRO program is now going to be 12
months a year, allowing the SROs to stay involved in PYP through the
summer months.
Peer Court - A restorative justice program working to combat the
disproportionate involvement of marginalized youth in the juvenile justice
system by providing all youth who commit minor offenses an alternative
opportunity to be held accountable for their actions.
▪We recommend that the peer court program, the promising youth
project, and the explorers program work closely together to maximize
resources and outcomes.
▪We recommend ongoing and increased funding to these programs
where needed to ensure they can work together to continue helping
at-risk youth to avoid the juvenile justice system and building better
outcomes for these students overall
Mayor’s Office needs to hire dedicated FTE to address
equity in education. 3
5SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS March 2021
AND FIRST SET OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
To track the MOU, develop programming needed to make SROs (or other
programs as determined) more effective and/or phase them out of schools,
maintain a good working relationship between the school district and the City.
The subcommittee is aware of the new Chief Equity Officer and that there
are others on staff with responsibilities in this realm. The feeling is that
mixing this with other responsibilities doesn’t allow the focus needed to
make meaningful progress on these issues.
The job description for such a position should be determined in
collaboration with SLCSD and SLCPD to ensure the position is set up for
success and is empowered to make meaningful change.
23-Mar-21 1
MEMORANDUM TO CITY LEADERSHIP
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Leadership DATE: March 23, 2021
Mayor Mendenhall and City Council Chair Amy Fowler
FROM: Lauren Shafer, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: UPDATE: Ranked Choice Voting and Participation in the Municipal Alternative Voting
Method Pilot Program
* Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and the “pilot program” are used interchangeably in this memo;
however, RCV is the method of voting which falls under the pilot program.
IMPORTANT DATES:
• By April 29, 2021: Provide notice to overseas and military voters under the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) if a Primary election will be held.
• By April 30, 2021: Publish election notice that identifies: (i) the municipal offices to be voted on
in the municipal general election; and the (ii) dates for filing a declaration of candidacy for the
offices identified.
o Due to Newspaper deadlines and the current calendar year, the publication would need to
be provided to the Salt Lake Tribune by Thursday April 22 (3 pm) or to the Deseret
News by Tuesday, April 27 (4 pm).
• By May 9, 2021: Provide notice to Lt. Governor & County Clerk by resolution indicating
intention to participate in the Pilot Program and assurance the municipality has the resources and
capability to participate.
o Considering the Council meeting schedule, the resolution consideration date (provided
the publishing and notification information provided above) is suggested for April 20 at
the Formal meeting.
• Tuesday, November 2, 2021: Municipal General Election.
o Primary election is optional in the Pilot Program
BACKGROUND:
In February 2021, the Council was briefed on the potential of conducting the 2021 Municipal election as
part of the Municipal Alternative Voting Pilot Program otherwise known as Ranked Choice Voting. This
memorandum is for the follow-up briefing addressing the impact of state legislation and upcoming
deadlines.
At the initial briefing two videos were discussed – please click on these links to view the video contents:
• Post It Note Video
• City of Vineyard Ranked Choice Voting Video (created by the Lieutenant Governor’s Office)
The purpose of the memo is to outline components of the Municipal Election timing impacted by the
determination to participate in the Pilot Program. The determination to participate is crucial to the
Recorder’s office providing clear timelines and community outreach efforts. Providing an informal
response to this question, allows the Recorder’s office to return with the Interlocal Agreement outlining
costs, to prepare a draft resolution to notify the office of the Lt. Governor and the County Clerk formally
of the determination, and to begin outreach material creation and strategy.
Upon the determination of the election method, the timeline to declare candidacy is defined. Currently
individuals are opening campaign finance committees but do not declare candidacy officially until the
election method is determined.
BUDGET:
The Recorder’s Office received a draft Interlocal Agreement from Salt Lake County Elections with the
following costs:
• $119,108 – Traditional Voting Method with a Primary and General Election
• $120,218 – Ranked Choice Voting Method with a Primary and General Election*
• $72,387 – Ranked Choice Voting Method without a Primary *
*Ranked Choice Voting methods may go over the estimate based the participation of other
municipalities, not exceeding $10,000.
Prior to receiving the estimates from the County, the Recorder’s office had requested $275,000 in the
budget proposed to the Mayor.
If opting into the Pilot Program, the determination to hold a Primary Election involves various
considerations including:
• Voters and Candidates expectations of a Primary Election
• Potentially fewer candidates to rank on the November General Election ballot
• Voters may experience Ranked Choice Voting prior to the General Election
• Holding a Primary Elections contributes to overall costs, limiting educational outreach funds
• Timing to educate voters about Ranked Choice Voting is decreased
• Potential candidates would be afforded additional time to collect signatures (if desired) prior to
the Declaration of Candidacy period
• Impact of the timing on the COVID-19 vaccination efforts, potential in-person voting and
campaigning efforts
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
If selected as the chosen method, the Ranked Choice Voting method will require additional community
outreach to ensure voters have been provided the opportunity to practice and understand how Ranked
Choice Voting works. Voter education plays a large role in elections and it has been noted that candidates
are the initial educator in their conversations with the public. Building upon the 2015 Vote by Mail
campaign efforts, outlined below are some of the anticipated community outreach efforts through funding
joined with the State or from fiscal savings if the Primary election is not held.
Stages of Preparation (all being evaluated for multiple languages and alternative communication methods)
• Candidates
o Use of informational material within the Candidate Guide
o Listed in the Candidate Guide, scheduled open conversation/practice opportunities
conducted by the Recorder’s office
• Promotional Asset Development used and distributed through:
o Social Media Campaign efforts
o Website – multiple locations throughout the City
o Ranked Choice Voting Instructional video development
o Citywide Mailing (postcards)
o Newspaper publishing notices
o Outside organization distribution (including recognized community organizations,
religious groups, community & senior centers, individual schools and districts, libraries,
large employers, business associations
o Pins, banners, promotional materials
o Multiple press released, interviews, email updates
o Paid promotional spots on radio, social media and digital advertising
• SLCTV/Media Services Outreach in multiple languages
o Capitol City News segments
o Ask Me Anything (AMA) Events
The Lieutenant Governor’s Office has roughly $200,000 available for outreach and public education on
Ranked Choice Voting. However, until it is known how many cities will opt into the Pilot Program, the
funding and education cannot be outlined. As of March 22, 2021, cities opting into the Pilot Program
include: Draper, Lehi, Payson, Riverton, Springville, Vineyard, and Heber City.
23-Mar-21 4
TIMELINE OVERVIEW:
Election Calendar Task
Due dates if current
voting method is
selected OR Ranked
Choice Voting with a
Primary is selected
Number of
Calendar Days
from date of the
Memo: March 23
Adjusted Date if RCV is
selected (without a
Primary election)
Number of Calendar
Days from date of the
Memo: March 23, 2021
Election Official must prepare a notice for UOCAVA voters
for the primary election April 30 38 Not applicable 38
Publish a notice that identifies: (i) the municipal offices to
be voted on in the municipal general election; and (ii) the
dates for filing a declaration of candidacy for the offices
identified
May 1 39 May 1 39
Last day for Council members to use Communication
Budget Funds to distribute newsletters (A.19)(d)
May 11 (last day to
postmark) 50 August 3 (last day to
postmark) 135
Declaration of Candidacy period begins June 1 70 August 10 140
Declaration of Candidacy period ends June 7 76 August 17 147
Ballots must be transmitted to UOCAVA voters June 25 94 Not applicable 94
First day to send mail / absentee ballots to active registered
voters July 20 119 Not applicable 119
Last day to register to vote for Municipal Primary Election July 30 129 Not applicable 129
Municipal Primary Election August 10 140 Not applicable 140
Municipal General Election November 2 224 November 2 224
Request to the Council:
1. Would the Council consider a straw poll indicating interest to participate (or not participate) in the Pilot Program for Ranked Choice Voting?
2. If the Council chooses to participate in the Pilot Program, will there be a Primary Election?
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 6, 2021
RE:Salt Lake City Code 12.58 Idling of Vehicles
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council previously adopted an “idle free ordinance” via city code 12.58, “Idling of Vehicles.” The
ordinance enables the city to levy a civil penalty against persons idling vehicles in ways prohibited by
the ordinance, after three violations. For the first three violations, State law had previously inhibited
the City’s levying civil penalties on the grounds of idling.
In 2019, the Utah State Legislature amended law in a way that allows the City to assess penalties for
violation of idling-related ordinance after just one warning, rather than the previously-required three
warnings. This proposed amendment would bring City code into alignment with those statutory
changes, and makes other changes that the Administration indicates are a function of clean-up and
housekeeping.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Administration transmittal
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Under proposed amendments to City code 12.58.030 (B), specifications in the ordinance about
when vehicles are allowed to idle under certain temperature conditions are removed. Council
Members might wish to inquire whether the provision in this section to allow vehicles to idle
“for the health or for the safety of a driver or passenger” are more or less restrictive than the
specifications that had previously been in the ordinance.
a. Furthermore, the proposed amendments remove the provision that allows vehicles to
idle for purposes of defrosting or other mechanisms related to visibility; the proposed
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 6, 2021
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
amendments also remove provisions that allow idling for purposes of recharging
batteries and lifting equipment. Council Members may wish to inquire whether the
amended language still provides for allowance of idling for these purposes, or whether a
policy change is being proposed whereby these or other functions would not be
preserved under the amendment.
2.Does the Administration anticipate differential impacts for persons of diverse socioeconomic or
other backgrounds?
a. For example, could persons with less access to well-functioning vehicles for
socioeconomic or other reasons be impacted disproportionately by the change from
three warnings before fines to one warning before fines, and would the Administration
have a proposal for mitigation of these potential impacts?
3.What impacts are anticipated when it comes to changes in City revenue potentially resulting
from the proposed amendments,
a. Is there information available on how many citations have been issued in relation to the
existing ordinance,
b. Would the proposed changes result in any modification to the existing fine schedule for
infractions of the existing idling requirements and
c. Does the Administration anticipate additional capacity needed for enforcement as a
result of the potential changes?
4.Council Members have expressed interest in refining other enforcement mechanisms related to
vehicle non-compliance with, for example, noise emission regulations. Council Members may
wish to explore whether there is a potential to leverage efficiencies between enforcement
capacity needed for these proposed changes, as well as other capacity that might be useful for
enforcement revisions sought after by some Council Members and constituents.
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
451 SOUTH STATE ROOM 404 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 WWW.SLCGREEN.COM
TEL 801-535-6470
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
VICKI BENNETT
Director
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: _____________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF CONTACTS:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECOMMENDATION:
Salt Lake City Council
Amy Fowler, Chair
October 9, 2020
Vicki Bennett
Sustainability Department Director _____________________
Salt Lake City Code 12.58 Idling of Vehicles
Debbie Lyons
Sustainability Division Director
debbie.lyons@slcgov.com | 801.535.7795
Ordinance
Adopt the ordinance amending a Section of the Salt Lake City
Code related to idling (Exhibit A)
BUDGET IMPACT: Minimal, fewer warnings issued prior to a citation
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Background
In October 2011, Salt Lake City Council adopted Salt Lake City Code 12.58 Idling of Vehicles.
Subsequently, during the 2012 State legislative session, the Utah State Legislature adopted
House Bill 104 which authorized adoption of idling restrictions by local jurisdictions, but was
subject to certain conditions. In April 2012, Salt Lake City adopted amendments to the Idling of
Vehicles ordinance to comply with newly adopted State law.
During the 2019 State legislative session, House Bill 148 was adopted to amend provisions
allowing local authority to enforce idling restrictions after one warning instead of three1. The
proposed amendment to section 12.58.040 “Penalties” is updated to allow a civil fine to be
issued after one warning.
Salt Lake City was the second city in Utah to adopt an ordinance restricting idling, after Park
City. Currently nine other cities in Utah have idle free ordinances. Proposed amendments to
1 Utah State Legislature, 2019 General Session, H.B. 148 Vehicle Idling Revisions
Lisa Shaffer (Feb 23, 2021 15:54 MST)
02/23/2021
02/23/2021
section 12.58.030 include updated language related to the exceptions of the idling restriction,
reflecting common language used in most city ordinances without changing intent of the
exceptions or scenarios to which they would apply, such as during extreme temperatures,
operation of equipment in emergency and law enforcement vehicles, or stopped for traffic
control devices.
Further, the proposed amendment includes the following updates that may be considered
“housekeeping” items, including:
• Idling listed as a civil violation in section 12.56.550 “Unauthorized Use of Streets,
Parking Lots, and Other Areas”, which includes procedures for issuing civil violations
and assessing late fees.
• Adding a cross-reference to Chapter 12.58 “Idling of Vehicles” in the list of Civil
Violations in Chapter 12.12.015.
The fine for an idling citation is the same as an expired parking meter which currently starts at
$23 and increases by 25% if not paid within 30 days. State code requires local ordinance to have
“the same fine structure as a parking violation”.
LEGISLATIVE COPY
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2020 2
(Idling of Vehicles, Penalty Amendments, Exemption Amendments) 3
An ordinance amending section 12.58.030, section 12.58.040, section 12.12.015, and 4
section 12.12.040 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Idling of Vehicles, penalties and 5
exemptions. 6
WHEREAS, in October 2011, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No. 65 of 7
2011, enacting Chapter 12.58 of the City Code which prohibited idling of vehicles within City 8
limits; and 9
WHEREAS, in May 2012, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No. 25 of 2012, 10
amending Chapter 12.58 of the City Code which prohibits idling of vehicles within City limits to 11
include conditions adopted by the State Legislature during the 2012 State legislative session; and 12
WHEREAS, during the 2019 State legislative session, the Utah State Legislature adopted 13
third substitute House Bill 148, Vehicle Idling Revisions; and 14
WHEREAS, House Bill 148 amends provisions related to enforcement of a local 15
authority’s idling restrictions, allowing the local authority to to impose a fine after one warning 16
instead of three; and 17
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend its prior idling ordinance to include 18
this condition allowed by the State Legislature; and 19
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is in the best interest of the public. 20
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 21
SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 12.58.030, Exemptions, and 22
12.58.040 Penalties. That section 12.58.030 and section 12.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code 23
Idling of Vehicles Ordinance, shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 24
12.58.030: IDLING RESTRICTION WITHIN CITY LIMITS: 25
26
No driver, while operating a vehicle within city limits, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to 27
idle for more than two (2) minutes, except for the following kinds of idling: 28
29
A. Idling while stopped: 30
1. For an official traffic control device; 31
2. For an official traffic control signal; 32
3. At the direction of a police officer; 33
4. At the direction of an air traffic controller; 34
5. For airport airside operations requirements. 35
36
B. Idling as needed to operate heaters or air conditioners where the temperature is below thirty 37
two degrees Fahrenheit (32°F) or above ninety degrees Fahrenheit (90°F), as measured at the 38
Salt Lake City Airport and determined by the National Weather Service, for the health or 39
safety of a driver or passenger, including police K-9 or other service animals. 40
41
C. Idling for the minimum amount of time required for the operation of defrosters or other 42
equipment to clear the windshield and windows to provide unobstructed views and ensure 43
visibility while driving. 44
45
D.C. Idling as needed for authorized emergency or law enforcement vehicles to operate 46
equipment. 47
48
E. Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as 49
required by all provisions of law, and that all equipment is in good working order, either as 50
part of the daily vehicle inspection, or as otherwise needed. 51
52
F.D. Idling as needed for testing, servicing, repairing, installation, maintenance or diagnostic 53
purposesrepair, maintenance or inspection of the vehicle. 54
55
G.E. Idling as needed for the period recommended by the manufacturer to warm up or cool 56
downfor efficient operations of a turbocharged heavy duty vehicle. This includes building air 57
pressure in air brake systems, among other requirements. 58
59
H.F. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was primarily 60
designed or equipped, other than transporting goods, such as: emergency equipment, 61
operating a transportation refrigeration unit, (TRU), lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist, or ready 62
mixed equipment, except a heater or air conditioner. 63
64
I. Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading 65
and uploading of goods or people. 66
67
J. Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle. 68
69
K. Idling as needed for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals. 70
71
Idling by on duty police officers as necessary for the performance of their official duties. (Ord. 72
25-12, 2012) 73
74
12.58.040: PENALTIES: 75
76
A. Violation: Violation of section 12.58.030 of this chapter is a civil offense and shall be 77
penalized as follows: 78
79
1. First three (3) offenses: A warning but no fine. 80
81
2. Subsequent offenses: A civil fine in an amount equal to the penalty identified for a 82
parking violation under section 12.56.190, "Parking Meters; Overtime Parking 83
Prohibited", of this title. 84
85
B. Reduction Of Penalties: The civil penalties specified in subsection A of this section shall be 86
assessed in accordance with section 12.56.550, “Unauthorized Use of Streets, Parking Lots, 87
and Other Area; Penalties”, of this title. shall be subject to the following: 88
89
1. Paid Within Ten Days: Any penalty that is paid within ten (10) days from the date of 90
receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of one hundred ten dollars ($110.00). 91
2. Paid Within Twenty Days: Any penalty that is paid within twenty (20) days from the 92
date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of seventy dollars ($70.00). 93
3. Paid Within Thirty Days: Any penalty that is paid within thirty (30) days from the date 94
of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of forty dollars ($40.00). 95
4.C. Receipt Of Notice: As used in this section, "receipt of notice" means the affixing of a 96
notice to the vehicle alleged to have been employed in a violation of this chapter, or by 97
delivery of such notice to the owner or driver thereof. 98
99
C.D. Strict Liability Of Owner: Whenever any vehicle shall have been employed in a violation 100
of this chapter, the person in whose name such vehicle is registered shall be strictly liable 101
for such violation and the penalty therefor. 102
103
D.E. Appeal Procedures: A violation of this chapter may be appealed as an unauthorized use of 104
the streets pursuant to section 12.56.570 of this title and is subject to 105
subsection 12.56.570H of this title. 106
107
E.F. Outstanding Notices: Notices issued pursuant to this chapter shall be considered notices of 108
unauthorized use of streets within the city for purposes of section 12.96.020 of this title. 109
SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 12.12.015 and section 110
12.12.040. That section 12.12.015 and 12.12.040 of the Salt Lake City Code Traffic Code Rules 111
and Enforcement Ordinance, shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 112
113
12.12.015: TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS: 114
115
A. Infractions: Any person guilty of violating any provision of this title shall be deemed guilty 116
of an infraction, unless such offense is specifically designated as a class B or class C 117
misdemeanor or a civil violation. 118
119
B. Civil Violations: The following violations of this title shall be civil violations: 120
1. Chapter 12.56, "Stopping, Standing And Parking", of this title; 121
1.2.Chapter 12.58, “Idling of Vehicles”, of this title; 122
2.3.Chapter 12.64, "City Parking Permit Program", of this title; 123
3.4.Chapter 12.68, "High School Parking Lots", of this title; 124
4.5.Chapter 12.76, "Pedestrians", of this title, except for 125
sections 12.76.045 and 12.76.050 of this title; and 126
5.6.Chapter 12.92, "Vehicle Weight And Tire Restrictions", of this title. 127
128
C. Misdemeanors: The following violations of this title shall be class B misdemeanors: 129
1. Sections 12.16.010 through 12.16.120 of this title; 130
2. Sections 12.24.016 and 12.24.018 of this title, regarding driving without owner's and 131
operator's security; 132
3. Section 12.24.070, "Drinking Alcoholic Beverages In Vehicles", of this title; 133
4. Section 12.24.080, "Intoxicated Persons In Or About Vehicles", of this title; 134
5. Section 12.24.100, "Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs And Intoxicants Prohibited; 135
Penalties", of this title; 136
6. Section 12.24.120, "Class B Misdemeanor; Alcohol And Controlled Substance Related 137
Driving Prohibited While Driving Privilege Denied, Suspended, Disqualified, Or 138
Revoked; Penalty", of this title; 139
7. Section 12.52.350, "Reckless Driving; Prohibited", of this title; 140
8. Subsection 12.52.355B of this title; 141
9. Chapter 12.88, "Vehicle Noise Standards", of this title; 142
10. Chapter 12.89, "Other Noise Prohibitions", of this title; 143
11. Chapter 12.96, "Impoundment Of Vehicles", of this title. 144
145
12.12.040: EMERGENCY VEHICLES; EXEMPTION CONDITIONS: 146
147
The driver of an emergency vehicle shall be exempt from the driving restrictions imposed by 148
chapters 12.32, 12.36, 12.40, 12.44, 12.48, 12.52, 12.56, 12.58 and 149
sections 12.100.080, 12.100.090 and 12.100.110 of this title, or their successors, when driving 150
under the following conditions: 151
152
A. Such exemption shall apply whenever the authorized vehicle is being driven in response to 153
an emergency call or when used in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the 154
laws, or when responding to but not returning from a fire alarm; 155
156
B. Such exemption shall apply only when the driver of the vehicle, while in motion, sounds 157
audible signal by bell, siren or exhaust whistle as may be reasonably necessary, and when 158
the vehicle is equipped with at least one lighted lamp displaying a red light visible under 159
normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to the front of 160
such vehicle, except that an authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need 161
not be equipped with or display a red light visible from in front of the vehicle. 162
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 163
passage. 164
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2020. 165
166
______________________________ 167
CHAIRPERSON 168
169
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 170
171
______________________________ 172
CITY RECORDER 173
174
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 175
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 176
177
______________________________ 178
MAYOR 179
180
______________________________ 181
CITY RECORDER 182
183
184
(SEAL) 185
186
187
Bill No. ________ of 2020. 188
Published: ______________. 189
190
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2020
(Idling of Vehicles, Penalty Amendments, Exemption Amendments)
An ordinance amending section 12.58.030, section 12.58.040, section 12.12.015, and
section 12.12.040 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Idling of Vehicles, penalties and
exemptions.
WHEREAS, in October 2011, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No. 65 of
2011, enacting Chapter 12.58 of the City Code which prohibited idling of vehicles within City
limits; and
WHEREAS, in May 2012, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No. 25 of 2012,
amending Chapter 12.58 of the City Code which prohibits idling of vehicles within City limits to
include conditions adopted by the State Legislature during the 2012 State legislative session; and
WHEREAS, during the 2019 State legislative session, the Utah State Legislature adopted
third substitute House Bill 148, Vehicle Idling Revisions; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 148 amends provisions related to enforcement of a local
authority’s idling restrictions, allowing the local authority to to impose a fine after one warning
instead of three; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend its prior idling ordinance to include
this condition allowed by the State Legislature; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is in the best interest of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 12.58.030, Exemptions, and
12.58.040 Penalties. That section 12.58.030 and section 12.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code
Idling of Vehicles Ordinance, shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
2
12.58.030: IDLING RESTRICTION WITHIN CITY LIMITS:
No driver, while operating a vehicle within city limits, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to
idle for more than two (2) minutes, except for the following kinds of idling:
A. Idling while stopped:
1. For an official traffic control device;
2. For an official traffic control signal;
3. At the direction of a police officer;
4. At the direction of an air traffic controller;
5. For airport airside operations requirements.
B. Idling as needed for the health or safety of a driver or passenger, including police K-9 or
other service animals.
C. Idling as needed for authorized emergency or law enforcement vehicles to operate
equipment.
D. Idling as needed for repair, maintenance or inspection of the vehicle.
E. Idling as needed for the period recommended by the manufacturer for efficient operations of
a turbocharged heavy duty vehicle. This includes building air pressure in air brake systems,
among other requirements.
F. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was primarily designed
or equipped, such as: emergency equipment, refrigeration unit, lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist,
or ready mixed equipment, except a heater or air conditioner.
12.58.040: PENALTIES:
A. Violation: Violation of section 12.58.030 of this chapter is a civil offense and shall be
penalized as follows:
1. First offense: A warning but no fine.
2. Subsequent offenses: A civil fine in an amount equal to the penalty identified for a
parking violation under section 12.56.190, "Parking Meters; Overtime Parking
Prohibited", of this title.
B. Penalties: The civil penalties specified in subsection A of this section shall be assessed in
accordance with section 12.56.550, “Unauthorized Use of Streets, Parking Lots, and Other
Area; Penalties”, of this title.
3
C. Receipt Of Notice: As used in this section, "receipt of notice" means the affixing of a
notice to the vehicle alleged to have been employed in a violation of this chapter, or by
delivery of such notice to the owner or driver thereof.
D. Strict Liability Of Owner: Whenever any vehicle shall have been employed in a violation
of this chapter, the person in whose name such vehicle is registered shall be strictly liable
for such violation and the penalty therefor.
E. Appeal Procedures: A violation of this chapter may be appealed as an unauthorized use of
the streets pursuant to section 12.56.570 of this title and is subject to
subsection 12.56.570H of this title.
F. Outstanding Notices: Notices issued pursuant to this chapter shall be considered notices of
unauthorized use of streets within the city for purposes of section 12.96.020 of this title.
SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 12.12.015 and section
12.12.040. That section 12.12.015 and 12.12.040 of the Salt Lake City Code Traffic Code Rules
and Enforcement Ordinance, shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.12.015: TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS:
A. Infractions: Any person guilty of violating any provision of this title shall be deemed guilty
of an infraction, unless such offense is specifically designated as a class B or class C
misdemeanor or a civil violation.
B. Civil Violations: The following violations of this title shall be civil violations:
1. Chapter 12.56, "Stopping, Standing And Parking", of this title;
2. Chapter 12.58, “Idling of Vehicles”, of this title;
3. Chapter 12.64, "City Parking Permit Program", of this title;
4. Chapter 12.68, "High School Parking Lots", of this title;
5. Chapter 12.76, "Pedestrians", of this title, except for
sections 12.76.045 and 12.76.050 of this title; and
6. Chapter 12.92, "Vehicle Weight And Tire Restrictions", of this title.
C. Misdemeanors: The following violations of this title shall be class B misdemeanors:
1. Sections 12.16.010 through 12.16.120 of this title;
2. Sections 12.24.016 and 12.24.018 of this title, regarding driving without owner's and
operator's security;
3. Section 12.24.070, "Drinking Alcoholic Beverages In Vehicles", of this title;
4. Section 12.24.080, "Intoxicated Persons In Or About Vehicles", of this title;
5. Section 12.24.100, "Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs And Intoxicants Prohibited;
Penalties", of this title;
4
6. Section 12.24.120, "Class B Misdemeanor; Alcohol And Controlled Substance Related
Driving Prohibited While Driving Privilege Denied, Suspended, Disqualified, Or
Revoked; Penalty", of this title;
7. Section 12.52.350, "Reckless Driving; Prohibited", of this title;
8. Subsection 12.52.355B of this title;
9. Chapter 12.88, "Vehicle Noise Standards", of this title;
10. Chapter 12.89, "Other Noise Prohibitions", of this title;
11. Chapter 12.96, "Impoundment Of Vehicles", of this title.
12.12.040: EMERGENCY VEHICLES; EXEMPTION CONDITIONS:
The driver of an emergency vehicle shall be exempt from the driving restrictions imposed by
chapters 12.32, 12.36, 12.40, 12.44, 12.48, 12.52, 12.56, 12.58 and
sections 12.100.080, 12.100.090 and 12.100.110 of this title, or their successors, when driving
under the following conditions:
A. Such exemption shall apply whenever the authorized vehicle is being driven in response to
an emergency call or when used in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the
laws, or when responding to but not returning from a fire alarm;
B. Such exemption shall apply only when the driver of the vehicle, while in motion, sounds
audible signal by bell, siren or exhaust whistle as may be reasonably necessary, and when
the vehicle is equipped with at least one lighted lamp displaying a red light visible under
normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to the front of
such vehicle, except that an authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need
not be equipped with or display a red light visible from in front of the vehicle.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
passage.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2020.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
5
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2020.
Published: ______________.
Approved As To Form
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
By: _________________________
Date: ______________________ October 9, 2020
Item B3
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
PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget and Policy Analyst
DATE:April 6, 2021
RE: Federal HUD Grant Appropriations 2020-2021: Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership and Housing
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to April 20.
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: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Public Policy Analyst
DATE:March 23, 2021
RE: Federal HUD Grant Appropriations 2020-2021: Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership and Housing
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department’s annual grant programs are one of the most
significant ongoing funding sources the City receives from the Federal Government. Fiscal Year 2022 is subject
to the new 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan which introduced new funding goals, strategies, and targeted area for
spending CDBG dollars on public infrastructure and economic development. See the additional info section for
the goals and strategies applications must advance to qualify for these grant funds and Attachment 3 for a map
of the target area. The Council is scheduled to hold an electronic public hearing on Tuesday, April 6 to hear from
the public and grant applicants regarding funding needs for the 2021-2022 funding cycle.
As seen in most years, the requested funding from applicants is significantly greater than available funds.
Requests are 137% of available funding: $9,198,059 is requested compared to $6,724,509 in available funding.
HUD has provided Salt Lake City’s final grant award amounts. The table below summarizes requested and
available funding by grant.
Grant Request Available Requests as % of
Funding Available
CDBG $ 5,868,774 $ 4,091,332 143%
ESG $ 799,502 $ 308,717 259%
HOME $ 1,622,387 $ 1,649,789 98%
HOPWA $ 907,396 $ 674,671 134%
TOTAL $ 9,198,059 $ 6,724,509 137%
Goal of the briefing: Discuss the Council’s federal grant priorities, ask questions about specific applications
and allocate funding across eligible programs and projects.
Minimum Funding Level
Four years ago, the City established a minimum funding level for grant awards. HUD recommends a $35,000
minimum award for projects. Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) recommends $30,000 after
consultations with applicants. The minimum award is aimed at maximizing community benefits from grant
awards. The intent of this policy is to balance the burden for the Administration and recipient organizations to
Project Timeline:
Set Date: March 16, 2021
1st Briefing: March 23, 2021
Public Hearing: April 6, 2021
2nd Briefing: April 13, 2021
3rd Briefing: April 20, 2021 (if needed)
Potential Action: April 20, 2021
Page | 2
1
7
4
8
8
manage grant funds with the goal of having positive impacts in the community. This year, no applications were
disqualified for requesting less than the minimum funding requirement.
Scoring Applications and Funding Recommendations
CDBG and ESG projects receive scores and funding recommendations from the Community Development and
Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Board. HOME and HOPWA projects receive funding recommendations
from the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Advisory Board. The advisory board funding recommendations are
provided to the Mayor and City Council. The Council receives another set of funding recommendations from the
Mayor. The final decision is made by the Council for grant award amounts. Attachment 1 shows projects ranked
by the combined score within each grant category.
Attachment 2 is the funding log for all four federal grants which has more details than Attachment 1 such as
project and program descriptions and prior year award amounts for returning applications. The funding log
combines advisory board and Administration scores as shown in the far-right column where maximum potential
scores are also shown.
Funding Log Trends
Council staff noticed the following trends after reviewing the funding logs.
Differences between Advisory Boards and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
A majority of board and mayoral recommendations are identical; however, 10 differences exist out of the 56
applications. Three of the 10 differences are greater than $10,000. Below is a table of applications where staff
noticed a difference between recommendations.
RecommendationsGrant
Category Project # and Name Board Mayor
Difference
Between
City Administration #1 Attorney's Office $29,827 $30,460 $633
City Administration #2 Finance Division $60,989 $61,623 $634
Housing #1 ASSIST Emergency Home
Repair and Accessibility Community Design $425,000 $700,000 $275,000CDBG
Public Services #9 Neighborhood House
Early Education $37,025 $38,449 $1,424
Part Two #2 Salt Lake Community Action
Rapid Re-housing Program $84,304 $82,022 -$2,282ESG
Administration #1 Administrative Costs $22,630 $22,445 -$185
#4 HAND's HOME Development Fund $969,008 $984,634 $15,626HOME#5 Administrative Costs $95,750 $97,486 $1,736
#1 County Housing Authority Tenant Based
Rental Assistance $469,765 $539,332 $69,567HOPWA
#5 Program Administration $16,003 $20,240 $4,237
New Application/Programs
This year there are 11 new applications for CDBG, one for ESG, one for HOPWA and no new applications for
HOME.
Disqualified Applications
Two applications for CDBG were disqualified for not meeting consolidated plan goals. No applications were
disqualified for the other three grants. Both disqualified applications are new and listed in the far-right column
of the funding log in red text.
Returning Applications without Funding Recommendations
There are four applications who received grant awards in recent years but did not receive mayoral funding
recommendations this year:
Page | 3
1
7
4
8
8
- CDBG Public Services #3 English Skills Learning Center parents’ program
- CDBG Public Services #6 Fourth Street Clinic medical outreach and services team
- CDBG Public Services #16 The Inn Between homeless hospice and medical respite
- ESG Part 2 #3 The Road Home rapid re-housing program
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Encouraging Behavioral Health and Mental Health Applications – The Council may wish to ask
the Administration how more organizations can be encouraged to and assisted with submitting applications
for the new behavioral health goal. This is a new goal under the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and focuses
on providing treatment and support for persons experiencing mental health challenges and substance abuse
particularly the ongoing opioid crisis. Three behavioral health applications were submitted this year: CDBG
Public Services #5 which is recommended for partial funding, and CDBG Public Services #10 and HOPWA
#4 which do not have funding recommendations.
2.Winter Overflow Shelter Application Disqualified (CDBG Housing #3) – The Council may wish to
ask the Administration about efforts to identify winter overflow shelter in advance of next winter as well as
how recent changes to state law related to homelessness funding and organization might impact this effort.
This application for Switchpoint to again operate two emergency winter overflow shelters next winter was
disqualified because it doesn’t meet the Consolidated Plan goals. Earlier this year, the Council awarded
Switchpoint $750,000 of one-time CARES Act HUD grants to operate the Airport Inn and Millcreek
temporary winter shelters. The one-time CARES Act funding will not be available next winter and the 2020-
2024 Consolidated Plan does not make such a use eligible for the ongoing annual HUD grants. The Council
may wish to ask the administration if future federal dollars from the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan
could be considered for this purpose.
3.HAND Housing Rehabilitation and West Side Node Improvements (CDBG Housing #5) – The
Council may wish to ask how West Side business node improvement projects could be coordinated with the
recently created 9-Line RDA project area.
4.HAND’s Targeted Repairs Pilot Program (CDBG Housing #7) – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how did the first year of the pilot program go? The Council awarded $500,000 last year and
this year the advisory and Mayor are both recommending another $500,000. The Council may also wish to
ask if these funds could provide the 25% match for homeowners to participate in the City’s Fix the Bricks
seismic improvements program.
5.Low Income Transit Passes (CDBG Public Services #14) – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how this application relates to the City’s HIVE Pass program that provides discounted
transit passes to any interested resident.
6.HAND’s HOME Development Fund (HOME #4) – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how the HOME Development Fund fits into the Council’s policy goal of a “one-stop shop” for
affordable housing developers. The HOME Development Fund can be used for property acquisition, new
construction, and rehabilitation of existing housing.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Goals and Strategies
The City must report progress to HUD on how funding awards advance the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan goals.
In past years, some applicants that received funding were not aligned with the five-year plan. As a result, the
services provided by those organizations could not be reported to HUD. If a city does not adequately fund
applications advancing the five-year plan then HUD could view the program as underperforming, lower future
grant award amounts, and/or audit the city’s program. The below table summarizes the goals and strategies of
the current consolidated plan.
Goals Strategies
Housing: Provide expanded housing options
for all economic and demographic segments of
Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying
housing stock within neighborhoods
1. Support housing programs that address the needs of
aging housing stock through targeted rehabilitation
efforts and diversifying the housing stock within the
neighborhoods
Page | 4
1
7
4
8
8
Goals Strategies
2. Support affordable housing development that increases
the number and types of units available for qualified
residents
3. Support programs that provide access to home
ownership
4. Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable
housing as a primary strategy to prevent and/or end
homelessness
5. Support programs that provide connection to
permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health
programs
6. Provide housing and essential supportive services to
persons with HIV/AIDS
Transportation: Promote accessibility and
affordability of multimodal transportation
options
1. Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop
amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of
public transit and enhance the experience of public
transit
2. Within eligible target areas, expand and support the
installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a
way to encourage use of alternative modes of
transportation
3. Support access to transportation, prioritizing very low-
income and vulnerable populations
Community Resiliency: Provide tools to
increase economic and/or housing stability
1. Support job training and vocational rehabilitation
programs that increase economic mobility
2. Improve visual and physical appearance of
deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG
Target Area
3. Provide economic development support for
microenterprise businesses
4. Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses
5. Expand access to early childhood education to set the
stage for academic achievement, social development,
and change the cycle of poverty
6. Promote digital inclusion through access to digital
communication technologies and the internet
7. Provide support for programs that reduce food
insecurity for vulnerable population
Homeless Services: Expand access to
supportive programs that help ensure
homelessness is rare, brief and non-
reoccurring
1. Expand support for medical and dental care options for
those experiencing homelessness
2. Provide support for homeless services including
Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency
Overflow Operations
3. Provide support for programs undertaking outreach
services to address the needs of those living an
unsheltered life
4. Expand case management support as a way to connect
those experiencing homelessness with permanent
housing and supportive services
Behavioral Health: Provide support for low
income and vulnerable populations
experiencing behavioral health concerns such
as substance abuse disorders and mental
health challenges
1. Expand treatment options, counseling support, and
case management for those experiencing behavioral
health crisis
CDBG Public Infrastructure and Economic Development Target Area in 2020-2024 Consolidated
Plan (Attachment 3)
Page | 5
1
7
4
8
8
The target area creates geographic boundaries for spending CDBG funding on economic development and public
infrastructure improvements. These applications are included in the CDBG Neighborhood Improvements
category on the funding log. Examples of these project types includes business façade improvement grants, road
reconstructions and creation of ADA ramps. The geographic target areas do not apply to housing or public
services category applications. Focusing federal grants in these target areas is intended to maximize community
impact and stimulate investments from other entities into the neighborhoods.
Summary of Available Funding by Grant
The table below shows funding sources by grant. Note that only the HOME grant program sees some funds
returned as program income from loans. When prior year grant awards are recaptured it means the program or
project was unable to use the funding as intended which happens for various reasons.
Grant Source Amount
HUD Award $ 3,518,665Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Recaptured Funding $ 572,667
HUD Award $ 299,267Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)Recaptured Funding $ 9,450
HUD Award $974,863
Recaptured Funding $ 0HOME Investment Partnership
Program Income $ 674,926
HUD Award $674,671Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
(HOPWA) Recaptured Funding $ 0
Community Development and Block Grant (CDBG)
Total CDBG Funding Requests: $5,868,774 (143% of available)
Total Available for Allocation: $4,091,332
CDBG funds focus on community development with an emphasis on physical improvements. The Community
Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP) submits funding recommendations for
this grant. CDBG funds are allocated to organizations in four categories:
- City Administration (limited to 20% of the annual grant award)
- Housing
- Neighborhood Improvements: transportation and economic development infrastructure
- Public Services (limited to 15% of the annual grant award)
Public Services
This category is directed to services for individuals in need and not necessarily to physical improvements. This is
typically the most competitive category. Funding is awarded to non-profits and governmental entities that
provide programming to meet the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan’s goals. This category is limited to 15% of the
annual CDBG award. The Mayor has recommended funding requests that add up to the 15% maximum. If the
Council would like to allocate money to any application beyond the Mayor’s recommended funding in this
category, then those funds must be shifted from another public services application.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Total ESG Funding Requests: $799,502 (259% of available)
Total Available for Allocation: $308,717
ESG funds focus on preventing homelessness and providing services to persons experiencing homelessness. The
Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP) submits funding
recommendations for this grant. ESG funds are allocated to organizations providing services in two categories:
Page | 6
1
7
4
8
8
- Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter (Part 1)
- Homelessness Prevention, Rapid Re-Housing, Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS)
(Part 2)
HOME Investment Partnership
Total HOME Funding Requests: $1,622,387 (98% of available)
Total Available for Allocation: $1,649,789
HOME Investment Partnership focuses on expanding the supply of quality affordable housing for moderate- and
low-income residents. The Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Advisory Board submits funding recommendations for
this grant.
This year every applicant received full or partial funding for their request.
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
Total HOPWA Funding Requests: $907,396 (134% of available)
Total Available for Allocation: $674,671
HOPWA is the only federal program dedicated entirely to the housing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS.
The Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Advisory Board submits funding recommendations for this grant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. FY 2021-22 Grant Recommendations by Combined Score
2. FY 2021-22 Funding Log
3. CDBG Public Infrastructure and Economic Development Target Area Map for 2020-2024 Consolidated
Plan
ACRONYMS
AMI – Area Median Income
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department
ESL – English as a Second Language
ESG – Emergency Solutions Grant
FSH – First Step House
FOF – Funding Our Future
FY – Fiscal Year
HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development
HMIS – Homeless Management Information System
HOME – HOME Investment Partnership
HOPWA – Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
HTF – Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
HUD – Housing and Urban Development
UTA – Utah Transit Authority
VOA – Volunteers of America
YWCA – Young Women’s Christian Association
APPLICANT PROJECT/PROGRAM SCORE REQUEST CDCIP BOARD FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
MAYOR FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
ASSIST Inc. - Community Design Center Emergency Home Repair; Accessibility and Community Design 89.25 425,000$ 425,000$ 700,000$
Salt Lake City Corporation HAND Small Repair Program 80.92 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$
Salt Lake City Corporation HAND Housing Rehabilitation and Homebuyer Program 80.81 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$
The Road Home Palmer Court Rehabilitation 79.79 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$
Salt Lake City Corporation HAND Targeted Repairs Program-Pilot 77.30 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Community Development Corporation of Utah Program Operations, Down Payment Assistance, Affordable Housing, Revitalization 76.41 74,800$ 74,800$ 74,800$
Friends of Switchpoint, Inc.Winter Overflow Not Eligible 750,000$ Application Not Eligible -$
2,510,800$ 1,760,800$ 2,035,800$
Salt Lake City HAND Economic Development Façade Program (NBIP)80.17 502,000$ 502,000$ 502,000$
Salt Lake City Transportation Route 4 Frequent Transit Route - Bus Stops & Shelter 77.16 322,000$ 322,000$ 322,000$
Volunteers of America YRC Security Remodel and Upgrades Not Eligible 84,204$ Application Not Eligible -$
908,204$ 824,000$ 824,000$
Neighborhood House Neighborhood House Early Education 93.03 40,000$ 37,025$ 38,449$
Advantage Services, Inc.Provisional Supportive Employment Program 92.27 85,000$ 60,250$ 60,250$
Salt Lake Donated Dental Services Community Dental Project 91.18 50,000$ 44,400$ 44,400$
First Step House Employment Preparation and Placement 89.12 61,654$ 41,700$ 41,700$
International Rescue Committee Digital Skills & Education Access to Build Resilency Refugees and New Americans 88.53 66,961$ 54,400$ 54,400$
First Step House Peer Support Services 88.51 70,000$ 48,000$ 48,000$
Salt Lake City Transportation Low Income Transit Passes 87.61 45,000$ 34,700$ 34,700$
Volunteers of America, Utah Geraldine King Women's Resource Center 86.03 108,967$ -$ -$
South Valley Sanctuary Domestic Violence Case Manager and Housing Assistance 85.57 159,302$ 100,000$ 100,000$
YWCA Women In Jeopardy Program 84.12 98,035$ 33,900$ 33,900$
The Road Home Gail Miller Resource Center 83.12 115,400$ 72,000$ 72,000$
Catholic Community Services of Utah CCS Weigand Homeless Resource Center Data Specialist 82.79 50,000$ -$ -$
English Skills Learning Center Empowering Parents with English, Digital, Financial, and Family Literacy 82.02 30,000$ -$ -$
The Road Home St. Vincent de Paul Overflow Shelter 79.92 231,599$ -$ -$
Shelter the Homeless Homeless Resource Center Meals 79.21 70,200$ -$ -$
The INN Between Hospice and Medical Respite for Homeless 78.41 101,200$ -$ -$
Wasatch Homeless Health Care, Inc. dba Fourth Street Clinic Medical Outreach Support Team 75.81 119,770$ -$ -$
University of Utah College of Education Grow Your Own Educator (GYOE) Program 68.31 40,000$ -$ -$
Salt Lake City Corporation Resident Food Equity Advisors 67.72 87,850$ -$ -$
Journey of Hope Advocacy and Case Management Services 63.87 42,000$ -$ -$
Odyssey House - Inc., Utah Residential Substance Use Disorder Quarantine Unit Support 59.35 75,000$ -$ -$
1,747,938$ 526,375$ 527,799$
C
A
T
E
G
O
R
Y
C
D
B
G
N
E
I
G
H
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
2021-22 Mayor's Federal Grant Funding Recommendations
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - $3,518,665, reallocated $572,667 = $4,091,332
C
D
B
G
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
C
D
B
G
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
Attachment 1 - Grant Recommendations by Combined Score Page 1
SLC Attorney Review of Legal Documents n/a 29,827$ 29,827$ 30,460$
SLC Finance Processing of Payments, Financial Tracking n/a 60,989$ 60,989$ 61,623$
SLC Housing & Neighborhood Development Administration of Grant Programs n/a 611,016$ 611,016$ 611,650$
701,832$ 701,832$ 703,733$
5,868,774$ 3,813,007$ 4,091,332$
APPLICANT PROJECT/PROGRAM SCORE REQUEST CDCIP BOARD FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
MAYOR FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
Catholic Community Services Weigand Resource Center, Client Intake/Operations 88.42 50,000$ 41,000$ 41,000$
First Step House Homeless Resource Center Program 85.57 60,000$ 49,250$ 49,250$
Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center Shelter 84.29 55,000$ 44,000$ 44,000$
Volunteers of America Geraldine E. King Women's Resource Center 83.94 60,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
The Road Home Gail Miller Resource Center 83.69 100,000$ -$ -$
The Road Home Emergency Shelter - St. Vincent's Overflow Shelter 79.92 30,451$ -$ -$
Shelter the Homeless Homeless Resource Center Utilities 67.97 60,000$ -$ -$
Utah Community Action Rapid Re-Housing Program 88.83 121,637$ 84,304$ 82,022$
Utah Community Action Diversion Program 87.12 59,784$ 40,000$ 40,000$
The Road Home Rapid Re-Housing Program 85.53 150,000$ -$ -$
Valley Mental Health, Inc.Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing at Valley Storefront 78.35 30,000$ -$ -$
Salt Lake City Corporation ESG Administration n/a 22,630$ 22,630$ 22,445$
799,502$ 311,184$ 308,717$
APPLICANT PROJECT/PROGRAM SCORE REQUEST HTFAB BOARD FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
MAYOR FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Road Home Tenant Based Rental Program 94.43 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Salt Lake City HAND HOME Development Fund 91.47 1,000,000$ 969,008$ 984,634$
Utah Community Action Tenant Based Rental Program 88.33 126,637$ 167,669$ 167,669$
Community Development Corporation of Utah Own in Salt Lake Down Payment Assistance 80.67 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Salt Lake City HAND Administration n/a 95,750$ 95,750$ 97,486$
1,622,387$ 1,632,427$ 1,649,789$
APPLICANT PROJECT/PROGRAM SCORE REQUEST HTFAB BOARD FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
MAYOR FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 94.60 655,593$ 469,765$ 539,332$
Utah Community Action Housing Info/STRMU/PHP/Supportive Services 93.97 153,777$ 85,099$ 85,099$
Utah AIDS Foundation Supportive Services 90.30 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
Utah AIDS Foundation Mental Health Services 90.13 50,000$ -$ -$
Salt Lake City HAND Administration n/a 18,026$ 16,003$ 20,240$
907,396$ 600,867$ 674,671$
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM - $974,863 + program income $674,926 = $1,649,789
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS - $674,671
C
A
T
E
G
O
R
Y
P
A
R
T
2
:
H
O
M
E
L
E
S
S
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
R
A
P
I
D
R
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
&
A
D
M
I
N
C
D
B
G
A
D
M
I
N
C
A
T
E
G
O
R
Y
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT - $299,267 + reallocated $9,450 = $308,717
(Shelter Operations cannot exceed $179,560)
H
O
M
E
C
A
T
E
G
O
R
Y
H
O
P
W
A
P
A
R
T
1
:
S
H
E
L
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
Attachment 1 - Grant Recommendations by Combined Score Page 2
2021-2022 Funding Available: 4,091,332$
Category Maximum Allocated Balance
2021-2022 Admin (20%):703,733$ -$ 703,733$
2021-2022 Public Services (15%):527,799$ -$ 527,799$
2021-2022 Housing & Neighborhood Improvements:2,859,800$ -$ 2,859,800$
1 Attorney's Office FY20-21 29,869$ REQUEST:29,827$
FY19-20 24,427$ CDCIP:29,827$
FY18-19 25,090$ MAYOR:30,460$
FY17-18 24,369$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 21,323$
5 YR TOTAL 125,078$
2 Finance Division FY20-21 61,035$ REQUEST:60,989$
FY19-20 54,565$ CDCIP:60,989$
FY18-19 56,047$ MAYOR:61,623$
FY17-18 56,047$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 56,000$
5 YR TOTAL 283,694$
3 FY20-21 610,929$ REQUEST:611,016$
FY19-20 607,799$ CDCIP:611,016$
FY18-19 624,299$ MAYOR:611,650$
FY17-18 566,616$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 514,000$
5 YR TOTAL 2,923,643$
REQUEST:701,832$
CDCIP:701,832$
MAYOR:703,733$
COUNCIL:-$
Funding for salaries and operational expenses of HAND to administer and
monitor the federal grants and to conduct the community processes.
SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2021/2022
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
% OF GRANT AWARD
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Partial funding for staff salary to provide contract administration for federal
grants.
Partial funding for staff salary to provide financial administration and
accounting services for federal grants.
Housing & Neighborhood Development
Division
Note: 20% is the maximum amount allowed. Will auto adjust to 20% when SLC receives HUD award
CITY ADMINISTRATION TOTAL
19.9%
19.9%
20.0%
0.0%
FUNDING CAPS AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL REGULATION
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 1
1 ASSIST, Inc. FY20-21 391,373$ REQUEST:425,000$
FY19-20 391,000$ CDCIP:425,000$
FY18-19 320,000$ MAYOR:700,000$
FY17-18 330,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 330,000$
5 YR TOTAL 1,762,373$
2 FY20-21 68,100$ REQUEST:74,800$
FY19-20 67,447$ CDCIP:74,800$
FY18-19 70,500$ MAYOR:74,800$
FY17-18 70,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 70,000$
5 YR TOTAL 346,047$
3 Friends of Switchpoint, Inc New REQUEST:750,000$
Winter Overflow CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:
4 New REQUEST:101,000$
CDCIP:101,000$
Palmer Court Rehabilitation MAYOR:101,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 FY20-21 485,600$ REQUEST:600,000$
FY19-20 439,873$ CDCIP:600,000$
FY18-19 577,542$ MAYOR:600,000$
FY17-18 565,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 600,000$
5 YR TOTAL 2,668,015$
6 FY20-21 60,000$ REQUEST:60,000$
FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:60,000$
Salt Lake City Small Repair Program FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:60,000$
FY17-18 60,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 40,000$
5 YR TOTAL 160,000$
SLC Housing & Neighborhood
Development Division
Targeting qualifying seniors and persons with disabilities to provide small
dollar value services for home improvement and service or repair.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 80.92
Maximum score: 109
SLC Housing & Neighborhood
Development Division
Salt Lake City Housing Rehabilitation and
Homebuyer Program Housing: Support programs that provide access to home
ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing
subsidy, and/or financing.
Housing: Expand housing support for aging resident that
ensure access to continued stable housing.
Community Development Corporation of
Utah
Direct aid in the form of grants/loans to first time low- and moderate income
(LMI) home buyers for down payment assistance.
Organization also submitted a similar application for HOME #2
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 76.41
Maximum score: 109
Program Operations for Down Payment
Assistance, Affordable Housing, and
Revitalization Programs
The Road Home
Housing: Support housing programs that address needs of aging
housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and
diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.
Staffing for two 24/7 facilities that will operate as winter overflow shelters.
Shelter costs, staffing, food and PPE supplies.
Housing: Support programs that provide access to home
ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing
subsidy, and/or financing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
% OF GRANT AWARD
Salaries and operational support for the Housing Rehab, Welcome Home
SLC Homebuyer, Handyman, and West Side Node Improvement projects.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 80.81
Maximum score: 109
Rehabiliation activities and costs for Palmer Court Apartments.Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 79.79
Maximum score: 109
APPLICATION IS FLAGGED FOR DISQUALIFICATION
*Does not meet Consolidated Plan goal.
HOUSING
Supporting salaries, operational, and rehabilitation activities including
plumbing, heating & electrical, radon testing/mitigation, roof repair,
accessibility ramps, and accessibility design projects, etc.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 89.25
Maximum score: 109Emergency Home Repair & Accessibility
and Community Design
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME
Housing: Support housing programs that address needs of aging
housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and
diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 2
7 FY20-21 500,000$ REQUEST:500,000$
CDCIP:500,000$
MAYOR:500,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 500,000$
REQUEST:2,510,800$
CDCIP:1,760,800$
MAYOR:2,035,800$
COUNCIL:-$
1 Salt Lake City CAN New REQUEST:322,000$
Transportation Division CDCIP:322,000$
MAYOR:322,000$
Route 4 Frequent Transit Route-COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
Bus Stops & Shelters
2 Salt Lake City CAN FY20-21 425,883$ REQUEST:502,000$
FY19-20 319,642$ CDCIP:502,000$
FY18-19 425,000$ MAYOR:502,000$
FY17-18 200,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 200,000$
5 YR TOTAL 1,570,525$
3 Volunteers of America, Utah New REQUEST:84,204$
YRC Security Remodel and Upgrades CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:
REQUEST:908,204$
CDCIP:824,000$
MAYOR:824,000$
COUNCIL:-$
APPLICATION IS FLAGGED FOR DISQUALIFICATION
*Does not meet Consolidated Plan goal.
61.4%
43.0%
49.8%
Repair costs to remodel and upgrade the security system for the Youth
Resource Center (YRC).
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN% OF GRANT AWARD
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 77.16
Maximum score: 109
Transportation: Improve bus stop amenities as a way to
encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance
the experience of public transit in target areas.
HOUSING TOTAL
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS: TRANSPORTATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INFASTRUCTURE
Construction of bus stops, shelters, and related facilities along the UTA
Route 4, including 400 South, Cheyenne St., 500 South, and Redwood Road.
22.2%
20.1%
SLC Housing & Neighborhood
Development Division
Provide grants to homeowners for major structural or home system
improvements.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 77.3
Maximum score: 109
Salt Lake City Targeted Repairs Program
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS: TRANSPORTATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INFASTRUCTURE TOTAL
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 80.17
Maximum score: 109
Community Resiliency: Economic Development efforts via
supporting the improvement and visibility of small
businesses through façade improvement programs.
Housing and Neighborhood Dev. Division
Economic Development Facade Program
(NBIP)
Housing: Expand housing support for aging resident that
ensure access to continued stable housing.
Provide grant money to businesses for facade improvements, focusing on
small businesses and target areas.
0.00%
20.1%
0.0%
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 3
1 Advantage Services, Inc FY20-21 64,809$ REQUEST:85,000$
Formerly Valley Services FY19-20 68,884$ CDCIP:60,250$
FY18-19 55,000$ MAYOR:60,250$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 21,248$
5 YR TOTAL 239,941$
2 Catholic Community Services of Utah New REQUEST:50,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
3 FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:30,000$
FY19-20 30,000$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 -$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 -$
5 YR TOTAL 60,000$
4 First Step House FY20-21 47,000$ REQUEST:61,654$
FY19-20 30,000$ CDCIP:41,700$
MAYOR:41,700$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 77,000$
5 First Step House FY20-21 50,000$ REQUEST:70,000$
FY19-20 38,806$ CDCIP:48,000$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:48,000$
FY17-18 36,833$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 33,000$
5 YR TOTAL 188,639$
6 Fourth Street Clinic FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:119,770$
Medical Outreach and Services Team FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 34,155$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 40,000$
5 YR TOTAL 74,155$
Homeless Services: Expand support for medical and dental
care options for those experiencing homelessness.
Bring free and accessible content-based English language instruction to adult
immigrants and refugees living at or below the poverty line.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 82.02
Maximum score: 109
Empowering Parents with English, Digital,
Financial, and Family Literacy
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 89.12
Maximum score: 109
CCS Weigand Homeless Resource Center
Data Specialist
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
% OF GRANT AWARDPROJECT DESCRIPTION 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
PUBLIC SERVICES
English Skills Learning Center
Employment Preparation and Placement
(EPP) Program
Peer Support Services
Salary and benefits for staff in the Medical Outreach Services Team (MOST),
to provide medical services to homeless individuals living on the street.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 75.81
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 88.51
Maximum score: 109
Behavioral Health: Expand treatment options, counseling
support, and case management for those experiencing
behavioral health crisis.
Provide supportive employment services to high-risk, high-need individuals
in our community caught in the cycles of relapse, mental illness,
incarceration, homelessness, and unemployment.
Salaries and administrative costs for Peer Support Services (PSS) Program
which provides peer-based supportive services, delivered by certified Peer
Support Specialists.
Community Resiliency: Provide job training/vocational
training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Community Resiliency: Expand access to early childhood
education to set the stage for academic achievement, social
development, and change the cycle of poverty.
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations
Provisional Supportive Employment
Program
Salary support for a data specialist to assist with intake of homeless persons
seeking entry into the Homeless Resource Center (HRC) system.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 82.79
Maximum score: 109
Provide employment opportunities to homeless individuals or formerly
homeless.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 92.27
Maximum score: 109
Community Resiliency: Provide job training/vocational
training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 4
7 International Rescue Committee FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:66,961$
FY19-20 44,629$ CDCIP:54,400$
MAYOR:54,400$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 44,629$
8 Journey of Hope FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:42,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
9 Neighborhood House Association FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:40,000$
FY19-20 36,867$ CDCIP:37,025$
FY18-19 33,858$ MAYOR:38,449$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 20,000$
5 YR TOTAL 120,725$
10 Odyssey House New REQUEST:75,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
11 Salt Lake City Corporation New REQUEST:87,850$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
12 Shelter The Homeless Committee Inc New REQUEST:70,200$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
13 Salt Lake Donated Dental Services FY20-21 44,000$ REQUEST:50,000$
FY19-20 48,510$ CDCIP:44,400$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:44,400$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 30,000$
5 YR TOTAL 182,510$
Community Resiliency: Promote digital inclusion through
access to digital communication technologies and the
internet.
Homeless Services: Expand case management support as a way to
connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent
housing and supportive services.
Community Resiliency: Expand access to early childhood
education to set the stage for academic achievement, social
development, and change the cycle of poverty.
Behavioral Health: Expand treatment options, counseling
support, and case management for those experiencing
behavioral health crisis.
Community Resiliency: Provide support for programs that
reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population.
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations.
Homeless Services: Expand support for medical and dental
care options for those experiencing homelessness.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 59.35
Maximum score: 109
Salaries, supplies, and lab fees for Community Dental Project, to support
homeless and low-income individuals with dental services.
Residential Substance Use Disorder
Quarantine Unit Support
Community Dental Project
Advocacy and Case Management Services
Resident Food Equity Advisors
Digital Skills & Education Access to Build
Resiliency Refugees and New Americans
Funds will be utilized for a professional consultant to facilitate Resident Food
Equity Advisors meetings, outline food system challenges in need of resident
input and guidance, and synthesize ideas to drive equitable food policies and
programs.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 67.72
Maximum score: 109
Funds will be used to support the operation of the quarantine units that
Odyssey House had to set up in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
agency’s effort to minimize the exposure of residential clients.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 79.21
Maximum score: 109
Pay for partial meal costs of the two Salt Lake City Homeless Resource
Centers. Costs will cover three meals.Homeless Resource Centers Meals
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 91.18
Maximum score: 109
Assistance for families with childcare as they search for and maintain
employment. Funds will support early education teacher salaries and
benefits.
Provide advocacy and crisis-intervention services for at-risk and underserved
populations within Salt Lake City.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 63.87
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 93.03
Maximum score: 109Neighborhood House Early Education
Funds will facilitate Digital Inclusion staff to support refugee and other new
Americans access/learn digital technology skills, critical to improving their
economic and housing stability.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 88.53
Maximum score: 109
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 5
14 Salt Lake City Division of Transportation FY20-21 45,000$ REQUEST:45,000$
FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:34,700$
FY18-19 45,000$ MAYOR:34,700$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 16,555$
5 YR TOTAL 136,555$
15 South Valley Sanctuary New REQUEST:159,302$
CDCIP:100,000$
MAYOR:100,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
16 The INN Between FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:101,200$
FY19-20 45,599$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 45,543$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 33,125$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 -$
5 YR TOTAL 124,267$
17 The Road Home FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:231,599$
St. Vincent de Paul Winter Overflow FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 -$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
18 The Road Home New REQUEST:115,400$
CDCIP:72,000$
MAYOR:72,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
19 U of U College of Education New REQUEST:40,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
20 Volunteers of America, Utah FY20-21 100,281$ REQUEST:108,967$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 100,281$
Homeless Services: Expand support for medical and dental
care options for those experiencing homelessness.
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations
Community Resiliency: Provide job training/vocational
training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Homeless Services: Expand case management support as a way to
connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent
housing and supportive services.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 87.61
Maximum score: 109
Transportation: Support access to transportation
prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations.
Homeless Services: Expand case management support as a way to
connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent
housing and supportive services.
Gail Miller Resource Center
Domestic Violence Case Manager salary, benefits, mileage and client rental
assistance.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 85.57
Maximum score: 109Domestic Violence Case Manager and
Housing Assistance
Geraldine King Women's Resource Center
Provide affordable transportation to individuals experiencing homelessness
in Salt Lake City. The program partners with local social service providers to
provide transit passes to their clients at no cost to overcome transportation
barriers.
This request will support GYOE's Para-to-Teacher Cohort, with college
tuition, fees, books, supplies. Additionally, support for daycare,
transportation, and program support costs.
Supportive services provided to women experiencing homelessness and
residing at the Geraldine E King Resource Center.
Organization also submitted a similar application for ESG Part 1 #6
Grow Your Own Educator (GYOE) Program
Funds will be used to pay salaries, taxes, and benefits for client advodates at
the Gail Miller Homeless Resource Center.
Organization also submitted a similar application for ESG Part 1 #5
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 83.12
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 68.31
Maximum score: 109
Salary support for hospice and medical respite for individuals experiencing
homelessness who are too ill to be in shelters, motels, or on the streets.
Operational expenses for St. Vincents de Paul Dining Hall as overflow winter
emergency shelter.
Organization also submitted a similar application for ESG Part 1 #4
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 79.92
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 86.03
Maximum score: 109
Low Income Transit Passes
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 78.41
Maximum score: 109Hospice and Medical Respite for Homeless
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 6
21 YWCA Utah FY20-21 58,285$ REQUEST:98,035$
FY19-20 58,285$ CDCIP:33,900$
FY18-19 51,260$ MAYOR:33,900$
FY17-18 34,971$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 34,000$
5 YR TOTAL 236,801$
REQUEST:1,747,938$
CDCIP:526,375$
MAYOR:527,799$
COUNCIL:-$
FUND REQUEST
Housing 2,510,800$
Neighborhood Improvements: Transp & ED 908,204$
Public Services 1,747,938$
Administration 701,832$
TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED:5,868,774$
CDCIP Board Recommendations:
If a decrease in funding
83-14098 279,658.52$
83-15098 112,168.84$
83-16098 1,812.56$
71-40099 6,764.71$
71-41099 172,262.37$
Total:572,667.00$
The funding recommendations made by the CDCIP Board were finalized on 1/28/2021, based on the grant award from the previous fiscal
year, for an estimated $3,509,164. Final award notifications were received from HUD on 2/26/2021. Salt Lake City's grant award is
$3,518,665, for an increase of $9,501 above anticipated.
If an increase in funding is realized
Due to funding limitations, the Board did not provide specific recommendations.
-$ MAYOR:
CDCIP:
REALLOCATION FUNDING:
4,091,332$
0.0%
TOTALS
-$
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
FUNDS ALLOCATED
MAYOR:
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations.
49.7%
Due to funding limitations, the Board did not provide specific recommendations.
COUNCIL:
For Finance Purposes Only:
-$
15.0%
15.0%
Administration Staff Analysis:
Every eligible application in the Housing and Neighborhood Improvements funding categories were fully funded.
The recommendations made move forward every goal in the 5-year Consolidated Plan.
COUNCIL:
4,091,332$
FUND AVAILABILITY
GRANT AWARD:3,518,665$
REALLOCATION:572,667$
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:4,091,332$
3,813,007$ CDCIP:
Note: 15% is the maximum amount allowed per HUD regulations PUBLIC SERVICES TOTAL
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 84.12
Maximum score: 109
Provide salary and benefits for essential shelter staffing infrastructure.
Women in Jeopardy Program
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 7
164,250$ Max Allowed for Part 1:179,560$
146,934$
308,717$
1 Catholic Community Services FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:50,000$
FY19-20 30,000$ CDCIP:41,000$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:41,000$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY16-17 20,000$
5 YR TOTAL 80,000$
2 First Step House FY20-21 60,000$ REQUEST:60,000$
FY19-20 50,000$ CDCIP:49,250$
MAYOR:49,250$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 110,000$
3 Shelter the Homeless FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:60,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
4 The Road Home FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:30,451$
FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 -$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
5 The Road Home New REQUEST:100,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
6 Volunteers of America, Utah FY20-21 38,000$ REQUEST:60,000$
CDCIP:30,000$
MAYOR:30,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 38,000$
7 Volunteers of America, Utah FY20-21 46,000$ REQUEST:55,000$
FY19-20 44,115$ CDCIP:44,000$
FY18-19 60,000$ MAYOR:44,000$
FY17-18 45,992$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY16-17 50,000$
5 YR TOTAL 246,107$
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
83.94
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
84.29
Maximum score: 109
Operational and service expenses for the Geraldine E. King Women's
Resource Center.
Organization also submitted a similar application for CDBG Public
Services #20
2020-2021 Funding Available:
PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS
Operational and essential services of the VOA Youth Resource Center.
Shelter the Homeless (STH) is requesting ESG funding to assist with the
utilities for the two new Homeless Resource Centers (HRCs) in SLC.
STREET OUTREACH AND EMERGENCY SHELTER
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
83.69
Maximum score: 109
Operational support for the Weigand Homeless Resource Center, a day
shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness.
First Step House will provide on-site behavioral health assessment,
referral, and peer support services to individuals at the Men's Homeless
Resource Center.
Homeless Resource Center Utilities
Weigand Homeless Resource Center Client
Intake/Operations
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter,
resource center, or overflow operations
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter,
resource center, or overflow operations
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
88.42
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
85.57
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
67.97
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
79.92
Maximum score: 109
Emergency Shelter - St. Vincent's Overflow
Shelter
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter,
resource center, or overflow operations
SALT LAKE CITY ESG PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2021/2022
APPLICANT/PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
% OF GRANT AWARD
Part 1 Funding: Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter:
Part 2 Funding: Homelessness Prevention, RRH, HMIS, and Admin:
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter,
resource center, or overflow operations
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter,
resource center, or overflow operations
Operational expenses for St. Vincent's de Paul Dining Hall as overflow
winter emergency shelter.
Organization also submitted a similar application for CDBG Public
Services #17
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Homeless Resource Center Program
Provide support for essential shelter services, including case
management and transportation. Also supporting shelter operations,
maintenance, rent, supplies, utilities, insurance, security, fuel, and
equipment.
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter,
resource center, or overflow operations
Geraldine King Women's Resource Center
Homeless Youth Resource Center
ESG- Gail Miller Resource Center
Homeless Services: Homeless outreach programs
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 8
REQUEST:415,451$
CDCIP:164,250$ 54.88%Max 60%
MAYOR:164,250$ 54.88%Max 60%
COUNCIL:-$ 0.00%Max 60%
1 FY20-21 30,000$ REQUEST:59,784$
FY19-20 53,000$ CDCIP:40,000$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:40,000$
FY17-18 -$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Objective:
FY16-17 -$
5 YR TOTAL 83,000$
2 FY20-21 30,000$ REQUEST:121,637$
FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:84,304$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:82,022$
FY17-18 32,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Objective:
FY16-17 22,000$
5 YR TOTAL 114,000$
3 The Road Home FY20-21 40,765$ REQUEST:150,000$
FY19-20 84,077$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 85,382$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 85,508$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Objective:
FY16-17 87,198$
5 YR TOTAL 382,930$
4 Valley Mental Health, Incorporated FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:30,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Objective:
5 YR TOTAL -$
REQUEST:361,421$
CDCIP:124,304$
MAYOR:122,022$
COUNCIL:-$
1 Salt Lake City Corporation FY20-21 22,630$ REQUEST:22,630$
FY19-20 22,446$ CDCIP:22,630$
FY18-19 21,843$ MAYOR:22,445$
FY17-18 21,659$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 18,666$
5 YR TOTAL 107,244$
REQUEST:799,502$
CDCIP:311,184$
MAYOR:308,717$
COUNCIL:-$
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
87.12
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
88.83
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
85.53
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
78.35
Maximum score: 109
ADMINISTRATION
Rapid Re-Housing Program
Housing Programs: Rent assistance in the form of rapid
rehousing, homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance
Provide case management support for individuals experiencing
homelessness through deposit and rental assistance and holistic case
management.
Housing Programs: Rent assistance in the form of rapid
rehousing, homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance
Salary support for case managers in The Road Home’s Rapid Re-housing
Program working with participants, combined with short-term rental
assistance.
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, RAPID RE-HOUSING, HMIS AND ADMINISTRATION
Rapid Re-housing Program
HOMELESS PREVENTION & RAPID REHOUSING & TOTAL
Program Administration
Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing
at Valley Storefront
To provide management, oversight, and monitoring of the ESG program.
Administration: 7.5% of ESG allocation.
7.5%
0.0%
7.6%
7.6%
STREET OUTREACH AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TOTAL
Salt Lake Community Action dba Utah
Community Action
Salt Lake Community Action dba Utah
Community Action
Housing Programs: Rent assistance in the form of rapid
rehousing, homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance
Provide rental assistance for individuals who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness.
*FUNDING FOR PART 1 CANNOT EXCEED $179,560
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, RAPID RE-HOUSING, AND HMIS
Diversion Program
Diversion program support in the form of salaries and operational
support. Diversion is a light-touch approach working to find safe,
alternatives for clients rather than entering into shelter.
Housing Programs: Rent assistance in the form of rapid
rehousing, homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 9
799,502$
AVAILABLE TO ALLOCATE:
FINAL 21-22 GRANT AWARD:299,267$ CDCIP BOARD:311,184$ (2,467)$
REALLOCATION:9,450$ MAYOR:308,717$ (0)$
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $ 308,717 COUNCIL:-$ 308,717$
If an increase in funding Any additional funding is preferred to be allocated to The Road Home.
If a decrease in funding
Due to funding limitations, the Board did not provide a
recommendation.72-62097 9,449.77$
Total:9,449.77$
CDCIP Board Recommendation:
The funding recommendations made by the CD-CIP Board were finalized on 1/28/2021, based on the grant award
from the previous fiscal year, of an estimated $311,184. Final award notifications were received from HUD on
2/26/2021. Salt Lake City's grant award is $308,717, for a decrease of $2,467 below anticipated.
Administration Staff Analysis:
For Finance Purposes Only:
REALLOCATION FUNDING:
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION:FUNDS ALLOCATED:
Requested Funds
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 10
2021-2022 Funding Available:1,649,789$ Available to Allocate 1,649,789$
1 Utah Community Action FY20-21 70,000$ REQUEST:126,637$
1307 S 900 W FY19-20 70,000$ HTFAB:167,669$
FY18-19 70,000$ MAYOR:167,669$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
TBRA Program FY17-18 70,000$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 70,000$
5 YR TOTAL 350,000$
2 FY20-21 200,000$ REQUEST:200,000$
FY19-20 200,000$ HTFAB:200,000$
501 East 1700 South FY18-19 200,000$ MAYOR:200,000$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 150,000$ COUNCIL:
Down Payment Assistance FY16-17 75,000$
5 YR TOTAL 825,000$
3 The Road Home FY20-21 200,000$ REQUEST:200,000$
210 South Rio Grande FY19-20 200,000$ HTFAB:200,000$
FY18-19 200,000$ MAYOR:200,000$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
TBRA program FY17-18 200,000$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 200,000$
5 YR TOTAL 1,000,000$
4 SLC Housing & Neighborhood FY20-21 1,066,667$ REQUEST:1,000,000$
Development FY19-20 939,266$ HTFAB:969,008$
451 S. State Street, Rm. 445 FY18-19 1,061,368$ MAYOR:984,634$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 798,221$ COUNCIL:
HOME Development Fund
5 YR TOTAL 3,865,522$
5 SLC Housing & Neighborhood FY20-21 95,750$ REQUEST:95,750$
Development FY19-20 88,507$ HTFAB:95,750$
451 S. State Street, Rm 406 FY18-19 99,994$ MAYOR:97,486$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:Administration
FY17-18 71,357$ COUNCIL:
Administrative Costs FY16-17 70,640$
10% of Home Allocation 5 YR TOTAL 426,248$
REQUEST:1,622,387$
HTFAB:1,632,427$
MAYOR:1,649,789$
COUNCIL:-$
FINAL 21-22 GRANT AWARD:974,863$
PROGRAM INCOME:674,926$
REALLOCATION:-$
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:1,649,789$
If a decrease in funding
Adjust admin to meet 10% of the grant award, reduce HOME
development fund accordingly
If an increase in funding
Adjust admin to meet 10% of the grant award, increase HOME
development fund accordingly -$
Total:-$
72-72001 674,926.00$
Total:674,926.00$
PROGRAM INCOME:
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 80.67
Maximum Score: 109
MAYOR:
FUND AVAILABILITY:AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION:
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 91.47
Maximum Score: 109
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 87.17
Maximum Score: 109
Funding to administer the HOME program (10% of the total HOME
allocation).
TOTAL
HTF Board Recommendation:
Administration Staff Analysis:
The funding recommendations made by the HTF Advisory Board were finalized on 12/09/2020, based on the grant
award from the previous fiscal year, of an estimated $957,501. Final award notifications were received from HUD on
2/26/2021. Salt Lake City's grant award is $974,863, for an increase of $17,362 above anticipated.
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SALT LAKE CITY HOME PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2021/2022
REQUEST/
RECOMMENDEDAPPLICANT/PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
1,649,789$
-$
17,362$
Housing Programs: Housing programs that provide
applicable rent assistance in the form of rapid rehousing,
homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance.
Housing Programs: Housing programs that provide
access to home ownership via down paiyment assistance
and/or housing subsidy and.or financing.
Housing Programs: Housing programs that provide
applicable rent assistance in the form of rapid rehousing,
homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance.
Housing Programs: Housing development that increases
the nummber of units available for income eligible
residents (acquistion, New Construction).
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 94.43
Maximum Score: 109
Operational support, direct client rental assistance through Tenant Based
Rental Assistance.
Community Development Corporation of
Utah
Direct aid in the form of grants/loans not to exceed each to first-time low-
and moderate income (LMI) home buyers in Salt Lake City for down
payment assistance.
Organization also submitted a similar application for CDBG Housing #2
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 88.33
Maximum Score: 109
Tenant Based Rental Assistance for eligible clients in The Road Home's
Rapid Re-housing Program.
Funds will be used for development activities including acquisition, new
construction, and rehabilitation of existing housing.
COUNCIL:
For Finance Purposes Only:
REALLOCATION FUNDING:
HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BRD:
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 11
2021-2022 Funding Available: 674,671$ Available to Allocate 674,671$
1 FY20-21 510,797$ REQUEST:655,593$
FY19-20 438,020$ HTFAB:469,765$
FY18-19 321,015$ MAYOR:539,332$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 297,102$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 205,131$
5 YR TOTAL 1,772,065$
2 FY20-21 162,044$ REQUEST:153,777$
FY19-20 127,099$ HTFAB:85,099$
FY18-19 142,501$ MAYOR:85,099$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 104,388$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 114,719$
5 YR TOTAL 650,751$
3 FY20-21 30,000$ REQUEST:30,000$
FY19-20 30,000$ HTFAB:30,000$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:30,000$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 15,000$
5 YR TOTAL 135,000$
4 New REQUEST:50,000$
HTFAB:-$
MAYOR:-$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
COUNCIL:
5 FY19-20 18,026$ REQUEST:18,026$
FY19-20 16,003$ HTFAB:16,003$
FY18-19 14,166$ MAYOR:20,240$
FY17-18 12,505$ COUNCIL:
Administration: 3% of HOPWA allocation.FY16-17 10,975$
5 YR TOTAL 71,675$
907,396$
600,867$
674,671$
-$
2021-2022 GRANT AWARD: $ 674,671 (73,804)$
REALLOCATION:-$ -$
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:674,671$ (674,671)$
If a decrease Due to funding limitations, the Board did not provide a recommendation
HTF Board Recommendation:
Administration Staff Analysis:
The funding recommendations made by the HTF Advisory Board were finalized on 12/09/2020, based on the grant
award from the previous fiscal year, of an estimated $600,867. Final award notifications were received from HUD on
2/26/2021. Salt Lake City's grant award is $674,867, for an increase of $73,804 above anticipated.
If an increase
Additional funds should first increase Housing Connect up to their full ask,
then UCA up to their ask.
Program Administration
SALT LAKE CITY HOPWA PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2021/2022
AWARDS
Salaries and operational support, and rental assistance for HOPWA
housing program.
APPLICANT/PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUEST/
RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLANPREVIOUS GRANT
To provide management, oversight, and monitoring of the HOPWA
program.
Rental Assistance for HOPWA eligible tenants and staff salary to support
program administration.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Housing Authority of the County of Salt
Lake AKA Housing Connect
Utah Community Action Program
Utah AIDS Foundation
Combined Admin & HTF Score: 94.60
Maximum Score: 109
Combined Admin & HTF Score: 93.97
Maximum Score: 109
Combined Admin & HTF Score: 90.30
Maximum Score: 109
Salary support for Case Manager to provide housing-related case
management to people living with HIV and their households.
Tenant-based Rental Assistance
Housing Information/
STRMU/PHP/Supportive Services
Supportive Services
Housing Programs: Support rent assistance programs to
emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to
prevent and end homelessness.
FUND AVAILABILITY:AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION:
HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BRD:
TOTAL
Utah AIDS Foundation Combined Admin & HTF Score: 90.13
Maximum Score: 109
Behavioral Health: Support programs that provide
connection to permanent housing upon exiting
behavioral health programs.
Mental Health Services
Funding for salary for a part-time licensed clinical social worker to provide
individual mental health counseling to clients living with HIV.
Housing Programs: Support rent assistance programs to
emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to
prevent and end homelessness.
COUNCIL:
MAYOR:
MAYOR:
COUNCIL:
REQUEST:
HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BRD:
Housing Programs: Support rent assistance programs to
emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to
prevent and end homelessness.
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 12
Goals Strategies
Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and
demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying
housing stock within neighborhoods
1. Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeted rehabilitation efforts
and diversifying the housing stock within the neighborhoods
2. Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for qualified
residents
3. Support programs that provide access to home ownership
4. Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and/or end
homelessness
5. Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs
6. Provide housing and essential supportive services to persons with HIV/AIDS
Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal
transportation options
1. Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit
and enhance the experience of public transit
2. Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way
to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation
3. Support access to transportation, prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations
Community Resiliency: Provide tools to increase economic and/or
housing stability
1. Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility
2. Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area
3. Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses
4. Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses
5. Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development,
and change the cycle of poverty
6. Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet
7. Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population
Homeless Services: Expand access to supportive programs that help
ensure homelessness is rare, brief and non-reoccurring
1. Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness
2. Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency
Overflow Operations
3. Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to address the needs of those living an
unsheltered life
4. Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent
housing and supportive services
Behavioral Health: Provide support for low income and vulnerable
populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance
abuse disorders and mental health challenges
1. Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health
crisis
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Goals and Strategies
Note: language in BLUE is additional information added by Council staff
Last Updated March 18, 2021 Attachment 2 - Annual HUD Grants Page 13
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 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Office Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 03/05/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN)
__________________________
SUBJECT: Appropriation Resolution adopting the One-Year Annual Action Plan for Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, HOME
Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funding, and Housing Opportunities for Person With
AIDS (HOPWA) funding for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and approval of the signing of an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
STAFF CONTACT: Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Director of Housing and
Neighborhood Development (HAND)
801-535-6240, lani.eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com
Tony Milner, Policy and Program Manager, HAND
801-535-6168, tony.milner@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the included resolution and set the following schedule for
work sessions and required public hearing. This will help the Administration ensure compliance
with HUD regulations requiring submission of the 2021-2022 One-Year Annual Action Plan
(Action Plan) by May 15, 2021.
We also request the City Council:
1. Schedule the following required public hearing:
a.April 6, 2021 Public Hearing to accept the Mayor’s grant recommendations and to
hear comments from the public and applicants on the Action Plan.
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 8, 2021 16:26 MST)
03/08/2021
03/08/2021
1. Schedule the following work sessions:
a. March 23, 2021 first full briefing/funding discussion.
b. April 13, 2021 follow-up briefing/funding discussion.
c. April 20, 2021 if needed, follow-up briefing/funding discussion.
2. Schedule the formal adoption of the One-Year Action Plan:
a. April 20, 2021 formal meeting: to potentially adopt the Action Plan as outlined in
the attached resolution for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funds as provided
through HUD.
BUDGET IMPACT: No impact to City General Fund. Grant funds will be received from HUD
for 2021-2022.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City is an entitlement entity and eligible under Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 24, Part 91, et. al., to receive 2021-2022 CDBG funds in the
amount of $3,518,665, ESG funds in the amount of $299,267, HOME funds in the amount of
$974,863, and HOPWA funds in the amount of $674,671 from HUD for the 2021-2022 program
year.
In addition, the City will also reallocate CDBG funds in the amount of $572,667, and ESG funds
in the amount of $9,450; and will also allocate HOME program income in the amount of
$674,926.
To receive and reallocate these funds, the City is required to adopt the Action Plan allocating
HUD funds that benefit residents. The following table represents the entitlement funding the City
will receive for the 2021-2022 program year.
Grant Amount
Community Development Block Grant $ 3,518,665
Emergency Solutions Grant $ 299,267
HOME Investment Partnership Program $ 974,863
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS $ 674,671
The following table represents the dollar amounts for funds that will be recaptured and available
for reallocation for the 2021-2022 program year.
Grant Amount
Community Development Block Grant $ 572,667
Emergency Solutions Grant $ 9,450
The following table represents the dollar amounts of program income that will be made available
for allocation for the 2021-2022 program year.
Grant Amount
HOME Investment Partnership Program $ 674,926
The City Attorney’s Office reviewed the included resolution (Exhibit A) and approves it as to
form.
The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Advisory Board and
the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board (HTFAB) reviewed applications for CDBG and ESG
and HOME and HOPWA respectively. After thorough review and scoring each board made
funding recommendations. The boards use an estimated amount of funding for each grant, based
upon the grant award from the prior federal funding year. The boards also included
recommendations on projects that should receive more, or less, funding if the final allocation
amounts would be different than amounts estimated at the time of the board meetings. The
boards’ recommendations were forwarded to the Mayor for review and consideration. The final
2021-2022 One-Year Annual Action Plan funding log (attached to Exhibit A) for all grants will
be attached to the resolution after the City Council has made final funding decisions.
The City had the unique opportunity to provide emergency funding to address the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic. While the requests expressed in the 2021-22 One Year Action Plan
Funding Recommendations Log are not in response to the pandemic, there is some overlap for
agencies that received funding from the City. The table below represents the COVID-19
pandemic resources that have been deployed over the last twelve months. These grants are
administered by HAND.
Funding
Council Approval
Date
Purpose Amount
SLC Housing Stability (General
Fund)
June 2020
Housing Stability $1,100,000
Funding Our Future* (Sales Tax)
July 2020
Housing Stability $3,400,000
CARES Act HUD CV Grants
February 2021
Housing Stability, Community
Stabilization, Homelessness $7,138,203
COVID Relief Bill Treasury
Housing Assistance
March/April 2021
Housing Stability $6,067,033
*Funding Our Future programs are not in direct response to COVID-19, however, many of the housing stability
needs were amplified due to the pandemic and FOF supports are provided currently.
PUBLIC PROCESS: From July to October 2020, HAND staff conducted a survey to engage
members of the public and receive input on how federal funding could be prioritized. In the past
HAND staff would have attended over a dozen in-person community events. Due to COVID-19
precautions, HAND Staff worked with the City’s Civic Engagement team and pivoted to an
online community engagement survey, reaching out electronically to Salt Lake City’s resident,
Recognized Community Organizations, and over 100 non-profits and community partners. The
survey was offered in English and Spanish. Additionally, to hear from vulnerable populations
without access to computers, paper versions of the survey were safely collected at the Homeless
Resources Centers, two adult Detox locations, the Homeless Youth Resource Center, the
Sorensen Community Center, and two local food banks. A total of 879 responses were received.
The public was asked to give input on their top priorities of the goals identified in the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan. Priority ranking for each goal of the Consolidated Plan were provided, as
follows:
• Housing - Build new affordable housing and homeownership for low income populations.
• Transportation - Provide transit passes to low-income populations.
• Build Community Resiliency - Provide access to affordable and healthy food.
• Homeless Services - Homeless Resources Centers operations and emergency shelter.
• Behavioral Health - Resources for individuals with behavioral health needs.
The CDCIP and HTFAB Boards considered these priorities and how they align with the goals of
the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan when identifying projects to be recommended for the 2021-
2022 program year.
A General Needs Hearing was held on November 5, 2020 as a required HUD forum to allow the
public an opportunity to voice general ideas or concerns regarding community needs. This
hearing is an opportunity for the CDCIP Board to consider the public’s ideas and how these ideas
align with the goals of the Consolidated Plan. The ideas presented during a General Needs
Hearing are typically discussed during subsequent CDCIP meetings to help identify which
funding requests would be recommended by the board. At the General Needs Hearing held on
November 5, 2020, no public comments were received.
The HOME and HOPWA applications were reviewed during a public meeting by the HTFAB on
December 9, 2020. The CDBG and ESG applications were reviewed during public meetings by
the CDCIP on December 17, 2020, January 7, January 21, and January 28, 2021.
On March 2, 2021 CAN and HAND leadership met with Mayor Mendenhall to review the
CDCIP and HTFAB recommendations. The Mayor identified several applications that she
preferred to modify the potential award amount. The changes are outlined in the funding log
It is proposed that the Council hold a Public Hearing on April 6, 2021 to receive feedback from
the general public, including applicants, regarding HUD funding for the 2021-2022 year.
EXHIBIT:
A. Resolution 2021-2022 Federal Grant Award and One-Year Action Plan; attached with
2021-22 One Year Action Plan Funding Recommendation Logs
1
RESOLUTION NO.________ OF 2021
An appropriations resolution adopting the One-Year Annual Action Plan for 2021-2022 that
includes Community Development Block Grant funding, Emergency Solutions Grant funding,
HOME Investment Partnerships Program funding, Housing Opportunities For Persons with
AIDS funding, and approving the signing of an Interlocal Cooperation agreement between Salt
Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City (City) is eligible under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 24, Part 91, et. al., to receive 2021-2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds in the amount of $3,518,665, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds in the amount of
$299,267, HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds in the amount of $974,863,
and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds in the amount of $674,671
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the program year;
WHEREAS, the City will also reallocate CDBG funds in the amount of $572,667, and
ESG funds in the amount of $9,450;
WHEREAS, the City will also allocate HOME program income in the amount of
$674,926;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the people of Salt Lake City that the City file an
application with HUD for said funds in accordance with 24 CFR Part 91;
WHEREAS, in order to receive said funds, the City is required to adopt a One-Year
Annual Action Plan;
WHEREAS, the public notices, hearings, and other pre-submission requirements as set
forth in 24 CFR Part 91 have been accomplished by the City, including but not limited to the
following: A City Council public hearing was held _____________, 2021 to consider the
projects funded through the 2021-2022 One-Year Annual Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does now meet on this day of , 2021 to adopt
the City’s 2021-2022 One-Year Action Plan for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. That the City hereby adopts the 2021-2022 One-Year Annual Action Plan for
CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA funds as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached
hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.
2. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, or her designee,
is hereby authorized to submit the 2021-2022 One-Year Annual Action Plan for
CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funds together with such additional
2
information and certifications as may be required under 24 CFR Part 91 to the
U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development.
3. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, or her designee,
is hereby authorized to sign and execute a grant agreement with HUD (the
“HUD Grant Agreement”) regarding the aforementioned federal grant funds,
and any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other public
entities resulting from and consistent with the HUD Grant Agreement, subject
to final approval as to form by the City Attorney.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By _____________________________
CHAIR
Approved as to form: __________________________
Kimberly Chytraus
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________________
CITY RECORDER
March 1, 2021
3
EXHIBIT “A”
Funding Recommendations for 2021-2022. Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall include Funding
Recommendations for the CDBG Program, Funding Recommendations for the ESG Program,
Funding Recommendations for the HOME Program, and Funding Recommendations for the
HOPWA Program (the Funding Recommendations are collectively referred to as the “One-Year
Annual Action Plan”).
2021-2022 Funding Available: 4,091,332$
Category Maximum Allocated Balance
2021-2022 Admin (20%):703,733$ -$ 703,733$
2021-2022 Public Services (15%):527,799$ -$ 527,799$
2021-2022 Housing & Neighborhood Improvements:2,859,800$ -$ 2,859,800$
1 Attorney's Office FY20-21 29,869$ REQUEST:29,827$
FY19-20 24,427$ CDCIP:29,827$
FY18-19 25,090$ MAYOR:30,460$
FY17-18 24,369$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 21,323$
5 YR TOTAL 125,078$
2 Finance Division FY20-21 61,035$ REQUEST:60,989$
FY19-20 54,565$ CDCIP:60,989$
FY18-19 56,047$ MAYOR:61,623$
FY17-18 56,047$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 56,000$
5 YR TOTAL 283,694$
3 FY20-21 610,929$ REQUEST:611,016$
FY19-20 607,799$ CDCIP:611,016$
FY18-19 624,299$ MAYOR:611,650$
FY17-18 566,616$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 514,000$
5 YR TOTAL 2,923,643$
REQUEST:701,832$
CDCIP:701,832$
MAYOR:703,733$
COUNCIL:-$
Funding for salaries and operational expenses of HAND to administer and
monitor the federal grants and to conduct the community processes.
SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2021/2022
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN% OF GRANT AWARD
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Partial funding for staff salary to provide contract administration for federal
grants.
Partial funding for staff salary to provide financial administration and
accounting services for federal grants.
Housing & Neighborhood Development
Division
Note: 20% is the maximum amount allowed. Will auto adjust to 20% when SLC receives HUD award
CITY ADMINISTRATION TOTAL
19.9%
19.9%
20.0%
0.0%
FUNDING CAPS AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL REGULATION
CDBG Page 1
1 ASSIST, Inc. FY20-21 391,373$ REQUEST:425,000$
FY19-20 391,000$ CDCIP:425,000$
FY18-19 320,000$ MAYOR:700,000$
FY17-18 330,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 330,000$
5 YR TOTAL 1,762,373$
2 FY20-21 68,100$ REQUEST:74,800$
FY19-20 67,447$ CDCIP:74,800$
FY18-19 70,500$ MAYOR:74,800$
FY17-18 70,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 70,000$
5 YR TOTAL 346,047$
3 Friends of Switchpoint, Inc New REQUEST:750,000$
Winter Overflow CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:
4 New REQUEST:101,000$
CDCIP:101,000$
Palmer Court Rehabilitation MAYOR:101,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 FY20-21 485,600$ REQUEST:600,000$
FY19-20 439,873$ CDCIP:600,000$
FY18-19 577,542$ MAYOR:600,000$
FY17-18 565,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 600,000$
5 YR TOTAL 2,668,015$
6 FY20-21 60,000$ REQUEST:60,000$
FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:60,000$
Salt Lake City Small Repair Program FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:60,000$
FY17-18 60,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 40,000$
5 YR TOTAL 160,000$
SLC Housing & Neighborhood
Development Division
Targeting qualifying seniors and persons with disabilities to provide small
dollar value services for home improvement and service or repair.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 80.92
Maximum score: 109
SLC Housing & Neighborhood
Development Division
Salt Lake City Housing Rehabilitation and
Homebuyer Program Housing: Support programs that provide access to home
ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing
subsidy, and/or financing.
Housing: Expand housing support for aging resident that
ensure access to continued stable housing.
Community Development Corporation of
Utah
Direct aid in the form of grants/loans to first time LMI home buyers for down
payment assistance.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 76.41
Maximum score: 109
Program Operations for Down Payment
Assistance, Affordable Housing, and
Revitalization Programs
The Road Home
Housing: Support housing programs that address needs of aging housing
stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing
stock within neighborhoods.
Staffing for two 24/7 facilities that will operate as winter overflow shelters.
Shelter costs, staffing, food and PPE supplies.
Housing: Support programs that provide access to home
ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing
subsidy, and/or financing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN% OF GRANT AWARD
Salaries and operational support for the Housing Rehab, Welcome Home SLC
Homebuyer, Handyman, and West Side Node Improvement projects.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 80.81
Maximum score: 109
Rehabiliation activities and costs for Palmer Court Apartments.Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 79.79
Maximum score: 109
HOUSING
Supporting salaries, operational, and rehabilitation activities including
plumbing, heating & electrical, radon testing/mitigation, roof repair,
accessibility ramps, and accessibility design projects, etc.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 89.25
Maximum score: 109Emergency Home Repair & Accessibility and
Community Design
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME
Housing: Support housing programs that address needs of aging housing
stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing
stock within neighborhoods.
APPLICATION IS FLAGGED FOR DISQUALIFICATION
*Does not meet Consolidated Plan goal.
CDBG Page 2
7 FY20-21 500,000$ REQUEST:500,000$
CDCIP:500,000$
MAYOR:500,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 500,000$
REQUEST:2,510,800$
CDCIP:1,760,800$
MAYOR:2,035,800$
COUNCIL:-$
1 Salt Lake City CAN New REQUEST:322,000$
Transportation Division CDCIP:322,000$
MAYOR:322,000$
Route 4 Frequent Transit Route-COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
Bus Stops & Shelters
2 Salt Lake City CAN FY20-21 425,883$ REQUEST:502,000$
FY19-20 319,642$ CDCIP:502,000$
FY18-19 425,000$ MAYOR:502,000$
FY17-18 200,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 200,000$
5 YR TOTAL 1,570,525$
3 Volunteers of America, Utah New REQUEST:84,204$
YRC Security Remodel and Upgrades CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:
REQUEST:908,204$
CDCIP:824,000$
MAYOR:824,000$
COUNCIL:-$
APPLICATION IS FLAGGED FOR DISQUALIFICATION
*Does not meet Consolidated Plan goal.
61.4%
43.0%
49.8%
Repair costs to remodel and upgrade the security system for the Youth
Resource Center.
22.2%
20.1%
HOUSING TOTAL
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS: TRANSPORTATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INFASTRUCTURE
Construction of bus stops, shelters, and related facilities along the UTA Route
4, including 400 South, Cheyenne St., 500 South, and Redwood Road.
Housing and Neighborhood Dev. Division
Economic Development Facade Program
(NBIP)
Housing: Expand housing support for aging resident that
ensure access to continued stable housing.
Provide grant money to businesses for facade improvements, focusing on
small businesses and target areas.
0.00%
20.1%
0.0%
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN% OF GRANT AWARD
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 77.16
Maximum score: 109
Transportation: Improve bus stop amenities as a way to
encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the
experience of public transit in target areas.
SLC Housing & Neighborhood
Development Division
Provide grants to homeowners for major structural or home system
improvements.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 77.3
Maximum score: 109
Salt Lake City Targeted Repairs Program
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS: TRANSPORTATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INFASTRUCTURE TOTAL
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 80.17
Maximum score: 109
Community Resiliency: Economic Development efforts via
supporting the improvement and visibility of small
businesses through façade improvement programs.
CDBG Page 3
1 Advantage Services, Inc FY20-21 64,809$ REQUEST:85,000$
Formerly Valley Services FY19-20 68,884$ CDCIP:60,250$
FY18-19 55,000$ MAYOR:60,250$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 21,248$
5 YR TOTAL 239,941$
2 Catholic Community Services of Utah New REQUEST:50,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
3 FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:30,000$
FY19-20 30,000$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 -$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 -$
5 YR TOTAL 60,000$
4 First Step House FY20-21 47,000$ REQUEST:61,654$
FY19-20 30,000$ CDCIP:41,700$
MAYOR:41,700$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 77,000$
5 First Step House FY20-21 50,000$ REQUEST:70,000$
FY19-20 38,806$ CDCIP:48,000$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:48,000$
FY17-18 36,833$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 33,000$
5 YR TOTAL 188,639$
6 Fourth Street Clinic FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:119,770$
Medical Outreach and Services Team FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 34,155$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 40,000$
5 YR TOTAL 74,155$
Homeless Services: Expand support for medical and dental
care options for those experiencing homelessness.
Bring free and accessible content-based English language instruction to adult
immigrants and refugees living at or below the poverty line.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 82.02
Maximum score: 109
Empowering Parents with English, Digital,
Financial, and Family Literacy
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 89.12
Maximum score: 109
Provisional Supportive Employment
Program
CCS Weigand Homeless Resource Center
Data Specialist
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
% OF GRANT AWARDPROJECT DESCRIPTION 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
PUBLIC SERVICES
English Skills Learning Center
Community Resiliency: Expand access to early childhood education
to set the stage for academic achievement, social development,
and change the cycle of poverty.
Community Resiliency: Provide job training/vocational
training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations
Employment Preparation and Placement
(EPP) Program
Peer Support Services
Salary and benefits for staff in the Medical Outreach Services Team (MOST),
to provide medical services to homeless individuals living on the street.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 75.81
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 88.51
Maximum score: 109
Behavioral Health: Expand treatment options, counseling
support, and case management for those experiencing
behavioral health crisis.
Provide supportive employment services to high-risk, high-need individuals in
our community caught in the cycles of relapse, mental illness, incarceration,
homelessness, and unemployment.
Salaries and administrative costs for Peer Support Services (PSS) Program
which provides peer-based supportive services, delivered by certified Peer
Support Specialists.
Community Resiliency: Provide job training/vocational
training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Salary support for a data specialist to assist with intake of homeless persons
seeking entry into the HRC system.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 82.79
Maximum score: 109
Provide employment opportunities to homeless individuals or formerly
homeless.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 92.27
Maximum score: 109
CDBG Page 4
7 International Rescue Committee FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:66,961$
FY19-20 44,629$ CDCIP:54,400$
MAYOR:54,400$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 44,629$
8 Journey of Hope FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:42,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
9 Neighborhood House Association FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:40,000$
FY19-20 36,867$ CDCIP:37,025$
FY18-19 33,858$ MAYOR:38,449$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 20,000$
5 YR TOTAL 120,725$
10 Odyssey House New REQUEST:75,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
11 Salt Lake City Corporation New REQUEST:87,850$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
12 Shelter The Homeless Committee Inc New REQUEST:70,200$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
13 Salt Lake Donated Dental Services FY20-21 44,000$ REQUEST:50,000$
FY19-20 48,510$ CDCIP:44,400$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:44,400$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 30,000$
5 YR TOTAL 182,510$
Community Resiliency: Promote digital inclusion through
access to digital communication technologies and the
internet.
Homeless Services: Expand case management support as a way to
connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing
and supportive services.
Community Resiliency: Expand access to early childhood
education to set the stage for academic achievement, social
development, and change the cycle of poverty.
Behavioral Health: Expand treatment options, counseling
support, and case management for those experiencing
behavioral health crisis.
Community Resiliency: Provide support for programs that
reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population.
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations.
Homeless Services: Expand support for medical and dental
care options for those experiencing homelessness.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 79.21
Maximum score: 109
Pay for partial meal costs of the two Salt Lake City Homeless Resource
Centers. Costs will cover three meals.Homeless Resource Centers Meals
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 91.18
Maximum score: 109
Funds will facilitate Digital Inclusion staff to support refugee and other new
Americans access/learn digital technology skills, critical to improving their
economic and housing stability.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 88.53
Maximum score: 109
Assistance for families with childcare as they search for and maintain
employment. Funds will support early education teacher salaries and benefits.
Provide advocacy and crisis-intervention services for at-risk and underserved
populations within Salt Lake City.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 63.87
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 93.03
Maximum score: 109
Digital Skills & Education Access to Build
Resiliency Refugees and New Americans
Neighborhood House Early Education
Funds will be utilized for a professional consultant to facilitate Resident Food
Equity Advisors meetings, outline food system challenges in need of resident
input and guidance, and synthesize ideas to drive equitable food policies and
programs.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 67.72
Maximum score: 109
Funds will be used to support the operation of the quarantine units that
Odyssey House had to set up in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
agency’s effort to minimize the exposure of residential clients.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 59.35
Maximum score: 109
Salaries, supplies, and lab fees for Community Dental Project, to support
homeless and low-income individuals with dental services.
Residential Substance Use Disorder
Quarantine Unit Support
Community Dental Project
Advocacy and Case Management Services
Resident Food Equity Advisors
CDBG Page 5
14 Salt Lake City Division of Transportation FY20-21 45,000$ REQUEST:45,000$
FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:34,700$
FY18-19 45,000$ MAYOR:34,700$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 16,555$
5 YR TOTAL 136,555$
15 South Valley Sanctuary New REQUEST:159,302$
CDCIP:100,000$
MAYOR:100,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
16 The INN Between FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:101,200$
FY19-20 45,599$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 45,543$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 33,125$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 -$
5 YR TOTAL 124,267$
17 The Road Home FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:231,599$
St. Vincent de Paul Winter Overflow FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 -$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
18 The Road Home New REQUEST:115,400$
CDCIP:72,000$
MAYOR:72,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
19 U of U College of Education New REQUEST:40,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
20 Volunteers of America, Utah FY20-21 100,281$ REQUEST:108,967$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 100,281$
Transportation: Support access to transportation prioritizing
very low-income and vulnerable populations.
Homeless Services: Expand case management support as a way to
connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing
and supportive services.
Homeless Services: Expand support for medical and dental
care options for those experiencing homelessness.
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations
Community Resiliency: Provide job training/vocational
training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Homeless Services: Expand case management support as a way to
connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing
and supportive services.
Gail Miller Resource Center
Grow Your Own Educator (GYOE) Program
Domestic Violence Case Manager salary, benefits, mileage and client rental
assistance.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 85.57
Maximum score: 109Domestic Violence Case Manager and
Housing Assistance
Geraldine King Women's Resource Center
Provide affordable transportation to individuals experiencing homelessness in
Salt Lake City. The program partners with local social service providers to
provide transit passes to their clients at no cost to overcome transportation
barriers.
This request will support GYOE's Para-to-Teacher Cohort, with college tuition,
fees, books, supplies. Additionally, support for daycare, transportation, and
program support costs.
Supportive services provided to women experiencing homelessness and
residing at the Geraldine E King Resource Center.
Funds will be used to pay salaries, taxes, and benefits for client advodates at
the Gail Miller Homeless Resource Center.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 83.12
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 68.31
Maximum score: 109
Salary support for hospice and medical respite for individuals experiencing
homelessness who are too ill to be in shelters, motels, or on the streets.
Operational expenses for St. Vincents de Paul Dining Hall as overflow winter
emergency shelter.
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 79.92
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 86.03
Maximum score: 109
Low Income Transit Passes
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 78.41
Maximum score: 109Hospice and Medical Respite for Homeless
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 87.61
Maximum score: 109
CDBG Page 6
21 YWCA Utah FY20-21 58,285$ REQUEST:98,035$
FY19-20 58,285$ CDCIP:33,900$
FY18-19 51,260$ MAYOR:33,900$
FY17-18 34,971$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal & Strategy:
FY16-17 34,000$
5 YR TOTAL 236,801$
REQUEST:1,747,938$
CDCIP:526,375$
MAYOR:527,799$
COUNCIL:-$
FUND REQUEST
Housing 2,510,800$
Neighborhood Improvements: Transp & ED 908,204$
Public Services 1,747,938$
Administration 701,832$
TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED:5,868,774$
CDCIP Board Recommendations:
If a decrease in funding
83-14098 279,658.52$
83-15098 112,168.84$
83-16098 1,812.56$
71-40099 6,764.71$
71-41099 172,262.37$
Total:572,667.00$
CDCIP:
REALLOCATION FUNDING:
4,091,332$
0.0%
TOTALS
-$
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
FUNDS ALLOCATED
MAYOR:
The funding recommendations made by the CDCIP Board were finalized on 1/28/2021, based on the grant award from the previous fiscal year,
for an estimated $3,509,164. Final award notifications were received from HUD on 2/26/2021. Salt Lake City's grant award is $3,518,665, for
an increase of $9,501 above anticipated.
If an increase in funding is realized
Due to funding limitations, the Board did not provide specific recommendations.
Administration Staff Analysis:
Every eligible application in the Housing and Neighborhood Improvements funding categories were fully funded.
The recommendations made move forward every goal in the 5-year Consolidated Plan.
Homeless Services: Provide support for homeless services
including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations.
49.7%
Due to funding limitations, the Board did not provide specific recommendations.
COUNCIL:
-$ MAYOR:
For Finance Purposes Only:
-$
15.0%
15.0%
COUNCIL:
4,091,332$
FUND AVAILABILITY
GRANT AWARD:3,518,665$
REALLOCATION:572,667$
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:4,091,332$
3,813,007$ CDCIP:
Note: 15% is the maximum amount allowed per HUD regulations PUBLIC SERVICES TOTAL
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score: 84.12
Maximum score: 109
Provide salary and benefits for essential shelter staffing infrastructure.
Women in Jeopardy Program
CDBG Page 7
164,250$ Max Allowed for Part 1:179,560$
146,934$
308,717$
1 Catholic Community Services FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:50,000$
FY19-20 30,000$ CDCIP:41,000$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:41,000$
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY16-17 20,000$
5 YR TOTAL 80,000$
2 First Step House FY20-21 60,000$ REQUEST:60,000$
FY19-20 50,000$ CDCIP:49,250$
MAYOR:49,250$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 110,000$
3 Shelter the Homeless FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:60,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
4 The Road Home FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:30,451$
FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 -$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
5 The Road Home New REQUEST:100,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL -$
6 Volunteers of America, Utah FY20-21 38,000$ REQUEST:60,000$
CDCIP:30,000$
MAYOR:30,000$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
5 YR TOTAL 38,000$
7 Volunteers of America, Utah FY20-21 46,000$ REQUEST:55,000$
FY19-20 44,115$ CDCIP:44,000$
FY18-19 60,000$ MAYOR:44,000$
FY17-18 45,992$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY16-17 50,000$
5 YR TOTAL 246,107$
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
83.94
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
84.29
Maximum score: 109
Operational and service expenses for the Geraldine E. King Women's
Resource Center.
2020-2021 Funding Available:
PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS
Operational and essential services of the VOA Youth Resource Center.
Shelter the Homeless (STH) is requesting ESG funding to assist with the
utilities for the two new Homeless Resource Centers (HRCs) in SLC.
STREET OUTREACH AND EMERGENCY SHELTER
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
83.69
Maximum score: 109
Operational support for the Weigand Homeless Resource Center, a day
shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness.
First Step House will provide on-site behavioral health assessment,
referral, and peer support services to individuals at the Men's Homeless
Resource Center.
Homeless Resource Center Utilities
Weigand Homeless Resource Center Client
Intake/Operations
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter, resource
center, or overflow operations
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter, resource
center, or overflow operations
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
88.42
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
85.57
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
67.97
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
79.92
Maximum score: 109
Emergency Shelter - St. Vincent's Overflow
Shelter
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter, resource
center, or overflow operations
SALT LAKE CITY ESG PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2021/2022
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
% OF GRANT AWARD
Part 1 Funding: Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter:
Part 2 Funding: Homelessness Prevention, RRH, HMIS, and Admin:
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter, resource
center, or overflow operations
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter, resource
center, or overflow operations
Operational expenses for St. Vincent's de Paul Dining Hall as overflow
winter emergency shelter.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Homeless Resource Center Program
Provide support for essential shelter services, including case
management and transportation. Also supporting shelter operations,
maintenance, rent, supplies, utilities, insurance, security, fuel, and
equipment.
Homeless Services: Homeless emergency shelter, resource
center, or overflow operations
Geraldine King Women's Resource Center
Homeless Youth Resource Center
ESG- Gail Miller Resource Center
Homeless Services: Homeless outreach programs
ESG Page 8
REQUEST:415,451$
CDCIP:164,250$ 54.88%Max 60%
MAYOR:164,250$ 54.88%Max 60%
COUNCIL:-$ 0.00%Max 60%
1 FY20-21 30,000$ REQUEST:59,784$
FY19-20 53,000$ CDCIP:40,000$
FY18-19 -$ MAYOR:40,000$
FY17-18 -$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Objective:
FY16-17 -$
5 YR TOTAL 83,000$
2 FY20-21 30,000$ REQUEST:121,637$
FY19-20 -$ CDCIP:84,304$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:82,022$
FY17-18 32,000$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Objective:
FY16-17 22,000$
5 YR TOTAL 114,000$
3 The Road Home FY20-21 40,765$ REQUEST:150,000$
FY19-20 84,077$ CDCIP:-$
FY18-19 85,382$ MAYOR:-$
FY17-18 85,508$ COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Objective:
FY16-17 87,198$
5 YR TOTAL 382,930$
4 Valley Mental Health, Incorporated FY20-21 -$ REQUEST:30,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:Consolidated Plan Objective:
5 YR TOTAL -$
REQUEST:361,421$
CDCIP:124,304$
MAYOR:122,022$
COUNCIL:-$
1 Salt Lake City Corporation FY20-21 22,630$ REQUEST:22,630$
FY19-20 22,446$ CDCIP:22,630$
FY18-19 21,843$ MAYOR:22,445$
FY17-18 21,659$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 18,666$
5 YR TOTAL 107,244$
REQUEST:799,502$
CDCIP:311,184$
MAYOR:308,717$
COUNCIL:-$
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
87.12
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
88.83
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
85.53
Maximum score: 109
Combined Admin & CDCIP Score:
78.35
Maximum score: 109
ADMINISTRATION
Rapid Re-Housing Program
Housing Programs: Rent assistance in the form of rapid
rehousing, homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance
Provide case management support for individuals experiencing
homelessness through deposit and rental assistance and holistic case
management.
Housing Programs: Rent assistance in the form of rapid
rehousing, homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance
Salary support for case managers in The Road Home’s Rapid Re-housing
Program working with participants, combined with short-term rental
assistance.
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, RAPID RE-HOUSING, HMIS AND ADMINISTRATION
Rapid Re-housing Program
HOMELESS PREVENTION & RAPID REHOUSING & TOTAL
Program Administration
Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing
at Valley Storefront
To provide management, oversight, and monitoring of the ESG program.
Administration: 7.5% of ESG allocation.
7.5%
0.0%
7.6%
7.6%
STREET OUTREACH AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TOTAL
Salt Lake Community Action dba Utah
Community Action
Salt Lake Community Action dba Utah
Community Action
Housing Programs: Rent assistance in the form of rapid
rehousing, homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance
Provide rental assistance for individuals who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness.
*FUNDING FOR PART 1 CANNOT EXCEED $179,560
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, RAPID RE-HOUSING, AND HMIS
Diversion Program
Diversion program support in the form of salaries and operational
support. Diversion is a light-touch approach working to find safe,
alternatives for clients rather than entering into shelter.
Housing Programs: Rent assistance in the form of rapid
rehousing, homeless prevention, and housing stabilization
assistance
ESG Page 9
799,502$
AVAILABLE TO ALLOCATE:
FINAL 21-22 GRANT AWARD:299,267$ CDCIP BOARD:311,184$ (2,467)$
REALLOCATION:9,450$ MAYOR:308,717$ (0)$
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $ 308,717 COUNCIL:-$ 308,717$
If an increase in funding Any additional funding is preferred to be allocated to The Road Home.
If a decrease in funding Due to funding limitations, the Board did not provide a recommendation.72-62097 9,449.77$
Total:9,449.77$
CDCIP Board Recommendation:
The funding recommendations made by the CD-CIP Board were finalized on 1/28/2021, based on the grant award from
the previous fiscal year, of an estimated $311,184. Final award notifications were received from HUD on 2/26/2021.
Salt Lake City's grant award is $308,717, for a decrease of $2,467 below anticipated.
Administration Staff Analysis:
For Finance Purposes Only:
REALLOCATION FUNDING:
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION:FUNDS ALLOCATED:
Requested Funds
ESG Page 10
2021-2022 Funding Available:1,649,789$ Available to Allocate 1,649,789$
1 Utah Community Action FY20-21 70,000$ REQUEST:126,637$
1307 S 900 W FY19-20 70,000$ HTFAB:167,669$
FY18-19 70,000$ MAYOR:167,669$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
TBRA Program FY17-18 70,000$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 70,000$
5 YR TOTAL 350,000$
2 FY20-21 200,000$ REQUEST:200,000$
FY19-20 200,000$ HTFAB:200,000$
501 East 1700 South FY18-19 200,000$ MAYOR:200,000$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 150,000$ COUNCIL:
Down Payment Assistance FY16-17 75,000$
5 YR TOTAL 825,000$
3 The Road Home FY20-21 200,000$ REQUEST:200,000$
210 South Rio Grande FY19-20 200,000$ HTFAB:200,000$
FY18-19 200,000$ MAYOR:200,000$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
TBRA program FY17-18 200,000$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 200,000$
5 YR TOTAL 1,000,000$
4 SLC Housing & Neighborhood FY20-21 1,066,667$ REQUEST:1,000,000$
Development FY19-20 939,266$ HTFAB:969,008$
451 S. State Street, Rm. 445 FY18-19 1,061,368$ MAYOR:984,634$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 798,221$ COUNCIL:
HOME Development Fund
5 YR TOTAL 3,865,522$
5 SLC Housing & Neighborhood FY20-21 95,750$ REQUEST:95,750$
Development FY19-20 88,507$ HTFAB:95,750$
451 S. State Street, Rm 406 FY18-19 99,994$ MAYOR:97,486$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:Administration
FY17-18 71,357$ COUNCIL:
Administrative Costs FY16-17 70,640$
10% of Home Allocation 5 YR TOTAL 426,248$
REQUEST:1,622,387$
HTFAB:1,632,427$
MAYOR:1,649,789$
COUNCIL:-$
FINAL 21-22 GRANT AWARD:974,863$
PROGRAM INCOME:674,926$
REALLOCATION:-$
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:1,649,789$
If a decrease in funding
Adjust admin to meet 10% of the grant award, reduce HOME development
fund accordingly
If an increase in funding
Adjust admin to meet 10% of the grant award, increase HOME
development fund accordingly -$
Total:-$
72-72001 674,926.00$
Total:674,926.00$
PROGRAM INCOME:
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 80.67
Maximum Score: 109
MAYOR:
FUND AVAILABILITY:AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION:
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 91.47
Maximum Score: 109
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 87.17
Maximum Score: 109
Funding to administer the HOME program (10% of the total HOME
allocation).
TOTAL
HTF Board Recommendation:
Administration Staff Analysis:
The funding recommendations made by the HTF Advisory Board were finalized on 12/09/2020, based on the grant award
from the previous fiscal year, of an estimated $957,501. Final award notifications were received from HUD on 2/26/2021.
Salt Lake City's grant award is $974,863, for an increase of $17,362 above anticipated.
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SALT LAKE CITY HOME PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2021/2022
REQUEST/
RECOMMENDEDAPPLICANT/PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
1,649,789$
-$
17,362$
Housing Programs: Housing programs that provide
applicable rent assistance in the form of rapid rehousing,
homeless prevention, and housing stabilization assistance.
Housing Programs: Housing programs that provide access
to home ownership via down paiyment assistance and/or
housing subsidy and.or financing.
Housing Programs: Housing programs that provide
applicable rent assistance in the form of rapid rehousing,
homeless prevention, and housing stabilization assistance.
Housing Programs: Housing development that increases
the nummber of units available for income eligible
residents (acquistion, New Construction).
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 94.43
Maximum Score: 109
Tenant Based Rental Assistance for eligible clients in The Road Home's
Rapid Re-housing Program.
Funds will be used for development activities including acquisition, new
construction, and rehabilitation of existing housing.
COUNCIL:
For Finance Purposes Only:
REALLOCATION FUNDING:
HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BRD:
Operational support, direct client rental assistance through Tenant Based
Rental Assistance.
Community Development Corporation of
Utah
Direct aid in the form of grants/loans not to exceed each to first-time LMI
home buyers in Salt Lake City for down payment assistance.
Combined Admin & HTFAB Score: 88.33
Maximum Score: 109
HOME Page 11
2021-2022 Funding Available: 674,671$ Available to Allocate 674,671$
1 FY20-21 510,797$ REQUEST:655,593$
FY19-20 438,020$ HTFAB:469,765$
FY18-19 321,015$ MAYOR:539,332$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 297,102$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 205,131$
5 YR TOTAL 1,772,065$
2 FY20-21 162,044$ REQUEST:153,777$
FY19-20 127,099$ HTFAB:85,099$
FY18-19 142,501$ MAYOR:85,099$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 104,388$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 114,719$
5 YR TOTAL 650,751$
3 FY20-21 30,000$ REQUEST:30,000$
FY19-20 30,000$ HTFAB:30,000$
FY18-19 30,000$ MAYOR:30,000$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
FY17-18 30,000$ COUNCIL:
FY16-17 15,000$
5 YR TOTAL 135,000$
4 New REQUEST:50,000$
HTFAB:-$
MAYOR:-$ Consolidated Plan Goal/Strategy:
COUNCIL:
5 FY19-20 18,026$ REQUEST:18,026$
FY19-20 16,003$ HTFAB:16,003$
FY18-19 14,166$ MAYOR:20,240$
FY17-18 12,505$ COUNCIL:
Administration: 3% of HOPWA allocation.FY16-17 10,975$
5 YR TOTAL 71,675$
907,396$
600,867$
674,671$
-$
2021-2022 GRANT AWARD: $ 674,671 (73,804)$
REALLOCATION:-$ -$
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:674,671$ (674,671)$
If a decrease Due to funding limitations, the Board did not provide a recommendation
HTF Board Recommendation:
Administration Staff Analysis:
The funding recommendations made by the HTF Advisory Board were finalized on 12/09/2020, based on the grant award
from the previous fiscal year, of an estimated $600,867. Final award notifications were received from HUD on 2/26/2021.
Salt Lake City's grant award is $674,867, for an increase of $73,804 above anticipated.
If an increase
Additional funds should first increase Housing Connect up to their full ask,
then UCA up to their ask.
Program Administration
SALT LAKE CITY HOPWA PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2021/2022
AWARDS
Salaries and operational support, and rental assistance for HOPWA housing
program.
APPLICANT/PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUEST/
RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLANPREVIOUS GRANT
To provide management, oversight, and monitoring of the HOPWA program.
Rental Assistance for HOPWA eligible tenants and staff salary to support
program administration.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Housing Authority of the County of Salt
Lake AKA Housing Connect
Utah Community Action Program
Utah AIDS Foundation
Combined Admin & HTF Score: 94.60
Maximum Score: 109
Combined Admin & HTF Score: 93.97
Maximum Score: 109
Combined Admin & HTF Score: 90.30
Maximum Score: 109
Salary support for Case Manager to provide housing-related case
management to people living with HIV and their households.
Tenant-based Rental Assistance
Housing Information/
STRMU/PHP/Supportive Services
Supportive Services
Housing Programs: Support rent assistance programs to
emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent
and end homelessness.
FUND AVAILABILITY:AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION:
HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BRD:
TOTAL
Utah AIDS Foundation Combined Admin & HTF Score: 90.13
Maximum Score: 109
Behavioral Health: Support programs that provide
connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral
health programs.
Mental Health Services
Funding for salary for a part-time licensed clinical social worker to provide
individual mental health counseling to clients living with HIV.
Housing Programs: Support rent assistance programs to
emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent
and end homelessness.
COUNCIL:
MAYOR:
MAYOR:
COUNCIL:
REQUEST:
HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BRD:
Housing Programs: Support rent assistance programs to
emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent
and end homelessness.
HOPWA Page 12
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Salt Lake City Planning Division
2021
BACKGROUND
2012: First ADU ordinance adopted. One ADU built.
2014: Planning started process of updating regulations
2016: two PC public hearings and recommendation
2018: updated ADU ordinance adopted
What were the issues
•Owner occupancy
•Parking
•Outward appearance
•Crowding
•Privacy
What was the forecast
Average of 27 ADU’s per year
•% of homes with ADUs in cities with similar regulations
One FTE for every 30 conditional use applications submitted
ADUs would not contribute to addressing housing needs of the city
given the scope of regulations.
What we have seen
2019: 33 total (24 CU, 9
permitted)
2020: 34 total (24 CU, 10
permitted)
.08% of homes per year
12+ years for 1% of homes (420)
to have ADU approved
Total Built (all years)
Total Building Permits (as of 12/31/2020)
21 under construction
17 in permit review
9 completed
Characteristics
location
Nearly ½ are in district 5
Concentrate around Liberty
Park
Note where ADUs are not
being applied for
location
67% of ADUs are within
a 10-minute walk
What makes it hard to build?
Property owner wants
Construction process
Construction costs
Finding contractors
What makes it hard?
City Barriers:
•Fees
•Building and fire codes (can’t modify)
•Zoning
•Conditional use process
•Owner occupancy
•Building design elements
•Setbacks
•Reuse of existing garages
HB 82 Impacts
Internal ADUs only
•Permitted uses
•Cities cannot regulate:
•Size of ADU
•Total lot size
•Street frontage
HB 82 Impacts
Cities can regulate:
•Can limit them to a % of land in the city
•External appearance
•Require one parking spot and
replacement of lost parking
•Require a license for renting
•Prohibit and enforce short term rentals
•Prohibit ADUs on lots under 6,000 sq ft
•Lien a property for violations
HB 82 Impacts
Required code updates:
•Define internal ADUs
•Update land use tables
•Delete max size for internal ADUs
•Updating registration process
•Prohibit short term rentals
•Ensure enforcement section is consistent
HB 82 Impacts
We don’t plan on:
•Prohibiting ADUs on some % of land
•Prohibiting ADUs on lots under 6,000 sq ft
•Changing parking requirements
Best practices
•Quick, simple processes
•Fixed, easy to understand processes
•Few design standards
•Make it easier to convert/expand existing
buildings for ADUs
What stops best practices?
•Lack of political support
•Lack of community support
•Time to process
•Lengthy processes to change
•Reinventing the wheel
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
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:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: ADU Annual Report
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director, 801-641-1728 or nick.norris@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: NA
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City Zoning Code 21A.40.200 Accessory
Dwelling Unit requires the Planning Division to provide a report to the City Council by February
15th of each calendar year. The report is required to include the number of applications received,
the address of each unit for which an application was submitted, an explanation of why an
application was denied (no ADUs have been denied as of January 1, 2021), and a map showing
approved accessory dwelling units. This report is attached.
PUBLIC PROCESS: NA
EXHIBITS:
2020 ADU Annual Report
02/10/2021
3/8/2021
3/1/2021
1
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2020
ADUS ANNUAL REPORT
2
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
3
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
04 ANNUAL REPORT 2020
05 ABOUT ADUS
06 2 020 NUMBERS
10 ADU REGUL ATIONS
14 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING
451 S. State Street // Room 406
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 - 5480
P.O. Box // 145480 slc.gov/planning
4
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
A
N
N
U
A
L
The Salt Lake City Council adopted an updated Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance in
October 2018. That ordinance requires the Planning Division to produce an annual ADU
report. The report is required to include the following information:
• The number of applications received;
• The address of each application for an ADU;
• A map showing the locations of approved ADUs; and
• An explanation of the reasons an application may have been denied
The Planning Division has added information to this report regarding barriers to ADUs, issues
raised during the process, and issues associated with administering the ordinance. This
report also includes recommended changes to the ADU ordinance that may improve the
ability of the ordinance to fulfill the purposes stated in the ordinance.
This report covers the time period from the
adoption of the ordinance in October 2018 to
December 31, 2020. The report is required by
ordinance to be transmitted to the City Council
by February 15, 2021.
REPORT 2020
5
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
WHAT IS AN ADU?
An accessory Dwelling Unit is a complete, secondary residential unit that can be added to
a single family residential lot. ADUs can be attached to or part of the primary residence or
be detached as a separate building in the backyard. ADUs are often referred to as mother-
in-law apartments, backyard cottages, granny flats, and alley way cottages, detached
dwelling units, and many other similar terms.
WHERE CAN THEY BE LOCATED IN SLC?
An ADU may be located on any property that is zoned for single family dwellings and where
a single family home is on the same property. An ADU is not allowed when the property
already contains a duplex, triplex, or an apartment building.
HOW ARE ADUS APPROVED?
ADUs can be approved in the City through two different ways. First, if the property is in a
zoning district that already allows multiple units on a single lot, an ADU can be built as a
permitted use. A permitted use does not require any special approval process and can be
built after a building permit is issued. Second, if the property is in a single family zoning
district, an ADU can be approved as a conditional use. A conditional use requires a public
process that includes a 45 day public comment period followed by a public hearing with
the Planning Commission.
ABOUT ADUS
6
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
20
2
0
NUMBERS
AVERAGE SIZEAVERAGE SIZE
INTERNAL ADUS SEPARATE BUILDING ABOVE GARAGE
551
SQUARED FT.
884
SQUARED FT.
5 19 6
CONDITIONAL USE ADU CHARACTERISTICS - 2020 APPROVALS
BEDROOMS
AVERAGE HEIGHT
15 FT. 10 IN.
CONDITIONAL USE
2019 24
2020 24
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS 40
CONDITIONAL USE PENDING 8
CONDITIONAL USE DENIED 0
BUILDING PERMITS
TOTAL APPLICATIONS 47
COMPLETED ADUS 9
ADUS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 21
ADUS BUILDING PERMIT
UNDER REVIEW
17
ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOMS
20 4
PARKING LOCATION
ON SITE ON STREET
7 17
PERMITTED USE
2019 9
2020 10
2019 ADUS 2020 ADUS
7
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
CONDITIONAL USE ADU CHARACTERISTICS - 2020 APPROVALS
PERMITTED USE ADUS
An ADU is considered a permitted use in zoning districts that allow housing types that include
at least a duplex, but may include triplexes and apartments as well. This includes the SR-1A,
SR-3, R2, RMF, RMU, and MU zoning districts. The review process of permitted ADUs start
with submitting a building permit.
CONDITIONAL USE ADUS
ADUs in single family zoning districts require a conditional use. A conditional use requires a
public process that includes a 45-day public comment period followed by a public hearing
with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission makes the final decision on ADUs
that require a conditional use.
WHERE ARE THE ADUS LOCATED?
The ADUs are located throughout the City. The map below shows the location of each
ADU application.
ADUS BY DISTRICT
District 1 2
2019 2
2020 0
DISTRICT 1
DISTRICT 2
DISTRICT 3
DISTRICT 4
DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 6
DISTRICT 7
District 2 7
2019 2
2020 5
District 3 5
2019 4
2020 1
District 4 6
2019 3
2020 3
District 5 25
2019 15
2020 10
District 6 8
2019 3
2020 5
District 7 14
2019 4
2020 10
8
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
ADU APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED
This table includes the addresses of each ADU application that has been submitted.
ADDRESS TYPE OF ADU TYPE OF PROCESS STATUS DISTRICT
1039 W BRIARCLIFF AVE Detached Conditional Use In Progress 1
1365 W 500 N Attached Conditional Use Voided 1
844 W GENESEE AVE Detached Conditional Use In Progress 2
1017 S NAVAJO ST Attached Conditional Use In Progress 2
1072 S JEREMY ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 2
772 S GLENDALE ST Attached Conditional Use In Progress 2
613 S EMERY ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 2
726 S GOSHEN ST Detached Conditional Use Voided 2
1285 W PACIFIC AVE Detached Conditional Use Voided 2
375 E 3RD AVE Detached Permitted Complete 3
617 E 1ST AVE Attached Permitted In Progress 3
128 E 2ND AVE Detached Permitted Complete 3
170 W 600 N Detached Permitted HLC Complete 3
333 N 200 W Detached Permitted Voided 3
264 S 1100 E Detached Permitted Complete 4
805 E 300 S Attached Permitted In Progress 4
155 S MCCLELLAND ST Attached Permitted In Progress 4
633 S 600 E Detached Permitted HLC In Progress 4
869 S 700 E Detached Permitted Voided 4
431 E 600 S Attached Conditional Use In Progress 4
1143 S LAKE ST Detached Conditional Use Complete 5
64 W ANDREW AVE Detached Conditional Use Complete 5
815 E EMERSON AVE Detached Conditional Use Complete 5
1083 S BLAIR ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
1180 S 800 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
225 E WILLIAMS AVE Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
1781 S 500 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
1362 S 1300 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
233 E WILLIAMS AVE Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
557 E 1700 S Attached Conditional Use In Progress 5
567 E HOLLYWOOD AVE Attached Conditional Use In Progress 5
1020 S LINCOLN ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
1336 S 1000 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
9
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
ADDRESS TYPE OF ADU TYPE OF PROCESS STATUS DISTRICT
1371 S 500 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
1395 S PARK ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
235 E HUBBARD AVE Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
629 E ROOSEVELT AVE Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
942 S 900 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
952 S WINDSOR ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 5
1136 E SUNNYSIDE AVE Detached Permitted Complete 5
1503 S 300 E Attached Permitted Complete 5
824 E 900 S Attache Permitted In Progress 5
1175 E SUNNYSIDE AVE Detached Permitted In Progress 5
932 E PRINCETON AVE Detached Conditional Use Voided 5
1405 S 1000 E Detached Conditional Use Voided 5
1807 S 1900 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 6
1977 S SCENIC DR Attached Conditional Use In Progress 6
1395 E MICHIGAN AVE Attached Conditional Use In Progress 6
1792 S 2100 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 6
1695 S WASATCH DR Detached Conditional Use In Progress 6
1620 E PRINCETON AVE Detached Conditional Use Voided 6
2721 E 2100 S Detached Conditional Use In Progress 6
1781 E 900 S Detached Conditional Use Voided 6
2250 S 1800 E Detached Conditional Use Complete 7
2321 S WINDSOR ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
2297 S LAKE ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
2496 S 1700 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
2595 S 800 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
1673 E GARFIELD AVE Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
1712 S 1000 E Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
1756 S WINDSOR ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
2174 S 1900 E Attached Conditional Use In Progress 7
2579 S PARK ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
2651 S IMPERIAL ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
1978 S WINDSOR ST Detached Conditional Use In Progress 7
1981 S VIEW ST Detached Conditional Use Voided 7
2324 S GREEN ST Attached Conditional Use Voided 7
10
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
A
D
U
HOW ARE THE ADU REGULATIONS WORKING?
The ADU ordinance lists several purposes for allowing ADUs. The purposes provide
guidance for determining if the ADU ordinance is working. The listed purposes and a brief
discussion of each purpose follows.
1. Create new housing units while respecting the appearance and scale of
single-family residential development;
A total of 67 units have been approved under the current ADU ordinance. This represents
a very small percentage of the total housing units in the city. In 2020, more than 3,500
housing units were approved by the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark
Commission. Twenty-four of those were ADUs. That is approximately 0.6% of the
approved housing units. There are approximately 44,000 single family dwellings.
An ADU has been approved on approximately 0.15% of the properties.
The average size of ADUs is less than the maximum allowed in code and the average
height is lower than what is allowed by code. From an appearance, standpoint, ADUs
are not adversely impacting the appearance or scale of the neighborhoods where
they are locating.
REGULATIONS
11
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2. Provide more housing choices in residential districts;
A total of 9 ADUs have been built under the ADU ordinance. 21 are under
construction and there are 17 building permits that are under review. It is likely
that in 2021 most of those under construction will be completed. Some of the
building permits under review will start construction and a few will be completed. It
is reasonable to expect that there will be around 40 ADUs completed by the end of
2021. That would equate to about 13 ADUs completed per year. In basic terms the
ADU ordinance is creating more housing choice. It is just doing it at a very slow rate
and at a rate that is not making a noticeable impact on housing choice.
3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure,
and the embodied energy contained within existing structures;
Few ADUs are internal to existing buildings and few ADUs have been associated with
a demolition and replacement of existing dwellings. The few ADUs that have been
constructed are making use of existing housing stock. The internal ADUs have been
done as renovations or additions to existing homes, preserving the embodied energy in
the existing homes.
4. Provide housing options for family caregivers, adult children, aging parents,
and families seeking smaller households;
Any evidence that ADUs are providing housing options for family members is anecdotal
at this point due to the low number of constructed dwellings. However, a survey from
AARP shows that 84% of people over the age of 50 considering building an ADU would
do so to provide housing for a family member (https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/
aarp/livable-communities/livable-documents/documents-2019/ADU-guide-web-
singles-071619.pdf )
5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families
with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain
extra income, security, companionship, and services;
Like item 4 above, any evidence that this is occurring is anecdotal due to the low number
of units that have been built.
6. Broaden the range of affordable housing throughout the City;
Not enough units have been created and data regarding the level of affordability specific
to Salt Lake City is not available.
12
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
7. Support sustainability objectives by increasing housing close to jobs, schools,
and services, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel
consumption;
The only data that is available to demonstrate that this purpose is being fulfilled is mapping
the locations of the ADUs. The map shows that about 55% of ADUs are within ½ mile of
major job centers and commercial districts where multiple services are located, 37% are
within ¼ mile of a school.
2019 ADUS
2020 ADUS
JOB CENTERS & COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
1/2 MILE RADIUS
ADUS NEAR JOB CENTERS AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
13
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing
density near transit; and
The Map below indicates that 70% of the ADUs are within ¼ mile of transit with frequencies
of 15 minutes or less.
9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the City’s historic
preservation goals by allowing accessory dwellings in historic structures.
For the purpose of this section, historic structures are considered those located within
local historic districts because the city has preservation related regulatory authority over
those properties. To date, 3 ADUs have been approved in local historic districts. One of
those ADUs was part of a new construction project on a vacant lot. There is not enough
data to say that this purpose is being achieved. However, it is also not having any sort of
detrimental impact on historic preservation goals.
2019 ADUS
2020 ADUS
1/4 MILE BUS STOP BUFFER
1/4 MILE RAIL BUFFER
HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT
ADUS NEAR TRANSIT FREQUENCIES OF 15 MINUTES OR LESS
14
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
PO
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
The ADU could be improved to achieve the stated purposes. Here are a few steps that
could be taken.
1.Establish a goal for the number of ADUs in the city.
A goal for the number of ADUs should be established so it is easier to determine if the
purposes are being fulfilled. Any goal should establish the target number of units and a
time frame to get there. For example, if the goal is to have 1% of the housing stock be
ADUs and there are roughly 44,000 single family dwellings in the city, a total of 440 ADUs
would be needed. At the current rate of construction (13 ADUs per year), it would take
almost 34 years to achieve that goal. Clearly, that is not helpful in addressing housing
needs. Steps would need to be taken to increase the rate of construction. This would be an
important first step to take and would influence the following steps.
2.Remove or reduce zoning barriers.
Zoning barriers that make it more difficult to construct ADUs include processes that
add time and uncertainty, regulations that add expense, that do not serve a purpose of
reducing impacts to immediate neighbors or cannot be explained. The decision to remove
a barrier through changes to the ADU regulations should consider the goals, impacts, and
to the extent possible the unintended consequences. Key zoning barriers include:
• The conditional use process;
• Owner occupancy requirements;
• Entrance location regulations;
• Regulations of windows;
• Required parking;
• Excessive building setbacks; and
• Conflicting and confusing footprint and square footage regulations.
3. Modify fees
Recalculating impact fees for ADUs could reduce the cost by several thousand dollars.
Eliminating the conditional use requirement also eliminates the application fee.
IMPROVEMENTS
15
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
4. Consider allocating funds to have pre-approved construction plans for ADUs.
This would allow a property owner to select a plan, develop a site plan, and pull a permit
without having to go through the building permit review process. Permit fees would still
apply, but the applicant would save money having to produce plans.
5. Consider a funding program for ADU construction
A funding program could make it easier for owners to finance ADUs. A program could
provide some funds towards the construction. The city could utilize prerequisites to
require an ADU utilizing these funds to maintain the ADU at a certain level of affordability
for a set amount of time. This action would likely require additional resources to
administer the program and long-term compliance with program rules.
16
AD
U
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING
451 S. State Street // Room 406
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 - 5480
P.O. Box // 145480
slc.gov/planning
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 6, 2021
RE: Learned Avenue Alley Vacation
PLNPCM2020-00572
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a 180 foot by 16.5-foot City-owned alley between
North Temple and Learned Avenue, west of 1000 West in City Council District Two. The east-west alley is
between a restaurant at 1025 West North Temple on the north and four single-family homes fronting
Learned Avenue on the south as shown in the image below. It is currently being used as a parking lot for
the restaurant. It does not fully connect through the block (see map on next page). Residents of the
adjacent homes also use the alley’s painted parking stalls. All properties adjacent to the subject alley are
owned by the applicant. A north/south alley between North Temple and Learned Avenue would remain
open under the proposal.
The applicant expressed an intent to demolish the four single-family homes, consolidate parcels adjacent to
the alley and construct a multi-family housing structure with ground floor commercial space if the alley
closure is approved by the City Council.
On page two of the Administration’s transmittal Planning staff noted the four adjacent single-family homes
could be considered naturally occurring affordable housing, which would be removed if the applicant
redevelops the parcels with a multi-family housing structure. There are no specific plans at this point for
how many units might be included and whether they will be considered market rate or affordable.
If approved by the City Council, the vacated alley property will be sold to the applicant at market value.
In its positive recommendation to the Council, the Planning Commission also recommended the applicant
work with the City to address displacement of the four single-family homes, and the Council explore adding
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 6, 2021
Set Date: April 6, 2021
Public Hearing: May 18, 2021
Potential Action: June 1, 2021
Page | 2
affordable housing to the development. The Council’s role is to determine whether it is in the City’s best
interest to vacate the alley property and sell it to the developer at market value.
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may
have and prepare for a public hearing.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. As discussed above, Planning staff noted the four existing single-family homes could be considered
naturally affordable housing. The Council may wish to ask what type of housing the applicant
intends to include in the future development.
2. Does the Council agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this alley closure
request?
Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code
(see pages 5-7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public
hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
Page | 3
The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following five key
considerations related to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for
reference. Please see pages 17-19 of the Administration’s transmittal for full analysis of these issues.
1. Property Owner Consent
Section 14.52.030 A.1 states “The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five
percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property.” When the
application was submitted to the Planning Division, all adjacent property owners signed the
petition in support of the proposal. The applicant now owns all adjacent properties.
2.Policy Considerations
The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City
owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community Purpose). As outlined below and in
Attachment E (pages 34-36 of the Administration’s transmittal), Planning staff finds the alley vacation
satisfies the Urban Design and Public Safety policy considerations.
3.Nature of the Alley
Based on an aerial photo Planning staff found the alley has been used since at least July 2018 as
parking for the restaurant at 1025 West North Temple and as parking for the adjacent single-family
homes. The alley ends at the property to the west and does not appear to serve any purpose other
than parking for adjacent properties.
4.Future Public Uses of the Alley
Potential to use alleys for pedestrians, cyclists or other beneficial uses is considered in alley
vacation requests. Because this alley ends at the western edge of the applicant’s property, it would
not serve as an east/west mid-block connector for pedestrians, bicycles, or vehicles. Using it for
vehicular access to the proposed development could impede pedestrian or cyclist use of the
north/south alley that would not be closed under the proposal. Vacating the subject alley could
provide vehicle access to the proposed development from Learned Avenue. This would encourage
pedestrian access move to North Temple and to the remaining north/south alley.
5.City Housing Goals and Housing Displacement
The applicant requested the subject alley closure as part of a plan to redevelop abutting properties
into a medium/high-density multi-family residential building. The North Temple Boulevard
Master Plan encourages increased residential density in the core and transition portions of transit
station areas. The subject alley and abutting properties are in the transition portion.
However, under the proposed development, residents of the four abutting single-family homes
would be displaced when the structures are demolished. Growing SLC, the City’s 2018-2022
Housing Master Plan, established guiding principles for the City Council when appropriating funds
for housing development. Planning staff noted vacating an alley (even if the alley is being sold to an
applicant) should be considered an appropriation of City resources. Growing SLC principle 6
recommends the City Council “create a net increase in affordable housing while…avoiding
displacement of existing affordable housing.” Planning staff and the Planning Commission
recommend the developer mitigate housing displacement by including an affordable housing
component into the future development.
Attachment E of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 34 - 36) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the
City to consider for alley vacations (Sections 14.52.020 and 14.52.030 B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the
Page | 4
information above, the other factors are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the
transmittal.
•City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure,
vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community
Purpose).
Finding: Complies. Planning staff determined the proposed alley closure satisfies the Public Safety, and
Urban Design policy considerations for the petition to be processed.
•City Code required analysis: The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division
and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of
the property.
Finding: Complies. City Public Utilities, Transportation and Zoning responded with no objections.
•City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to
any adjacent property.
Finding: Complies. Occupants of 1022 West Learned Avenue currently use the subject alley to access
parking in the rear. This property also abuts the adjacent north/south alley which would allow the
applicant to move parking egress next to the alley without impeding use of that alley.
•City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked.
Finding: Complies. No properties would be landlocked as a result of the alley vacation.
•City Code required analysis: The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is
otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted
statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths,
trails, and alternative transportation uses.
Finding: Mixed. As discussed above, the North Temple Boulevard Master Plan encourages increased
residential density in this area. However, Growing SLC recommends the City “create a net increase in
affordable housing while…avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing.” The proposed
development (separate from the alley vacation before the City Council) includes removal of the
existing single-family homes and displacement of the residents.
•City Code required analysis: No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage
requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has
been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit.
Finding: Complies. The applicant owns all parcels abutting the subject alley, and as of the writing of
this report no applications for a garage building permit have been submitted.
•City Code required analysis: The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire
alley, rather than a small segment of it.
Finding: Complies. The applicant is requesting to vacate the entire east/west alley. Under the proposal,
the adjacent north/south alley would remain intact.
•City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to
residences or for accessory uses.
Finding: Complies. As discussed above, occupants of 1022 West Learned Avenue currently use the
subject east/west alley for parking egress. Parking egress could be moved to the east property line.
Page | 5
PUBLIC PROCESS
Notice of the project and a request for comments were sent to the Fairpark and Poplar Grove Community
Council Chairs September 14, 2020.
Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners
living within 300 feet of the project site on September 15, 2020. Notice about the online
open house for the project and information on how to give public input was included.
An online open house for the proposed alley vacation was posted on the Planning Division’s
website September 14, 2020.
The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired October 30, 2020.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
• Public hearing notice mailed November 19, 2020
• Public hearing notice sign posted near the subject alley November 23, 2020
• Public notice posted on City and State websites & Planning Division listserv November 19, 2020
Public Input:
Neither the Fairpark nor the Poplar Grove Community Council Chairs asked staff to present the proposed
alley vacation at their meetings. Planning staff received one public comment email expressing support for
the proposal.
The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part,
with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth
herein.
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR
ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following
policy considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an
applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not
physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public
right of way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful
activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element;
or
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of
the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02
§ 1, 2002)
Page | 6
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this
section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing,
including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
A. Administrative Determination of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether
or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the
neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in
the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the
appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60
of this code; and
5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has
been paid.
B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a
complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to
consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of
the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the
city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive
recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city
departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the
property;
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property
adjacent to the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary
to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of
policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths,
trails, and alternative transportation uses;
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the
property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued,
construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small
segment of it; and
Page | 7
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for
accessory uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from
the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of
the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will
make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13,
2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low
density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low
density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin
home residential uses.
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts
properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the
alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of
that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density
residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold
for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley
property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's
decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court.
W
h
o
a
n
d
W
h
e
r
e
Housing Loss Mitigation
-First house owned by partner in transaction.
-Occupants paid to cover moving costs, deposits on new homes, and additional funds for their
time.
-Vacant home/no ductwork.
-Concern by residents of homelessness in area.
Benefits to City
-Trading liability for income
-Is not going to be of use to the adjacent property owners. All of the abutting property is owned by
the same entity and this small dead end alley will be absorbed into a single property.
-If the alley were to remain it would become surrounded by large buildings. Likely all active use of
the alley would end and it could become a magnet for crime.
-Because this alley doesn’t connect to the East or West it doesn’t serve any larger Urban design
goals of the city
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
City Council Work Session
Learned Avenue Alley Vacation
1025 W North Temple
PLNPCM2020-00268
Request:
A request from Jarod Hall of Di’velept Design,
representing the owner of surrounding
properties,Riley Rogers,to vacate the public
alley adjacent to the rear property line of
1025 West North Temple that runs mid-block
from east to west .
City Council Work Session
Learned Avenue Alley Vacation
1025 W North Temple
PLNPCM2020-00268
City Council Work Session
View from the alley’s
east end, looking west
City Council Work Session
Planning Commission Recommendation:
A positive recommendation to the City Council
with the following conditions:
The proposed method of disposition of the
alley property shall be consistent with
relevant City ordinances
The applicant works with City Council to
address displacement of the four existing
single-family houses and explore adding
affordable housing.
Learned Avenue Alley Vacation
1025 W North Temple
PLNPCM2020-00268
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
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:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation
STAFF CONTACT: Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner,
aaron.barlow@slcgov.com, 385-386-2764
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve
with the following recommended condition:
1.The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the
method of disposition outlined in Section 14.52.040 – Method of Disposition and Chapter
2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
2. The applicant works with the City Council and relevant City departments on an
agreement that addresses the displacement of the four existing single-family houses and
explore adding additional affordable housing.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jarod Hall of Di'velept Design, as a representative of Riley
Rogers (the owner of surrounding property), has initiated a petition to vacate a 180-foot long
section of public alley to consolidate the properties immediately abutting the alley. The 16.5-foot
wide alley currently functions as an extension of the parking lot for the restaurant north of the
alley (located at 1025 West North Temple). Residents of the adjacent single-family houses also
use the alley's painted parking stalls.
March 22, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 23, 2021 12:45 MDT)
03/23/2021
03/23/2021
When staff initially received the application, all adjacent property owners supported the vacation
and signed the petition (which is included with exhibit 3b). However, as of this report's date, the
applicant now owns all properties adjacent to the subject alley. If the petition is approved, the
applicant plans to consolidate the lots adjacent to the alley and construct a multi-family
residential structure. The proposed project will still need to meet relevant zoning requirements,
and the applicant will need to submit a separate petition.
The subject alley abuts four existing single-family houses that could be considered naturally
occurring affordable housing. The applicant's plan to redevelop the block and demolish the
existing houses would remove this existing housing stock. The Planning Commission voted to
forward a positive recommendation on the alley vacation; however, the Commission also
recommended that the applicant work with the City Council to address the displacement of the
four existing houses and explore requiring additional affordable housing in the future project.
Specific details regarding the proposed alley vacation are in the Planning Commission Staff
Report (Exhibit 3b).
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Early notification was sent to the Poplar Grove and Fairpark Community Council Chairs
requesting comments for the proposal. Neither Community Council asked the applicant or
Planning Staff to attend one of their meetings. Neither Community Council provided any
comments.
• Early notification was also sent out to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject area. No public comment was received.
• Staff held a virtual Open House posted to the Salt Lake City website to solicit comments
from the public.
• A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on December 2, 2020. One
individual commented on the project, asking whether the adjacent taqueria was going to be
removed. The applicant explained it was not part of their project. The Planning Commission
discussed the request and voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Planning Commission Record (December 2, 2020)
a) Hearing Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda and Minutes
4) Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ________ of 2021
(Vacating a city-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at
1025 West North Temple; and 1022, 1028, 1030 and 1032 West Learned Avenue)
An ordinance vacating an unnamed city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at
1025 West North Temple; and 1022, 1028, 1030 and 1032 West Learned Avenue, pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00572.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on December
2, 2020, to consider a request made by Jarod Hall of D’velept Design (“Applicant”) (Petition No.
PLNPCM2020-00572) on behalf of the alley’s one adjacent property owner; and
WHEREAS, at its December 2, 2020, hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there
is good cause to vacate the alleys and streets described below, and that vacating the city-owned
alleys and streets described below will not materially injure the public interest or any person.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent
to properties located at 1025 West North Temple; and 1022, 1028, 1030 and 1032 West Learned
Avenue, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00572, and which is more
particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is, vacated and declared not
presently necessary or available for public use.
SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above closure and vacation is expressly
made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every
description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to
the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or
rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said closure is also subject
to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties.
SECTION 3. Conditions. This proposed street closure and vacation is conditioned upon
the following:
1) The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the
method of disposition set forth in Section 14.52.040 (“Method of Disposition”) and
Chapter 2.58 (“City Owned Real Property”) of the Salt Lake City Code; and
2) The vacation is subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of the alley
property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The city recorder is
instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been
met as confirmed by the city’s real property manager.
SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year
after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause
shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of
______________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
March 9, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal description of the unnamed, city-owned
alley to be vacated:
A TRACT OF LAND BEING SITUATE IN BLOCK 56, PLAT C, SALT LAKE CITY
SURVEY, HAVING A BASIS OF BEARINGS OF BEARINGS BEING NORTH 00°01'32"
WEST BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS FOUND MARKING THE INTERSECTIONS OF
LEARNED AVENUE AND SOUTH TEMPLE STREET ALONG 1000 WEST STREET,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 19, BOTHWELL AND
MCCONAUGHY SUBDIVISION, ON FILE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE
COUNTY RECORDER, SAID POINT ALSO BEING NORTH 00°01'32" WEST ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF 1000 WEST STREET A DISTANCE OF 399.09 FEET TO THE STREET
MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1000 WEST STREET AND LEARNED
AVENUE AND NORTH 00°00'49" WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 1000
WEST STREET A DISTANCE OF 173.35 FEET AND NORTH 89°59'47" WEST 212.59 FEET
FROM THE MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1000 WEST STREET AND
SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 89°59'47" WEST 181.62
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 15 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE
NORTH 00°00'49" WEST 16.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14 OF
SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89°59'47" EAST 181.62 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 10 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 00°00'49"
EAST 16.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINS 2,997 SQUARE FEET OR 0.069 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3.PLANNING COMMISSION (December 2, 2020)
A.HEARING NOTICE
B.STAFF REPORT
C.AGENDA AND MINUTES
4.MAILING LIST (generated 01/19/2021)
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2020-00572
July 7, 2020 Petition received by the Planning Division.
August 4, 2020 Petition assigned to Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, for staff
analysis and processing.
September 14, 2020 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs of
the Poplar Grove and Fairpark Community Councils. Neither Chair
provided response to the request for comment.
September 14, 2020 Virtual Open House was posted to the Salt Lake City Website.
November 17, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of
property within 300 feet of the streets and alleys.
December 2, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public
hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
2. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00572 Learned
Avenue Alley Vacation - A request from Jarod Hall of Di’velept Design,
representing the owner of surrounding property, Riley Rogers, to vacate the public
alley adjacent to the rear property line of 1025 West North Temple that runs mid-
block from east to west. The subject alley is surrounded by the TSA-SP-T (Special
Purpose Transit Station, Transition Area) zoning district and is located within
Council District #2, represented by Andrew Johnston.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to
receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to
address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak.
The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please
visit our website at www.slccouncil.com to learn how you can share your comments
during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour
comment line at 801-535-7654 or sending an email to
council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file,
please call Aaron Barlow at 385-386-2764 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at aaron.barlow@slcgov.com.
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.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Hearing Notice
December 2, 2020
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
December 2, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7700 FAX 801-535-6174
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Aaron Barlow, AICP, Principal Planner, 385-386-2764, aaron.barlow@slcgov.com
Date: November 23, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation
ALLEY VACATION
PROPERTY ADDRESSES: The alley abuts five individual properties as follows:
North Temple: 1025 W North Temple
Learned Avenue: 1022, 1028, 1030, and 1032 W Learned Ave
MASTER PLAN: North Temple Boulevard Plan; Northwest Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: TSA-SP-T – Special Purpose Transit Station Transition Area
COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 2, Andrew Johnston
REQUEST: A request from Jarod Hall of Di’velept Design, representing the owner of surrounding
properties, Riley Rogers, to vacate the public alley adjacent to the rear property line of 1025 West North
Temple that runs mid-block from east to west.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report, Planning Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council
for the alley vacation with the following conditions:
1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the
method of disposition outlined in Section 14.52.040 – Method of Disposition and Chapter
2.58 City Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
2. The applicant works with City Council and relevant City departments on an agreement that
addresses the displacement of the four existing single-family houses.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Photos
C. Request & Project Narrative
D. Existing Conditions & Zoning
E. Analysis of Standards
F. Public Process and Comments
G. Department Review Comments
H. Potential Motions
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 2 of 24
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Jarod Hall of Di’velept Design, as a representative of Riley Rogers (the
owner of surrounding property) has initiated a petition to vacate a 180-
foot long section of alley in order to consolidate the properties the alley
immediately abuts. The 16.5-foot wide alley currently functions as an
extension of the parking lot for the restaurant north of the alley (located
at 1025 West North Temple). Residents of the adjacent single-family
houses also use the alley’s painted parking stalls.
When the application was submitted, all adjacent property owners
supported the vacation and signed the petition (included with
attachment C). However, as of the date of this staff report, the applicant
now owns all properties adjacent to the subject alley. If the petition is
approved, the applicant plans to consolidate the lots adjacent to the alley
and construct a multi-family residential structure. The proposed project
will still need to meet relevant zoning requirements and will be reviewed
as a separate petition.
From time to time, Salt Lake City receives request to vacate
public rights of way. There is a difference between a vacation
and a closure. A vacation is when the city is vacating all rights
to the right-of-way. A closure is when the right-of-way is closed
to one public use but retains other public uses. While requests
to close alleys happen occasionally, vacations are the most
common type of these requests. Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake
City Code identifies policies that should be considered in the
decision and outlines a procedure for the disposition of City
owned alley. Alley Vacations require City Council approval. The
Planning Commission’s role in the Alley vacation process is to
provide a recommendation to the City Council based on the
relevant standards found in Chapter 14.52.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key issues listed below have been identified through the
analysis of the project, neighbor and community input, and
department review comments.
Consideration 1: Property Owner Consent
Section 14.52.030 A.1 specifies “The petition must bear the
signatures of no less than eighty percent (80%) of the
neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley
property.” When the application was submitted, all adjacent
property owners signed the petition in support of vacating the
alley. Currently, all adjacent properties are owned by the
applicant, Riley Rogers. The original application and petition
are included with Attachment C: Applicant Letter and
Information.
Consideration 2: Policy Considerations
The alley vacation satisfies the policy considerations of A) Lack of Use, B) Public Safety, and C) Urban
Design outlined in Section 14.52.020. This is outlined in Attachment E: Analysis of Standards.
Survey of Alley
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 3 of 24
Consideration 3: Nature of the Alley
Since at least July 2018 (based on the aerial photo to the
right), the alley has been used as part of the parking lot
for the restaurant at 1025 W North Temple and as
parking for the adjacent single-family houses. While the
alley appears to be used by the public as parking, there is
no signage or other indications that clearly demarcate
public property. Additionally, the alley ends at the
property to the west and does not seem to serve any other
purpose than parking for adjacent properties.
Consideration 4: Future Public Uses for the Alley
One issue that comes up with proposals to vacate alleys
are questions about the alley serving other potentially
beneficial uses in the area. For instance, alleys often
serve as mid-block walkways for pedestrians as a positive
urban design element. This alley runs east/west,
intersecting with the adjacent north/south alley at its
east-most point and dead ending at the west. As such,
this alley does not connect any street to another, thus not
significantly improving pedestrian accessibility.
There is the potential for the subject alley to serve as
vehicle access for any new development but doing so
would clog up the adjacent north/south alley with
vehicular traffic. By vacating the alley, vehicle traffic can
be moved to Learned Avenue, allowing pedestrians to be
prioritized on North Temple and on the adjacent north-
south alley.
Consideration 5: City Housing Goals and Housing Displacement
The applicant has requested this alley vacation to redevelop the abutting properties into a medium-
high-density, multi-family residential building – as called for by the North Temple Boulevard Master
Plan, the City’s long-term housing goals, and the underlying TSA zoning district. The North Temple
Boulevard plan speaks to increasing density in the 800 West Station Area (pg. 63). The subject alley is
located within the transition area. The Master plan encourages an increase in residential density in
both the core and transition portions of transit station areas. The applicant has indicated that failure
to vacate the alley would increase rents and reduce density of any new development on the block (see
Attachment C: Applicant Letter and Information).
However, the subject alley abuts four existing single-family houses. Redeveloping the block and
demolishing the existing single-family houses will displace their current residents. The applicant has
not made any indication that an affordable housing component will be incorporated into the proposed
project. Recent housing-related conversations with City Council members have indicated that
alleviating displacement of existing housing is a priority of the city.
Growing SLC, the City’s 2018-2022 Housing Master Plan, established guiding principals for the City
Council when appropriating funds for housing development. Vacating an alley (even when the vacated
alley is to be sold to the applicant) should be considered an appropriation of City resources. As such,
principal 6 recommends that the City Council “create a net increase in affordable housing
while…avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing.” Staff recommends that if the alley is
vacated, the developer mitigates the housing displacement by including an affordable housing
component into the future development.
7/24/2018 Aerial
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 4 of 24
DISCUSSION:
The alley vacation request has been reviewed against the standards for alley vacations in Attachment
E. In compliance with the applicable policies, vacating the alley aligns with the City’s urban design goals
and the vacation is supported by all adjacent property owners. While the North Temple Boulevard
Master Plan does not speak specifically to alley closures – or about the block in question, the proposed
alley vacation and subsequent development fulfill the goals of the Master Plan by promoting increased
density and promoting pedestrian traffic along North Temple.
Housing displacement has been a highly discussed topic by the City Council during recent meetings.
Removing the adjacent single-family houses to accommodate new development is in line with the
North Temple Boulevard Plan; however, housing displacement should be considered as part of this
request since vacating the alley could be considered an appropriation of City resources. With a positive
recommendation, the Planning Commission should recommend the applicant work with the City
Council to address displacing the residents of the existing single-family houses and to incorporate an
affordable housing component into the proposed project.
NEXT STEPS:
Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of City owned alleys. When evaluating
requests to close or vacate public alleys, the City considers whether the continued use of the property
as a public alley is in the City’s best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal. Once
the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for consideration. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations
and closures.
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 5 of 24
ATTACHMENT A: LOCATION MAP
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 6 of 24
ATTACHMENT B: PHOTOS
View from the alley’s east end, looking west
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 7 of 24
View of the alley looking southwest
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 8 of 24
The property located at 1022 W Learned Avenue currently uses the alley and parking lot as its
primary entrance. This is not the applicant’s long-term plan since he plans to consolidate the
lots, demolish the existing structures and then construct a new multi-family building on the
consolidated parcels. The property abuts the adjacent north/south alley, pictured on the
following page.
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 9 of 24
1022 W Learned Avenue abuts the adjacent north/south alley (shown here). If the east/west
subject alley is vacated, parking egress for the property could be moved to the east property line
(which follows the fence on the right side of the alley).
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 10 of 24
Rear view of the restaurant at 1025 W North Temple
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 11 of 24
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT LETTER & INFORMATION
On the following pages are the application and project narrative provided by the applicant. The
application includes the initial petition, a survey of the alley and preliminary plans of the proposed
multi-family structure.
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 12 of 24
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 13 of 24
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 14 of 24
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 15 of 24
PL
N
P
C
M
2
02
0
-00
5
7
2
– Lear
n
e
d
Av
e
n
u
e
A
l
l
e
y
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
– De
c
e
m
b
e
r
2,
2
0
2
0
Pa
g
e
16
of
24
PL
N
P
C
M
2
02
0
-00
5
7
2
– Lear
n
e
d
Av
e
n
u
e
A
l
l
e
y
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
– De
c
e
m
b
e
r
2,
2
0
2
0
Pa
g
e
17
of
24
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 18 of 24
ATTACHMENT D: EXISTING CONDITIONS & ZONING
ADJACENT LAND USE
The alley sits between commercial and single-family residential uses. All properties that are adjacent
to the alley and in the immediate vicinity are zoned TSA-SP-T – Special Purpose Transit Station
Transition Area.
There is one property on Learned Avenue (1022 W) that uses the existing alley to access required
parking. The property abuts the adjacent north/south alley, so parking access can be moved by the
applicant to avoid blocking the property’s required parking. The applicant owns all properties adjacent
to the alley (including the 1022 W Learned Avenue). He plans to consolidate the lots, demolish the
existing structures and construct a new multi-family building if the vacation is approved.
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 19 of 24
ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, Vacation or Abandonment of City Owned
Alleys: The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it
receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the
following policy considerations:
Factor Finding Rationale
14.52.020: The City will not
consider disposing of its interest in
an alley, in whole or in part, unless
it receives a petition in writing
which demonstrates that the
disposition satisfies at least one of
the following policy considerations:
A. Lack of Use: The City’s
legal interest in the property
appears of record or is
reflected on an applicable
plat; however, it is evident
from an on-site inspection
that the alley does not
physically exist or has been
materially blocked in a way
that renders it unusable as a
public right-of-way.
B. Public Safety: The
existence of the alley is
substantially contributing
to crime, unlawful activity
or unsafe conditions, public
health problems, or blight
in the surrounding area.
C. Urban Design: The
continuation of the alley
does not serve as a positive
urban design element.
D. Community Purpose:
The Petitioners are
proposing to restrict the
general public from use of
the alley in favor of a
community use, such as a
neighborhood play area or
garden.
Complies The proposed alley closure is consistent with policy
considerations A) Lack of Use, B) Public Safety and
C) Urban Design. Functionally, this is not a public right-
of-way. On initial inspection, it is not completely apparent
that there is even a public alley at this location. The alley
has been used as an extension of the Panda Buffet parking
lot for several years. Historical aerial photos show the alley
functioning as parking and a loading area for the
restaurant. Because the alley is not serving a public use,
vacating it would meet policy Consideration A, Lack of
Use. Unlit at night, the parking lot has the potential to be
unsafe for pedestrians after the restaurant’s operating
hours. Vacating the alley and redeveloping the block
would also address policy consideration B, Public
Safety.
If this proposal is approved, the applicant plans to
consolidate the lots adjacent to the alley, demolish the
existing buildings and construct a multi-family structure
with ground floor commercial facing North Temple.
Vacating the alley and consolidating the lots would also
allow the applicant to push vehicular access from the alley
to Learned Avenue, leaving the adjacent north/south alley
available to pedestrian traffic. The applicant’s plan for the
alley and adjacent lots is in line with policies laid out in the
North Temple Boulevard Master Plan, specifically
Policies 2 (mix of uses) and 4 (residential density) for the
800 West Station Area. Keeping the alley as-is would limit
the future development’s density and increase vehicle
traffic in the alley. Vacating the alley contributes to the
City’s Urban Design goals, fulfilling policy consideration
C, Urban Design.
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 20 of
24
Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.030B: Processing Petitions – Public Hearing and
Recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning
Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the
conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation
to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive
recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
Factor Finding Rationale
1. The City Police Department, Fire
Department, Transportation
Division, and all other relevant City
Departments and Divisions have
no objection to the proposed
disposition of the property;
Complies Staff requested input from pertinent City
Departments and Divisions. Comments were
received from Transportation Public Utilities
and Zoning which indicate no objections to
the requested closure.
2. The petition meets at least one of
the policy considerations stated
above;
Complies The proposed alley closure satisfies the Urban
Design & Public Safety policy considerations
of 14.52.020. See the discussion and findings
on the previous page.
3. The petition must not deny sole
access or required off-street
parking to any adjacent property;
Complies The occupants of 1022 W Learned Avenue
currently uses the subject alley to access the
property’s required parking in the rear.
Vacating the alley would block the existing
point of egress for the property. However, the
property also abuts the adjacent north/south
alley potentially allowing the applicant to
move the lot’s parking egress to the east
property line that abuts the north/south alley
right-of-way.
4. The petition will not result in any
property being landlocked;
Complies No properties would be rendered landlocked
by this proposal.
5. The disposition of the alley
property will not result in a use
which is otherwise contrary to the
policies of the City, including
applicable master plans and other
adopted statements of policy
which address, but which are not
limited to, mid-block walkways,
pedestrian paths, trails, and
alternative transportation uses;
Mixed The applicant is requesting this alley vacation
to allow consolidation of the lots it abuts for
the construction of a multi-family residential
building with some commercial uses along
North Temple. The North Temple Boulevard
Master Plan calls for additional density
(Policy #4, 800 West Station Area Plan, pg.
63) and for a greater mix of uses (Policy #2,
800 West Station Area Plan, pg. 59) in this
area.
While the proposal may meet some goals of
the North Temple Boulevard Plan, Growing
SLC, the City’s 5-year housing plan, requires
City Council to avoid displacement of existing
housing. Removing them would displace the
current residents and the existing units.
Requiring the applicant to establish some
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 21 of 24
5. (continued) affordable units in the proposed development
could alleviate some of the potential
displacement. This should be included as a
condition of approval with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
6. No opposing abutting property
owner intends to build a garage
requiring access from the property,
or has made application for a
building permit, or if such a permit
has been issued, construction has
been completed within 12 months
of issuance of the building permit;
Complies There are no plans by the applicant (owner of
all abutting properties) to construct a garage
for any of the single-family houses or for the
restaurant.
7. The petition furthers the City
preference for disposing of an
entire alley, rather than a small
segment of it; and
Complies The applicant is requesting closure of the
entire east/west alley. The adjacent
north/south alley will remain intact.
8. The alley is not necessary for actual
or potential rear access to
residences or for accessory uses.
Complies As discussed under item 3, 1022 W Learned
avenue currently uses the subject east/west
alley for required parking egress. However,
the lot also abuts the adjacent north/south
alley and parking egress can be moved to the
lot’s east property line.
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 22 of 24
ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public input opportunities related to the proposed alley vacation:
• Notice of the project and request for comments was sent to the Fairpark and Poplar Grove
Community Council Chairs on September 14, 2020, in order to solicit comments.
• Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners
living within 300 feet of the project site on September 15, 2020 providing notice about the online
open house for the project and information on how to give public input.
• An online open house for the proposed alley vacation was posted on the Planning Division’s
website on September 14, 2020.
• The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired on October 30, 2020.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
• Public hearing notice mailed: November 19, 2020
• Public hearing notice sign posted near the subject alley: November 23, 2020
• Public notice posted on City and State websites & Planning Division listserv: November 19, 2020
Public Input:
Neither the Fairpark nor the Poplar Grove Community Council Chairs asked staff to present the proposed alley
vacation at their meetings. Staff received one public comment email expressing support for the proposal, which
is attached.
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 23 of 24
PLNPCM2020-00572 – Learned Avenue Alley Vacation – December 2, 2020 Page 24 of 24
ATTACHMENT G: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
The following comments from other reviewing departments were submitted in relation to the proposal:
Public Utilities – Jason Draper
Public Utilities has no objection to this portion of the alley being vacated
Engineering – Scott Weiler
From Matt Cassel: I would not be opposed to this vacation as long as they provide an additional affordable
housing unit.
Transportation – Michael Barry
No objections to the proposal.
Fire – Douglas Bateman
No comments
Zoning – Greg Mikolash
No zoning related issues associated with this proposed alley vacation.
Building – Greg Mikolash
Motion Sheet for Learned Avenue Alley Vacation
Petition Number PLNPCM2020-00572
Staff Recommended Motion:
Motion to recommend approval with the condition listed in staff report:
Based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy considerations for alley vacation, and
the input received, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the
City Council for the alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2020-00572 with the conditions listed in the
staff report.
Alternate Motions:
Motion to recommend approval with conditions modified by the Planning Commission:
Based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy considerations for alley vacation, and
the input received I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the
City Council for the alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2020-00268 with the following condition(s):
1. List the conditions that are to be modified or added.
Motion to recommend denial
Based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy considerations for street closure and
alley vacation, and the input received I move that the Planning Commission forward a negative
recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2020-00572, due to
the proposal not complying with the following standards:
(The Planning Commission shall make findings on the applicable standards and specifically
state which standard or standards are not being complied with. Please see Attachment E in
the staff report for applicable standards.)
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes
December 2, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
December 2, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members
will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings
can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning
Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general
comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-12022020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Izzy South Design Review/Special Exception at approximately 534 East 2100 South - A request
by Ryan McMullen for Design Review and Special Exception approval to develop a 71-unit mixed use
building located at approximately 534 East 2100 South in the Community Business CB zoning
district. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval because the project is over 15,000
square feet in size and Special Exception approval to allow 3' of additional building height. The project
is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385)
315- 8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00222 & PLNPCM2020-
00655 (Tabled from 9/23 Planning Commission meeting)
2. Kozo House Design Review at approximately 157, 175 North 600 West, and 613, 621, 625, 633
West 200 North - A request by David Clayton for Design Review approval to develop a 319-unit
mixed use building on six parcels located at 157 North 600 West, 175 North 600 West, 613 West 200
North, 621 West 200 North, 625 West 200 North, and 633 West 200 North. These properties are
located in the TSAUC-T Zoning District. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow
the proposed building to exceed the maximum street facing façade length and to modify the spacing
of building entrances. The project is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton
(Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315- 8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00258 (Tabled from 10/14 Planning Commission meeting)
3. Learned Ave Alley Vacation at approximately 1025 West North Temple - A request from Jarod
Hall of Di’velept Design, representing the owner of surrounding properties, Riley Rogers, to vacate
the public alley adjacent to the rear property line of 1025 West North Temple that runs mid-block from
east to west. The subject alley is surrounded by the TSA-SP-T (Special Purpose Transit Station,
Transition Area) zoning district and is located within Council District #2, represented by Andrew
Johnston (Staff contact: Aaron Barlow at (385) 386-2764 or aaron.barlow@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2020-00572
4. Greenprint Gateway Apartments Planned Development and Design Review at approximately
592 West 200 South - Mark Eddy of OZ7 Opportunity Fund, has requested Planned Development
and Design Review approval for the Greenprint Gateway Apartments to be located on three (3)
contiguous parcels located at 592 W 200 S, 568 W 200 S and 161 S 600 W respectively. The proposal
is for a 150-unit apartment building on a 0.59 acre (26,000 square feet) consolidated parcel. The
proposed building will be six stories in height and will be approximately 70-feet tall to the top of the
building’s parapet. The apartments will be a mix of micro and studio apartments. The properties are
located in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use zoning district. The G-MU zoning district requires Planned
Development approval for all new principal buildings and uses. In addition, Design Review approval
has been requested to address some design aspects of the building including material choices and
maximum length of a section of blank wall space on the west façade of the building. The proposal is
located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at
(801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00493 &
PLNPCM2020-00749
5. Rezone at approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue - Remarc Investments, representing the
property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and
SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use) at the above-
listed addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties to allow a multi-family development
on the lots, however the request is not tied to a development proposal. The properties are located
within the Avenues Local Historic District and any future demolition or new construction must be
approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Although the applicant has requested that the
property be rezoned to R-MU-35, consideration may be given to another zoning district with similar
characteristics. The property is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff
contact: Mayara Lima at (385) 377-7570 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-
00703
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,
which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 2, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:30:15 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice-Chairperson,
Amy Barry; Commissioners Andres Paredes, Carolynn Hoskins, Maurine Bachman, Matt Lyon, Adrienne
Bell, Jon Lee, and Sara Urquhart.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne Mills,
Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; Aaron Barlow, Principal
Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Mayara Lima, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins,
Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the Salt Lake City Emergency declaration.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:31:53 PM
Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:32:04 PM
Nick Norris, Planning Director, stated he had nothing to report.
5:32:30 PM
Izzy South Design Review/Special Exception at approximately 534 East 2100 South - A request by
Ryan McMullen for Design Review and Special Exception approval to develop a 71-unit mixed use
building located at approximately 534 East 2100 South in the Community Business CB zoning
district. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval because the project is over 15,000 square
feet in size and Special Exception approval to allow 3' of additional building height. The project is located
within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315- 8115 or
caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00222 & PLNPCM2020-00655 (Tabled from
9/23 Planning Commission meeting)
Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request.
Justin Heppler, applicant, provided a presentation with further details.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:47:29 PM
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Caitlin Lutsch, Liberty Wells Community Council – Stated her support of the request and that the
community was mostly supportive of the project except for the few concerns previously mentioned at the
September 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 2, 2020 Page 4
MOTION 7:39:23 PM
Commissioner Barry stated, based on the analysis and findings listed in the staff report,
information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning
Commission approve the Design Review request including modifications to the maximum
distance between building entrances, maximum length of a blank wall, and maximum length of a
street-facing façade (PLNPCM2020-00258) for the Kozo House Apartments project located at
approximately 175 North 600 West. This recommendation is based on the conditions of approval
listed in the staff report. With the added condition:
#9 – That a traffic study be conducted with Transportation; specifically looking at the
circulation of the increased traffic load and the pedestrian safety regarding the intersection
on 200 North and 600 West.
Final details regarding these conditions of approval are delegated to planning staff.
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Hoskins, Lee, Lyon,
and Urquhart voted “Aye”. Commissioner Paredes voted “Nay”. The motion passed 6-1.
7:44:28 PM
Learned Ave Alley Vacation at approximately 1025 West North Temple - A request from Jarod Hall
of Di’velept Design, representing the owner of surrounding properties, Riley Rogers, to vacate the public
alley adjacent to the rear property line of 1025 West North Temple that runs mid-block from east to west.
The subject alley is surrounded by the TSA-SP-T (Special Purpose Transit Station, Transition Area)
zoning district and is located within Council District #2, represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff contact:
Aaron Barlow at (385) 386-2764 or aaron.barlow@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00572
Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a position recommendation to
the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification if the surrounding properties have access to their required parking from the alley
• Clarification on whether the Commission can condition alley vacations for affordable housing
Jarod Hall, applicant, provided further information.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:55:47 PM
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Antonio Fiero – Asked whether there the nearby restaurants would be closed down and whether the
apartments will be affordable.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The applicant addressed the public’s questions.
MOTION 7:58:22 PM
Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy
considerations for alley vacation, and the input received, I move that the Planning Commission
Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 2, 2020 Page 5
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation proposed in
PLNPCM2020-00572 with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion.
Commissioner Lyon asked to make a friendly amendment; to add a condition that the City Council
also explore adding affordable housing. Commissioner Bachman accepted the amendment.
Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Lyon, and Paredes voted “Aye”.
Commissioner Urquhart voted “Nay”. The motion passed 7-1.
The Commission took a 5-minute break.
8:01:22 PM
Greenprint Gateway Apartments Planned Development and Design Review at approximately 592
West 200 South - Mark Eddy of OZ7 Opportunity Fund, has requested Planned Development and
Design Review approval for the Greenprint Gateway Apartments to be located on three (3) contiguous
parcels located at 592 W 200 S, 568 W 200 S and 161 S 600 W respectively. The proposal is for a 150-
unit apartment building on a 0.59 acre (26,000 square feet) consolidated parcel. The proposed building
will be six stories in height and will be approximately 70-feet tall to the top of the building’s parapet. The
apartments will be a mix of micro and studio apartments. The properties are located in the G-MU
Gateway-Mixed Use zoning district. The G-MU zoning district requires Planned Development approval
for all new principal buildings and uses. In addition, Design Review approval has been requested to
address some design aspects of the building including material choices and maximum length of a section
of blank wall space on the west façade of the building. The proposal is located within Council District 4,
represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107
or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00493 & PLNPCM2020-00749
David Gellner, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request with the conditions
listed in the staff report.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Clarification on the staff recommendations
Mark Eddy, applicant, provided further details and was available for questions.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
•Clarification on the West elevation of the building and small size of windows
•Discussion of the interior floor plan design and type of units
•Design of the building and lack of cornices
•Landscaping plan, required buffers and fence/gate
PUBLIC HEARING 8:25:54 PM
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer
closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
•Clarification on whether the units are market rate
•Proposed materials
4. MAILING LIST
(generated 01/19/2021)
RECIPIENT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
DIVISION OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION & MGMT 450 N STATE ST # 4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
LUSSO APARTMENTS, LLC 7103 S REDWOOD RD WEST JORDAN UT 84084
LUSSO APARTMENTS, LLC 4726 W PALMER DR WEST VALLEY UT 84120
LUSSO APARTMENTS, LLC 1022 W LEARNED AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MOHAMMAD M TABATABAEE 2532 PINE LAKE RD TUCKER GA 30084
LUSSO APARTMENTS, LLC 57 N 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
LUSSO APARTMENTS, LLC 1032 W LEARNED AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145515 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
E FAM TR 2852 LANCE CIRCLE HEBER CITY UT 84032
SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145515 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
LUSSO APARTMENTS, LLC 7103 S REDWOOD RD WEST JORDAN UT 84084
ESPLANADE APARTMENTS LLC 1031 W LEARNED AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ESPLANADE APARTMENTS LLC 1023 W LEARNED AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ESPLANADE APARTMENTS, LLC 19 N 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
KEPPEL ONE, LLC; DIANE NIELSON 1770 FAIRLEAD AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011
FAIRPARK COMMERICAL CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOC. 6382 SHENANDOAH PARK AVE MURRAY UT 84121
LI TANG WU 104 E 6980 S MIDVALE UT 84047
QCSIF THREE, LLC 300 DELAWARE AVE # 210 WILMINGTON DE 19801
SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145515 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
KAZUKO TERASAWA (JT) 822 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
CAROLYN A HOWELL 48 N 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
REITA T LEE 69 N CHICAGO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
KEVIN LEO 645 S GRAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
J ERIK RUSSON 51 N CHICAGO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
AMANDA PATE; AARON J PATE (JT) 41 N CHICAGO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
CARLOS ALVAREZ 44 N 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
JERRY G SNYDER 1234 E 4130 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124
DANIEL POSILOVICH 1743 S DOUGLASS RD STE D ANAHEIM CA 92806
GEORGE G LEYBA; JOSIE LEYBA (JT) 1839 W NEW YORK DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 155 N 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1051 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1030 W LEARNED AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1028 W LEARNED AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 65 N 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 63 N 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1015 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1011 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1023 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1025 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1033 W LEARNED AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1065 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1055 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 1055 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 114 N 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 960 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 962 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 52 N 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 28 N 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 59 N CHICAGO ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 45 N CHICAGO ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 9 N CHICAGO ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 57 N CHICAGO ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 62 N 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 963 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 975 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 973 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:March 17, 2020
RE: Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation
PLNPCM2018-00468
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a City-owned alley known as the Fern Subdivision
Alley located between 1000 East and 1100 East and between Wood Avenue and Logan Avenue in City
Council District Five. The east-west portion of the alley runs behind eight homes between 1019 East
(applicant’s home) and 1053 East Logan Avenue. Segments of the alley run north-south adjacent to homes
at 1019 East and 1053 East Logan Avenue as shown in the image below. The north-south segments are
approximately 126’ long and ten feet wide. The east-west segment is approximately 336’ long and seven feet
wide. It should be noted the alley segment between homes at 1595 and 1597 South 1000 East was vacated
in 2000 and is not part of this request.
The applicant originally wanted to vacate just the alley segment adjacent to her property, but during
departmental review vacation of the entire alley was recommended due to lack of use and multiple
encroachments into the alley. This also follows the City policy to vacate an entire alley rather than a
segment. This alley exists on the subdivision plat recorded in 1906, but there is no evidence it was ever
used as an alley or it physically exists. Encroachments into the alley space make it impassable.
City Real Estate Services notified the applicant half of her driveway is the City owned alley which prompted
this alley vacation request.
The Planning Commission sent a unanimous positive recommendation to vacate the alley to the City
Council.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 6, 2021
Set Date: April 6, 2021
Public Hearing: May 18, 2021
Potential Action: June 1, 2021
Page | 2
Aerial view with the subject alley highlighted in yellow. Alley segment highlighted in red was vacated in
2000. Parcels at 1597 and 1615 South 1000 East and within the yellow highlighted alley are eligible to
receive vacated alley property. Abutting parcels with diagonal lines are not eligible to receive alley
property as they are outside the subdivision.
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may
have and prepare for a public hearing.
POLICY QUESTION
1. Does the Council agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this alley closure
request?
ADDITONAL INFORMATION
Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code
(see pages 6 - 7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public
hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following four key
considerations related to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for
reference. Please see pages 19-21 of the Administration’s transmittal for full analysis of these issues.
1. Property Owner Consent
Section 14.52.030 A.1 states “The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five
percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property.” A total of
19 properties abut the subject alley and 17 of those property owners signed the petition, totaling
89% of owners. The two owners who did not sign the petition to vacate the alley have not submitted
or voiced concern as of the writing of this report.
Page | 3
2.Creation/History of the Alley and Disposition if Vacated
The subject alley is included in the Fern Subdivision plat recorded in 1906 and listed as a public
alley. Abutting properties in the Fern Subdivision plat are 1597 and 1615 South 1000 East and the
eight properties between the north-south segments of the alley from 1019 through 1053 East Logan
Avenue. Adjacent parcels to the north and the property at 1059 East Logan Avenue are outside the
Fern Subdivision plat.
According to the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office interpretation of City code, when alleys dedicated
as part of a subdivision are vacated, they must be conveyed to abutting property owners within that
subdivision. Utah court case law supports this position. As such, adjacent property owners on
Wood Avenue and at 1059 East Logan Avenue would not receive a portion of the alley if the Council
votes to vacate the alley.
If the alley vacation is approved by the Council, encroachments into the alley from abutting
properties outside the Fern Subdivision will need to be negotiated with abutting owners within the
subdivision to split the alley property between them or convey it to the other party in whole or in
part. This would be a private transaction between the parties and the City would not be involved.
3.Condition of the Alley
Properties abutting the north-south segments at both the east and west ends use the alley for their
driveways. A portion of the house at 1059 East Logan Avenue appears to be encroaching on the
alley. In addition, the east-west alley segment appears to have been incorporated into most
properties adjacent to the north. Fences and accessory structures, including garages, are
encroaching into the alley.
4.Future Public Uses of the Alley
Potential to use alleys for pedestrians, cyclists or other beneficial uses is considered in alley
vacation requests.
The Fern Subdivision is in the Central Community Master Plan. The future land use map
designates this area as Low Density Residential. The area is identified as the East Central South
Neighborhood and the plan calls for preserving the low-density residential uses.
Logan Avenue and Wood Avenue are parallel to the subject alley and have existing sidewalks on
both sides of the street. There is no mid-block public right of way between the streets. It is Planning
staff’s opinion the alley is not necessary to create an alternative trail to connect 1000 East and 1100
East or Logan Avenue to Wood Avenue. Because the east-west segment is only seven feet wide, it
would not meet City Engineering standards for full vehicular access and would only be considered
for pedestrian or trail access if it physically existed.
The subject alley is located in an established residential neighborhood comprised of single-family
homes. The Central Community Master Plan does not identify changes to this composition and
Planning staff states the area is unlikely to change significantly over time.
Because of numerous encroachments along the alley, any alternative use would require enforcing
upon property owners to remove structures, fences, or landscaping covering the alley property.
Attachment E of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 37 - 38) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the
Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Section 14.52.030 B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to
Page | 4
the information above, the other factors are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the
transmittal.
•City Code required analysis: The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division
and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed
disposition of the property.
Finding: Complies with conditions. City Public Utilities noted there is a sewer lateral for 1059 East
Logan Avenue is in the alley right of way. If the Council votes to vacate the alley, Public Utilities’
recommendation is to either transfer ownership of that section of the alley to that property owner or
include an easement. Because the property at 1059 East Logan Avenue is outside the Fern Subdivision,
ownership cannot be conveyed to the owner.
The Salt Lake City Surveyor noted there is no functioning alley at this location and recommended
vacating the property and incorporating it into adjacent parcels. A legal description of the property
written by a licensed surveyor is required.
All other responding divisions found no issues with the proposal or provided no comments.
•City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure,
vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community
Purpose).
Finding: Complies. Planning staff determined the proposed alley closure satisfies the Lack of Use
policy consideration for the petition to be processed.
•City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to
any adjacent property.
Finding: Complies. No abutting parcels appear to use the alley to access off-street parking with the
exception of 1019 East and 1053 East Logan Avenue and 1615 South 1000 East. These would continue to
use the north-south segments if the Council vacates the alley and the property is conveyed to those
property owners.
•City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked.
Finding: Complies. No properties would be landlocked as a result of the alley vacation.
•City Code required analysis: The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is
otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted
statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths,
trails, and alternative transportation uses.
Finding: Complies. The petitioner requests closure of the alley to come into compliance with City Real
Estate Services. Disposition for low density residential areas is to vacate the alley to properties adjacent
to it and within the same subdivision. Properties north of the alley are not in the same subdivision. If the
Council adopts the alley vacation alley property would be given to properties facing Logan Avenue, 1615
South 1000 East and 1597 South 1000 East and incorporated into their backyards. The applicant and the
property owner at 1615 South 1000 East will need to come to an agreement to address off-street parking
through a private arrangement.
The Central Community Master Plan does not include any policy that would oppose vacating the alley.
•City Code required analysis: No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage
requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has
been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit.
Finding: Complies. No abutting property objected to vacating the alley as of the writing of this report.
No applications for a building permit have been submitted.
Page | 5
•City Code required analysis: The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire
alley, rather than a small segment of it.
Finding: Complies. The applicant is requesting to vacate the entire alley.
•City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to
residences or for accessory uses.
Finding: Complies. The alley is not used for functional access to backyards of abutting properties and
no owners indicated access is necessary for that purpose with the exception of the applicant and the
owner of 1615 South 1000 East and 1053 East Logan Avenue as discussed above.
PUBLIC PROCESS
Notice of the project and a request for comments were sent to the Sugar House Community Council Chair
July 18, 2018. Planning staff did not receive any comments from the Sugar House Community Council.
Planning staff held an open house October 18, 2018. The owner of 1026 East Wood Avenue (outside the
Fern Subdivision) expressed concern about whether an accessory building was in the alley right-of-way.
(See comment card on page 40 of the Administration’s transmittal.)
A Planning Commission public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the alley
and a public hearing notice was posted on the property May 31, 2019. Notice of the public hearing was
posted to City and State websites June 1, 2019.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its June 12, 2019 meeting. One property owner adjacent
to the alley spoke at the hearing supporting the alley closure. The Planning Commission voted unanimously
to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
ALLEY DISPOSITION PROCESS
In order for the City to dispose of its interest in an alley, it must be demonstrated at least one of the
following criteria is satisfied:
A.Lack of Use-it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has
been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way.
B.Public Safety-existence of the alley substantially contributes to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe
conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area.
C.Urban Design-Continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element.
D.Community Purpose-Petitioners propose to restrict the general public from use of the alley in
favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden.
The applicant cited Lack of Use and Public Safety as considerations for the alley closure. Planning staff
found the proposed alley closure complies with the Lack of Use consideration. However, they stated the
Public Safety consideration was not evident from an on-site inspection. This consideration was found to be
questionable since the alley has been closed off for many years and no additional information was provided
by the applicant to support the argument.
The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part,
with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth
herein.
Page | 6
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR
ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following
policy considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an
applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not
physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public
right of way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful
activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element;
or
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of
the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02
§ 1, 2002)
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this
section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing,
including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether
or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the
neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in
the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the
appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60
of this code; and
5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has
been paid.
B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a
complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to
consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of
the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the
city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive
recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city
departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the
property;
Page | 7
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property
adjacent to the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary
to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of
policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths,
trails, and alternative transportation uses;
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the
property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued,
construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small
segment of it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for
accessory uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from
the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of
the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will
make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13,
2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low
density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low
density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin
home residential uses.
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts
properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the
alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of
that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density
residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold
for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley
property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's
decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court.
Salt Lake City
Planning Commission
June 12, 2019
Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation
PLNPCM2018-00468
Request:
•Vacate the alley located north of Logan Avenue
and south of Wood Avenue; east of 1000 East and
west of 1100 East on the Fern Subdivision Plat.
•The reason for the request is the Alley no longer
physically exists.
•All but two adjacent property owners have signed
the petition to vacate the alley.
Condition of the Alley
Fern Alley Way
Encroachments into the alleyway
Original Fern Subdivision Plat
East arm of the alley. Used as the driveway for
1019 E Logan Avenue (facing north and south)
Facing north Facing south
West arm of alley in-between 1053 and 1059 E Logan
Avenue
Facing north
North Arm of alley at the backyard of 1053 E
Logan Avenue
Facing west
Alley Vacation Standards
A.Lack Of Use:
B.Public Safety:
C.Urban Design:
D.Community Purpose:
Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation
PLNPCM2018-00468
Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward a
positive recommendation to the City
Council for the Fern Subdivision Alley
Vacation.
Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation
PLNPCM2018-00468
Request:
•Vacate the alley located north of Logan Avenue and south of
Wood Avenue; east of 1000 East and west of 1100 East on
the Fern Subdivision Plat.
Condition of the Alley
Fern Alley Way
•The reason for the request is the Alley no longer physically exists.
•Encroachments into the Alleyway.
Original Fern Subdivision Plat
East arm of the alley. Used as
the driveway for 1019 E Logan
Avenue
Facing north Facing north
West arm of alley in-between
1053 and 1059 E Logan
Avenue
North Arm of alley at the backyard of 1053 E
Logan Avenue
Facing west
Alley Vacation Standards
A.Lack Of Use:
B.Public Safety:
C.Urban Design:
D.Community Purpose:
JACQUELINE M . BISKUPSKI
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Marcia L. White
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Charlie Luke, Chair
Date Received: 1/d-r:ffxa-~ ~1
Date sent to Council:~ i; ~1
DATE:Qc-h>bei.. r f Jo (C{
FROM: Jennifer McGrath, Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Deputy Director
t
s PLNPCM2018-00468-Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation
STAFF CONTACT: Anna Anglin, Principal Planner, anna.anglin@slcgov.com (801) 535-
6050
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the ordinance to vacate the Fern Subdivision alley, as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Kathleen Bratcher, a property owner residing at 1019 East Logan Ave. has initiated a petition to vacate
an alley known as the Fern Subdivision Alley to the west and north of her property. The alley runs
north along the western portion of the applicant's property line for approximately 126'. Then runs 336'
east to the eastern edge of 1053 E. Logan A venue. Then runs south between 1053 E. and 1059 E. Logan
Ave. 126'. The alley is recorded on the Fern Subdivision plat. The alley is adjacent to 1059 E Logan
A venue and property to the north fronting on Wood A venue neither of which are part of this subdivision.
The petitioner originally asked that just the alley adjacent to her property be vacated, however, when
the application went through departmental review, it was recommended the entire alley be vacated due
to lack of use and multiple encroachments on the alley. Vacating the entire alley follows the city
preference for disposing of an entire alley. Because the application was changed to vacate the
entire alley by the City, if approved by the City Council, the City will provide the property
description for the alley. In addition, the City installed a sewer main for 1059 East Logan Avenue
in the east arm of the alley. To allow access to the sewer, the City will write an easement for it to
remain when ownership is transferred to the abutting property at 1053 East Logan Avenue.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445
P .O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY , UTAH 84114-5487
WWW.SLC .GOV
TEL 801 .535 .7712 FAX 801 .535 .6269
The petition bears the signatures of over 80% of the propetiy owners as required by Section 14.52.030
A.1 of City Ordinance and meets the Policy Considerations for Closure, Vacation, or Abandonment of
City Owned Alleys: (14.52.020) of the Salt Lake City Ordinance due to lack of use. The platted alley is
not used as an alley and there is no sign that it physically exists. Encroachments into the space make it
impassable. In addition, Plamting Cmmnission found that the petition meets the eight (8) factors found
in Section 14.52.030B: Processing Petitions -Public Hearing and Recommenda tion.fi-om the Planning
Commission.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Notice of petition was sent to the Sugar House Community Council on July 18 , 2018. No
comments were received.
• Planning Division Open House held on October 18, 2018. Notice sent to all residents and
property owners within 300' of the alley.
• Planning Commission Public Hearing held on June 12,2019.
RELEVANT ORDINANCES:
14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, VACATION or Abandonment of City
Owned Alleys: The City will not consider di sposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in
part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at
least one of the following policy considerations:
A. Lack ofUse: The City's legal interest in the propetiy appears of record or is reflected
on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley
Page 12
does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it
unusable as a public right-of-way.
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is sub stantially contributing to crime,
unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health probl ems, or blight in the
sunounding area.
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a po siti ve urban
design element.
D . Community Purpo se: The Petitioners are proposing to r estrict the general public
from use of the alley in favor of a community u se, such as a neighborhood play area
or garden.
Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.030B: Processing Petitions -Public Hearing and
Recommendation from the Planning Commission.
B. Public Hearing And Recommendation From The Platming Cotmnissi on: Upon receipt
of a complete petition, a public hearing sh all be scheduled before the platming
commission to consider the proposed di sposition of the city owned alley propetiy.
Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning cotmniss ion shall make a
report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed di sposition of the subject
all ey propetiy. A positive recommendation should include an analysi s of the following
factors :
1. The city police dep artment, fire department, transportation division, and all
other relev ant city departrnent s and di v isions have no reasonable objection to the
proposed disposition of the propetiy;
2. The p e tition meets at least one of the policy considerations s tated above;
3 . Granting the petition will not deny so le access or required off street parking to
any property adjacent to the alley;
4. Granting the petiti on wi ll not r esult in an y property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the all ey propetiy which is
otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans
and other adopted s tatements of policy which address, but which are not limited
to, mid-bl ock walkways , pedestrian paths , trails, and altemative tran sp ortation
u ses;
6. No opposing abutting propetiy owner intend s to build a garage requiring a ccess
from the property, or has made application for a building p ennit, or if such a
Page 13
pem1it has been issued, construction has been completed within twel ve (12)
months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather
than a small segment of it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to
residences or for accessory uses.
These policies were evaluated in the Planning Commission staff repmt and considered by
the Pla~ming Commission (see Attachment E of the staff report) and forwarded a positive
recommendation to City Council.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4 .
5.
Page 14
Project Chronology
Notice of City Council Hearing
Planning Commission-June 12, 2019 Public Hea~·ing
A. Hearing Notice and News Paper Notice
B. StaffRepmt
C. Agenda and Minutes
Original Petition
Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of20 19
(Vacating a city-owned a ll ey a bu tting properties located at 1597 and 1615 South 1000 East
Street and between 1019 and 1053 East Logan Avenue)
An ordinan ce vacating a n unnamed city-owned a ll ey abutting properties located at 1597
and 1615 So uth 1000 East Street and between 1019 and 105 3 East Logan A venue, pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM20 18-00468.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City P lanning Commission held a public hearing on June 12 ,
20 19 to consider a request made by Kathleen Bratc her , who owns property at 1019 East Logan
A ve nue ("Applicant") (Petit ion No. PLNPCM20 18-00468) on behal f herself and other property
owners to vacate an unnamed city-owned a ll ey; and
WHEREAS , at its June 12 , 2019 hearing, the planning commission vo ted in favor of
forwar ding a positi ve recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council; and
WHEREAS, the all ey in question appears on the Fern Subdivision plat recorded February
19, 1907 , but there is no evidence that the a lle y has ever been improved or used as an alley; and
WHEREAS, although several other lots ab ut the unnan1ed alle y, onl y those lots located at
1597 South 1000 East Street, 16 15 So uth 1000 East Street, 10 19 East Logan Avenue, 1025 East
Lo gan Avenue, 10 29 East Logan Avenue, 1033 East Logan Avenue, 1039 East Logan Avenue,
104 1 East Lo gan Avenue , 1049 East Logan Avenue, and 105 3 East Logan Avenue have
reversionary interests in the a ll ey i n the event that the c ity vacates the alley because those
abutt in g parcel s are in the Fern Subdivi sion and other abutting p arcel s are not. Thus, as
explain ed in Fries v . Martin, 154 P.3d 184 (Utah Ct. App. 2006), ownership ofthe alley would
re ve rt to only those abutt ing lots w ith in the s ubdi v is ion that created it upon vacation; and
WHEREAS , the city council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that the
city's interest in the city-owned alley described below is not presently necessary for use by the
public and that vacating that unnamed, city-owned a ll ey will not be adverse to the general
public's interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Vacating a City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley
abutting properties located at 1597 and 1615 South 1000 East Street and between 1019 and 1053
East Logan Avenue, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00468, and which is
more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, hereby is vacated and declared not
presently necessary or available for public use.
SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above alley vacation is expressly made
subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every
description now loc ated on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to
the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or
rerouting said utilities, including the city 's water and sewer facilities. Said alley vacation is also
subject to any existing rights -of-way or easements of private third parties.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of
______ ,2019 .
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
2
Transmitted to Mayor on __________ _
Mayor's Action : ___ Approved. Vetoed. ----
MAYOR
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
B ill No. of20 19. ----
Publi shed: -------
Ordinance vacating alley I 019 to I 059 Logan Ave
3
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney 's Office
D•tt = l'f > 'M\f
By : Pau~emvro(Y Attorney
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description of City-Owned Alley to be Vacated:
Beginning at the South East Corner of Lot 14 , FERN SUBDIVISION, as recorded at the S.L.
Co unty Recorders Office as Plat Entry Number: 2 18960, Book E, Page 030, a part of Lot 20,
Block 16 , Five Acre Plat A, Big Field Survey, located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 17,
Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base & Meridian, thence following the west side of
an alley North 123.55 feet to the north line of FERN SUBDIVISION, thence following the north
side of said alley East 348 feet, thence following the east side of said alley South 123.55 feet to
the north line of Logan A venue, thence West 10 feet to the south east corner of Lot 1 of sai d
FERN SUBDIVISION, thence along the west side of the alley North 116.55 feet to the north east
corner of Lot 1 of said FERN SUBDIVISION, thence along the south side ofthe alley
West 328 feet to the north west corner of Lot 13 of sai d FERN SUBDIVISION, thence along the
east s ide of the alley South 116 .5 5 feet, to the south west corner of Lot 13 of said FERN
SUBDIVISION and the north line Logan Ave nue, thence West 10 feet to the south east corner of
Lot 14 of said FERN SUBDIVISION and the point ofbeginning. Contains 4 ,767 sq. ft. or 0.109
acres .
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Planning Commission Record
A. Original Notice and Postmark
B. Staff Report of June 12, 2019
C. Agenda and Minutes of June 12, 2019
4. Original Petition
5. Mailing List
Page Is
1. Project Chronology
Page 16
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PETITION: PLNPCM2018-00468-Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation
June 19 ,201 8
Jul y 18, 2018
July 18, 2018
August 16,2018
October 4, 2018
October 18, 2018
May 3 1,2019
May 31 ,2019
June 12 ,2019
Page 17
Petition for the alley vacation received by the Platming
Di v ision.
Petition assigned to Alma AI1glin, Principal Plrumer, for staff
analysis and processing.
Infonnation about the project was sent to the Chair of the
Sugar House Cmmnunity Council infonning them of the
petition.
The 45-day comment period for Recogniz ed Orgatlizations
ended. The SHCC Chair did not comment on the petition.
Issued notice to all abutting neighbors atld property owners
within 300 ' of the alley for open house on October 18, 2018.
Petition was presented at the Planning Divi sion Open House.
Public n oti ce posted on C ity and State websites and sent via
the Platming li st serve for the Planning Cmmnission meeting
of June 12, 20 19. Public heating notice mailed.
Public h earing notice sign with project infonnation at1d notice
of the Planning Commission public heating phys icall y posted
on the property.
Platming Conumssion Public Hearing. The Planning
Cmmnission reviewed the petition, conducted a public hearing
and voted unaninlously to forward a positive recommendation
to the City Council for the alley vacation request.
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
Page 18
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TI1e Salt Lake City Cow1cil is considering Petition PLNPCM2018-00468, a request by Kathleen
Bratcher to vacate the Fem Subdivision Alley. The platted alley is impassable due to numerous
encroaclm1ents and shows no sign of use as an alley. The westem portion runs 126 ' nmth and south the
westem side of 1019 East Logan A venue. The nmthem pmtion of the alley nms east and west 336'
from the applicant's prope1ty at 1019 East Logan A venue to 1053 East Logan A venue and then follows
the east property line of 1053 East Logan Avenue 126' nmth and south . The alley is recorded on the
Fem Subdivision and is adjacent to propetty on the nmth and east which are not part of the subdivi sion.
The subject property is located in the R -1-5000 zoning dishict and is located in council disbict 5,
represented by Erin Mendenhall.
As part of their study, the City Cow1 ci l is holding an advertised public hearing to receive conunents
regarding the petiti on. Dwing tlus heating, anyone desiring to address the City Council concetning tlus
issue will be given at1 oppottunity to speak. The heating will be held :
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
7:00p.m.
Room 315
City & Cow1ty Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you h ave any questions relating to tills proposal or wo uld like to review the file, please call Anna
Anglin at 801-535-6050 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00p.m., Monday tlu·ough Friday or via
e-mail at atm a.anglin @s lc gov.com
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests
for reasonable accommodation, which may include altemate fonn ats, interpreters, at1d 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.conunents@ slcgov.com, 801 -535-
7600, or relay service 711.
Page 19
3A. Planning Commission-Original Notice and Postmark
Page l w
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
~~-~~_). 451 S STATE STREET ROOM 406 VJ
VJ
PO BOX 145480 :3
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 -5480
u
1-
VJ
0: u:
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
STATE t1AIL Cr6 /03/201'3
Anna Anglin-Salt Lake City Planning Division
PO Box 145480
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
, Jllu''IIP till 'Ill' rllui 11
·
11' ·" ''IJHJI I llll'lh'·'· I''''" I'
· Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S St.:ltc Street, Room 406, PO Box 145480, Snit Lal<e City, Ut.:l h 841.14·5480
Salt L ake City Planning Commission Wednesday, June 12 ,2019,5:30 p.m.
City and County Building 451 S State Street, Room 326
A public hearing will be held ·on the following matter. Comments from the Applicant, City Staff
and the public will be taken.
Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation at approximately 1019 East Logan Avenue -
Kathleen Bratcher, who lives at 1 019 East Logan Avenue is proposing to vacate the
alley that is to the west and north of her property. The western portion runs 126' north
and south along her property line. The northern portion of the alley runs east and west
336' from the applicant's property to 1 053 E. Logan Avenue and then fqllows 1053 E.
Logan's eastern property line 126' north and south. The alley is recorded on the Fern .. · ·
Subdivision and is adjacent to property on the north that is not part of the subdivision .
The subject property is locate.d in the R-1-5000 zoning district and is located in council
district 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall . (Staff Contact: Anna Anglin at 801-535-6050
or anna.anglin@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2018-00468
S•lt Lake City Cor por a tion co mplies with all ADA guideline... People with disabilities may make rcqueslll for r eAsona bl e uecommodatlons n o Jatu tbon 48
hours in advance In order co a t tend this meeting. Acc omm odations may Include: alterna.tivc form au, Interpreters, and ot her a uxiliary a ids. This is an acce.5si blc
fullily, For odditlonlll meeting Info r mation, please sec www.lllegov.com or call80l-535-7757; TDD 53~2.20,
3B. Planning Commission Staff Report-June 12, 2019
Page 112
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTIY & NEIGHBORHOODS
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Anna Anglin, Principal Planner, 801-535-6050, anna.anglin@slcgov.com
Date: June 12, 2019
Re: PLNPCM2018-00468 -Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation-Between 1019 East and
and 1059 East Logan Avenue
ALLEY VACATION
PROPERTY ADDRESSES: The alley abuts nineteen (19) individual properties as follows:
1. 1019 East Logan Ave. (Petitioner's Property)
2-9. Logan Ave-1025; 1029; 1033; 1039; 1041; 1049; 153; and 1059
10-12. 1595; 1597; & 1615 S 1000 East
13-19. Wood Ave-1020; 1026; 1032; 1034; 1044; 105 and 1056.
MASTER PLAN: Central Community Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: R-1j5ooo -Single-Family Residential
REQUEST: Kathleen Bratcher, a property owner residing at 1019 East Logan Ave. has initiated a
petition to vacate an alley lmown as the Fern Subdivision Alley to the west and north of her property.
The alley runs north along the west ern portion of the applicant's property line for approximately 126'.
Then runs 336' east to the western edge of 1053 E. Logan Avenue. Then runs south between 1053 E.
and 1059 E. Logan Ave. 126 '. The alley is recorded on the Fern Subdivision and is adjacent t o1059 E
Logan Avenue and property to the north that is not part of this subdivision or any other subdivision.
The Planning Commission's role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council
for the alley vacation request. The City Council will mal<e the final decision on this application.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report, Planning Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council
for the Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Subdivision Plat
B . Photos
Page 113
C. Project Narrative & Petition
D. Existing Conditions & Zoning
E. Analysis of Standards
F. Public Process and Comments
G. Department Review Comments
PROJECf DESCRIPTION:
The Fern Subdivison alley is highlighted on the aerial photo below in green. The alley is located north of
Logan Ave, and south of Wood Ave. at approximately 1600 South and between 1000 East and noo East
just north of the Sugar House area. The alley runs north to south along the western portion of the
applicant's property line and is about ten feet wide and 126' long. The portion of the alley that abuts the
north property line of the applicant's property runs 336' east to west to 1059 E. Logan Avenue and is
approximately seven feet wide. The alley right-of-way then follows north to south between 1053 E. and
1059 E. Logan Ave. and is 126' long and ten feet wide (10'). The alley is recorded on the Fern Subdivision
and is adjacent to property on the north that is not part of the subdivision or any other s ubdivision.
The applicant's reason for the request is due to a portion of the alley functioning as their driveway and
off-street parking. They were prompted to apply for the alley vacation after receiving notice from the Salt
Lake City Real Estate Services Division on April 20, 2018 that their driveway was half a portion of a
public alleyway. There is n o physical evidence of the alleys existence only what is on the subdivision plat
recorded in 1906. The applicant's narrative as well as the petition bearing the signature of abutting
property owners are included in Attachment C of this report. The small alley indicated on the aerial
photo below that appears to run east -west between 1595 and 1597 South 1000 East was vacated
February 8, 2000 and is not part of this application r equ est.
Page !14
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, n eighbor
and community input, and deparbnent review comments.
Consideration 1: Property Owner Consent
Section 14.52.030 A.1 specifies "The petition must bear the signatures of no less than eighty percent
(So%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property." There is a total of
nineteen (19) properties that abut the alley and seventeen (17) property owners signed the petition.
The property owners residing at 1025 and 1033 E Logan Avenue did not sign the petition in support
of vacating the alley but have not submitted or voiced any concerns to staff. In total, 89% of abutting
property owners have signed the petition in support of the vacation making this ordinance
requirement met.
This item is also addressed in Attachment C: Proiect Narrative & Petition and in Attachment E:
Analvsis of Standards .
Consideration 2: Creation/History of the Alley and Disposition ifVacated
The alley is recorded on the Fern Subdivision plat and the City lis t s it as a public alleyway and
r ecognizes it as City property. The Fern Subdivision was recorded as a plat in 1906. The parcels
that are part of the Fern subdivision a r e 1597 and 1615 S 1000 East and the eight properties that
are in-between the two north/south arms of the alley from 1019 thru 1053 East Lo gan Ave. The
parcels to the north adjacent to the alley and the property at 1059 East Logan Avenue all fall
outside of the recorded Fern subdivision plat.
According to the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office, alleys that are dedicated as part of a subdivision must
be conveyed to mvners within that subdivision if they are vacated. Case law in the Utah courts have
supported this position. This means the property owners adjacent to the alley on Wood Avenue and the
property at 1059 East Logan Avenue would not get a portion of the alley when it is vacated.
Any encroachments into the all ey by neighboring properties outside of the s ubdivision will n eed to b e
negotiated with the property owners Vlrithin the subdivision to split the alley property between them or
to convey it to the other party in whole or in part. This would be a private b·ansaction outside of the
purview of the City.
Consideration 3: Condition of the Alley
Approximately half of the western arm of the alley which is closest to Logan Ave (southern half) up to
the existing fence has been used as the applicant's driveway for many years. There are also m ature trees
and t elephone poles in this portion of the alley. At the fence line, the all ey has been incorporated into
the neighboring property at 1595 S 1000 East, who is also a part of the Fern Subdivision plat. It appears
Page 115
that the neighbor at 1615 S 1000 East shares the drive approach with 1019 E Logan Ave to access their
off-street parking as well . The curb cut is concrete and meets City standards. Both driveways are dirt
and covered in wood chips. The alley appears to be used as the driveway for 1019 E Logan Ave.
However, when the alley is vacat ed the western a rm Vlrill be split betw·een 1615 S. 1000 East and
1019 E Logan Ave. and between 1019 E Logan Ave . and 1597 S 1000 East for the northern portion
of the alley.
The eastern arm of the alley that runs between 1053 and 1059 East Logan Avenue has been
used as the driveway for 1053 East Logan Avenue and could potentially have some of their
detached garage encroaching into the alleyway. A portion of the 1059 East Logan Ave . house
app ears t o b e encr oaching into the alley as well. This will all need to be surveyed to fi nd out
wh ere the structures are in proximity to the property lines. Both the western and east ern
arms of the alley are partially utilized as driveways and have some encroachments into them.
In addition, Public Utilities st at ed there is a sewer lateral for 1059 E Logan Ave. that goes
through the alley and would either r equire that portion of the alley to be vacated in favor of
1059 E. or an easement needs to b e recorded.
The northern portion of the alley h as been incorporated into the adjacent neighbors' yards
and outdoor living areas. There are existing fences and accessory structures that are
encroaching into the alley by most adjacent properties. It appears that the garages at 1025 E
Logan Ave a nd 1050 E Wood Ave. may encroach into the alley way. There is no remaining
visible or physical evi dence of the alley's existence. (See attachment B)
The applicant originally requested that just the portion of the alley adjacent to their property be
vacat ed. But after reviewing the application and receiving feedback from the City Surveyor, along with
planning st aff visiting the location where the alley is located, we prompted the applicant to include the
entire alley to be vacat ed do to the number of encroachments. Vacating the entire alley is also in
keeping with the considerations when vacating an alley.
Consideration 4 : Future Public Uses for the Alley
One issue that comes up with proposals to vacate alleys are questions about the alley serving other
p otentially beneficial uses in the area. These elements could include trails for instance to help facilitate
alternative transportation and as a positive urban design element.
The Fern Subdivision is in the Central Community Master Plan. The future land use map designates
this area as Low Density Residential. The area is identified as the East Central South Neighborhood
and calls out to preserve and protect the existing low-density residential uses.
The alley runs east/west along the long axis of the block. Both Logan Avenu e and Wood Avenue have
existing s idewalks on both s ides of the street to facilitate east/west pedestrian traffic and ther e is no
public right of way that connects Wood Ave to Logan Ave. midblock. As such, this alley is not necessary
to create an alternative trail to connect 1000 E and 1100 E or Logan Ave to Wood Ave. Due to the width,
the alley would not meet city engineering standards for full vehicular access and, as such, would only
be considered for pedestrian or trail access, if it exist ed.
The alley runs through an established residential area that is made up of s ingle-family homes. There is
n o anticipated ch ange to this composition identified in the Central Community Master Plan and the
Page 116
area is unlikely to change significantly over time . The alley is no longer in physical existence and the
Master Pl a n supports the continuation oflow-density residential u ses for the area.
DISCUSSION:
The petition h as been reviewed against the City's policy considerations for alley closures located in
Chapter 14.52.020 as well as the analysis factors found in 14.52.030.B. The closure of the all ey m eets
all the analysis factors for an alley vacation. The all ey is curr ently used as the adjacent property owners
back yards and have fences along with some accessory structures encroaching into it. The closure is
supported by most adjacent property owners. City policies and the relevant Master Plan do not include
any policies that would oppose the closure of this alley. As such, staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission transmit a p ositive recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation
for the following reasons:
1. The m ajority of the adjacent prope rty owners h ave signed the petition and support the
closure o f the alley.
2. It i s beneficial for the surrounding prope rty owners because most of tl1em have fenc es and
accessory buildings that would have to be moved or removed due to the alley
encroachments if the a lley were to remain in place.
3· The alley does not physically exist and is inco rporated into the private property of the
a djacent neighbors.
4· The Master Plan does n ot oppose to the closure of the alley.
NEXT STEPS:
Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulat es the disposition of City ovvned alleys . When evalu ating
r equests to close or vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the
property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are h eld before both the
Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal.
Once the Planning Commission h as reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the
City Council for consideration. The City Council has final decision authority with r es pect to all ey
vacations and closures.
Page [17
ATIACHMENT A: FERN SUBDIVISION PLAT
' .
-·· .--!·-·-··~·.:.• ....... --~
. i Tenln Etui.Jirul 1
;...., .Jilin 'i.~-7-!!-• '
I
t
..
,.
: . . ' I
Page l18
ATTACHMENTB:PHOTOS
Alle)"·vay looking South at 1019 E Logan
Page !19
Alley looking north at 1019 E Lo gan Av e.
Page 12o
Alleyway in between 1053 and 1059 E. Logan Ave.
Page 121
Northern arm of alley running along the property lines between 1019 E and 1053 E
Logan Ave. Adjacent to the properies north facing Wood Ave .
Page 122
(Facing west)
Page 123
Facing Nmth at 1053 E Logan
Page 124
ATTACHMENT C: PROJECT NARRATIVE & PETITION
On the following pages are the project narrative and the petition signed by 17 of the required 19 owners
of property abutting the alley requesting the clos ure of the Fern Subdivision Alley. There wer e two
a djacent property owners (at 1025 and 1033 E Logan Avenue) that did not sign the petition. These
individuals have not voiced any opposition to the closure however.
Page !25
Olga Pinney
Real Property Agent, SLC Corp
4S1 South State Street, Rm 42S
Sa lt Lake City, UT 84114-5640
Re : Salt Lake City Right-of-Way (Alley) Encroachment
Parcei#16-17-2S3-019
Dear Ms. Pinney and SLC Corp Office of Real Estate,
May 20,2018
My name is Kathleen Bratcher. My husband, Richard Kerr, and I own the home on 1019 East Logan Ave.
We are sending this letter explaining why we are requesting an alley closure. This request is being made
in response to a letter we received on May 05, 2018, from t he office of Olga Pinney.
We purchased this property August 1999 and have been using t he half-an-alley next to our home as off-
street parking. One of our neighbors who grew up in this neighborhood, Sylvia Rim mach, to ld us in the
sixty years that she has lived in this neighborhood, that she has witnessed all residents of this home use
the same half-an-alley as an off-street parki ng space. I understand now that we were unknowingly
encroaching on an alley and are wanting to remedy the situation as soon as possible. We had no ill
i ntent.
When I use the term, "ha lf-an-alley," it is because the north side of the through-alley is already closed .
The alley has not been a usable piece of through traffic for at least sixty yea rs. Richard and I are in an
agreement with all our surrounding neighbors and are willing to split the property within the Salt lake
City's existing guidelines.
I have included the signed , "Pe tition to Vacate the Alley," al ong with the outlined and dotted Sidewell
map.
We, (our neighbors, and Rich ard and I) would like to replace the aged fence at some point. Th e new
fence will r eflect the new property lines, as defined by the office of Salt lake City, Rea l Estate Services.
Please feel free to contact me, Kathleen Bratcher at (801) 879-6924 if you have any questions or
concerns. Again, we look forward to resolving this situation.
Thank you for your conside ration in this matter.
Kath l een Bratcher
1019 East Logan Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 8410S
Page 126
Anna Angl in
Planning Counter
4515outh State Street, Rm 215
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5640
Re: Salt lake City Right-of-Way (Alley) Encroachment
Parce l 1116-17-253-019
Case number PLNPCM2018-00468
Dear Ms. Anna Anglin and SLC Corp Planning Counter,
May 15,2019
My name is Kathleen Bratcher. My husband, Richard Kerr, and I own the home on 1019 East logan Ave. We are
sending this letter explaining why we are requesting an alley closure . This request is being made in response to a
letter we received on May 05, 2018, from the office of Olga Pinney.
We submitted an Alley Vacation or Closure Application last year, dated May 03,2018, with the required signatures
of our neighbors along the logan Ave alley. In August 2018, we received an email from Anna Anglin requesting
more Information, which I collected and submitted in person to Ms. Anglin. Once it was approved, our neighbors
and I received a postcard from the Salt lake Planning Division notifying and inviting stakeholders to the monthly
open house, scheduled on Oct. 18, 2018.
I attended the open house, as did one of my neighbors, Joshua B. Lenart, who lives on the next street north of us,
on Wood Ave. He was concerned that he would have to demolish his garage If his property line was moved. At the
meeting, Ange la suggested we have the entire length of the logan Ave alley surveyed from 1000 East to 1100 East
by the same engineering firm who did our initia l survey, when we submitted the original application for closure. In
talkin g to the fir m, it was made very dear that the cost of such survey is considerably difficult and cost prohibitive.
We still need a way to illustrate that there are long-standing structures that were built over sixty years ago,
assuming without the knowledge of Salt lake Ci ty Corp.
We purchased this property August 1999 and have been using the half-an-alley next to our home as off-street
parking. One of our neighbors who grew up In this neighborhood, Sylvia Rim mach, told us in the sixty years that
she has lived in this neighborhood, that she has witnessed all of residents of this home use the same half-an-alley
as an off-street parking space. I understand now that we were unknowingly encroaching on an alley and are
wanting to remedy the situation. We had no ill intent.
When I use the term, "half-an-alley," it is because the north side of the through-alley i s already dosed. And ha s
been for at least sixty years. Richard and I are In an agreement with all our surrounding neighbors and are willing
to split the property within the Sa lt l ake City's existing guidelines.
We, (our neighbors, and Richard and I) would like to replace the aged fence at some poi nt. The new fence will
reflectthe new property lines, as defined by the office of Salt Lake City, Real Estate Servi ces. Plea se f eel free to
contact me, Kathleen Bratcher at (801) 879-6924 if you have any questions or concerns. Again, we look forward to
resolving this situation.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Signature on File
Kathleen Bratcher
1019 East l ogan Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Page 127
PETITION TO VACATE OR CLOSE AN AllEY
r~ame of Applican t :
Kath leen A . Bratcher
Address of Applicant :
_1019 East Logan Ave Pa rce l #16-17-253-019
Date: 0 h I D ~ I t 0 r Cb
-------------------------------------
As an owner of property adja ce nt t o the alley, I agre e t o the propose d vacati on or cl osu re. t understand t hai if my
property is a commerci al business o r a renta l p ropt:>rty w ith more than three {3) dwelling units, I w ill be requ i red to pay
fair market va lue for my half of t h e alley .
Da te ....,PrintNcme Addr ess /L( 11W ature
• ~~~~~f.~R. C;rvf r ~£fc[ 5 I 000 (115~•gno ruf#h Cxr(t s~J -It[
J;>•-J-/!Uark./JMAU !tl«d t :-""j750./ccrJ{;. "~o'f!/'tl~ ,;-/s-Jy
~ ... ~~~ ~~;E.W~t\;~:~~J :~P .~t~
~. --:;;~?.?.~e-_ID ~9 /.,c;v,..,J Avf? _ {~ /VI~~'J , ~C>_l_~--\) g P -,.,l !-lome Add resc S•gna~ Dote ~f> ~/Jb"'-tq&.J t ~li2 ~1tX~-
~-% i[~\ fu u.,,.,,!0,).~5~•j "" Avt-"'"""" ---':a/;1-{t:z_o(_~ __
~ ~ ~ .. lkt> \L-aUL: .,J,?,L ~--loe>...LJc.., ALU..(\1=-.tfo_._._g y..!L..Se --f-/.l'hi--HCI.~
io ~~rt.le~2-f1 _9t):ll 5•gnuum onre ojt:z-/Jg r: ~ 16{;~<;?,. /U' t1 c< ~A;:( ,./ ~:;~z-d p__
~ ftdfj ;nh~y -/££1'--IHAIV ~ ,,; j.2z/?J1&_
~ :[e£t. iva,un!ld~,.)2_ll-i~, .... ~d::z--Jb7jlo!f_
S -printNa-;;,;--------Addrf!;._H __ -------s;on o rur ~-~---ua!e
~
Upd a t~d 7/1/17
·-.r. .
Page 128
)
'. ' .,
Name of Applicant:
i<r:R.L _
As an owner of property adjacent t o the alley, I agree to th e proposed vacation or closure . I understand that If my
prop erty is a com mercial busine ss or a rental property with more t han three (3) dwelling units, I will be requ ired t o pay
fa ir market value for my half of the alley.
Print Nome Address Signature Dote ·
() J .Da te Cv'l · 1. ~£. . oJ_/ ~.,)J_;f~
_, ___ ___;::'t_/~:-Ll "U't!J(/-f--~-
S/gnoture ~ oav
~ ?hi fK/10/t%:'.
---· Print Name Address
Othr\q ~\tw I Ot;y 6 vlt!o J Ave
Prin t Name Address ( wiu. 1 ~ IDW~I> Orv '%~-fM "'cxr)
Print Name Address
Signature
1
A.C)1.Jo/
WAJh/sr~l
Signature
1
·------·--------____..L.-~ -----------
Upda ted 7/1/17
Page 129
I
I
I
Ap ril30. 20 18
Richard Kerr and Kat hl een 11ratdwr
IO IQ E Logan Ave .
Sah Lake Cit y. UT &.J I 06
Rc : Sa h Loke City Ri ght -nf-\\'ay (A ile)') Enc rouc hm ent
Pnrcd /116-17-2 53-0 19
Dear Mr. KeJT & Mrs. !:Irate her:
111'1'-\R r:l!l-:1"·1 ·ll'U)nll'NHY
"'"' :>; I:H ; llllliiU·IO(}IJS llrli"SI\"1 . .-\:-;1\ '\Eit;HBORIIOO[)
m.n:J.oPMI·.l\1
1:1 \I I~ 1'-\TE Sf.ll\1\f.S
This lcllcr is ''Till en in regnrds to the propr:rt) lm:atcd at 10 I 9 Eas t LO!:!IIl Ave nu e . It ha s Cl>m .: tll
ou r att ention tlwt un encroac hm ent in to the public ri ght-o f-woy (alle y) exist nt the nbove referenced
property. In asmu c h as )OU do not haven CO ill ract for the private usc of public propcny. publ ic 11ay
cn c n>achrncnt s an: rc gul at cd . lkcnscd and onl y a llcmed hy 11rillc 11 nt!J~cmem . 1\C are seeking your
cooperati on to re so lve th is iss ue .
Until this is resolved . yo ur cncn>a chments nre co nsidered illeg,ol per c it y ordina nce ~ 18 .3:!.125 and
furthe r action wi ll be taken b) the Ci1y if not resolved im med iatel y. If you ha ve any lJUCS tion s
regarding thi s notice ph:asc contact the Salt Lake C ity Re al Estate Se rvices at your earliest
corwl:'nien ce so we may ossis t you .
~ Olga Pi nnc)
Renl Prope11)' Agent
Sa lt Luke C ity Cor poration
Rc a 1 Esc ate Se n ice s
(80 1)535-7184
OILm.~esh:~ll' ~cpm
Enclos ure(s)
"r s . • ~~-~~ · S•
Page l3o
A'ITACHMENT D: EXISTING CONDITIONS & ZONING
ADJACENT lAND USE
The property lies within a r esidential area. All properties that are adjacent to the alley and in the
immediate vicinity to the west of 1000 East are zoned R-1/SOOO-Single Family Reside ntial. To the
east of the alleyway, the zoning b eco mes RB -Residential Business and is dominated by retail uses and
development. This is shown on the zoning map below.
None of the property owners h ave indicated a n ee d to access their rear yard via the alley.
Page 131
Proposed Fern
Subdivision Alley to be
vacated
~I
p
t
ATIACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, VACATION or Abandonment of City
Owned Alleys: The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part,
unless it r eceives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of
the following policy considerations:
E. Lack of Use: The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is
reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection
that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way
that r enders it unusable as a public right -of-way.
F. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime,
unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the
surrounding area.
G. Urba n Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban
design element.
H. Community Purpose: The Petitione rs are proposing to restrict the general public
from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play
area or garden.
Discussion:
The application leans toward Policy Consideration A-Lack of use as the main driving factor for
the alley vacation request There is n o visible evidence of an alley at this location. There are trees,
fences, and other structures where the alley i s described to be and is now used as part of the adjacent
n eighbor's backyard areas.
Staff routed this petition to the Salt Lake City Engineering Department (SLCPD) for comments and it
was recommended the entire alley be vacated. The original application was to vacate only the portion
of the alley adjacent to the applicant's property. But due to the alley no l onger being functional, it is
r ecommended the entire all ey be vacated.
Finding: The alley m eets the requirements to be fully vacated due to lack of use. It is evident that the
alley has not functioned as one for many years now and there is no need to preserve a right -of-way . All
property owners access their off-street parking from the street and the alley itself has been incorporated
as a portion for the adjacent property's backyard.
Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.030B: Processing Petitions-Public Hearing and
Recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Upon re ceipt of a complete petition, a public h earing shall be scheduled before the Planning
Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the
conclusion of the public h earing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation
to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subjec t alley property. A positive
recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
Page 132
Factor Finding Rationale
1 . The City Police Department, Fire
Department, Transportation
Division, and all other relevant City
Departments and Divisions h ave
no objection to the proposed
disposition of the p roperty;
2 . The p etition meets at least one of
the policy considerations stated
above;
3 · The petition must not deny sole
access or required off-street
parking to any adjacent property;
4· Th e petition will not result in a ny
property being landl ocked;
5· The disposition of the alley
property will not result in a use
which is other wise co ntrary to the
policies of the City, including
applicable master plans and other
adopted statements of policy
which address, but which are not
limit ed to, mid-block '"~rays,
pedestrian paths, trails, and
al t ernative transportation uses;
Page 133
Complies with
conditions
Co m pli es
Complies
Co m p lies
Complies
Staff requested input from pertinent City
Departments and Divisions. Comments
were received from Public Utilities,
Transportation and Engineering. The Salt
Lake City Surveyor noted that there is no
functioning alley in existence at this location
and the entire alley should be vacated and
incorporated into the adjacent p r operties.
However , a legal description written b y a
licensed surveyor for the entire alleyway is
required when application is submitted with
the City's Real Estate Service grou p . In
addition, the sewer lateral for 1059 E Logan
Ave which is in the alley right-of-way will
need t o be addressed through an agreed
easement or mvnership will need to be
conveyed to them. (See attachment G).
The proposed all ey closure satisfi es the Lack
of Use poli cy considerations of 1 4 .52.020 for
the p etit ion to b e p rocessed. See t h e
discussion and findi ngs in the previous
section of this report fo r more d etails.
None of the properties that abut the alley
appear to use it for access to their off-street
parking or access to their property, aside
from 1019 E Logan Ave; 1615 S 1000 East,
an d 1053 E Logan Ave . As such, none will be
denied vehicle access due t o the closure of
the alley .
No prop erties wo uld be re n de red l andlocked
by this pr oposal.
The petitioner is requesting closure of the
alleyway to come into compliance with the
City Real Estate Service group. The method
of disposition for low density residential
areas is to vacate the alley to properties
adjacent to it that are '"rithin the same
recorded subdivision. The neighbors to the
n orth are not in the same subdivision. The
alley in its entirety wo ul d be given to the
houses facing Logan Street and 1615 S 1000
E and 1597 S 1000 East and then
incorporated into their backyard as they are
currently being used. The applicant and
6. No opposing abutting property
owner intends to build a garage
requiring access from the property,
or has made application for a
building permit, or if such a permit
has been issued, construction has
been completed ·within 12 months
of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the City
preference for disposing of an
entire alley, rather than a small
segment of it; and
8. The alley is not necessary for actual
or potential rear access to
residences or for accessory uses.
NOTES:
Page 134
Complies
Complies
Complies
property ovvner at 1615 S 1000 East v.rill need
to come to an agreement and address the
current off-street parking arrangement
through ovmership or easement.
No abutting property owners have opposed
the alley vacation. No applications for a
permit have been made.
The applicant initially requested a partial
closure to the alley that is in adjacent to their
west property lines. However, the City
Engineering Division stated that since there
is no physical evidence of the alley's
existence, it should be entirely vacated to
reflect the current physical use of the land.
The application was changed to complete
vacation of the alley.
The all ey has ceased to be used for functional
access to the back of properties and no
property owners have indicated that the access
is necessary for that purpose. The exception is
for the applicant's property at 1019 E Logan
Ave, 1615 S 1000 East, and 1053 E Logan Ave.
ATIACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The foll owin g is a list of publi c meetings that have b een h eld, a nd other p ubli c input opportunities,
r elated t o the proposed project:
• Notice of the proj ect a nd r e qu est for co mments sent to the Ch a ir of the Sugar H o use
Co mmunity Council o n July 18, 2018 in order t o soli cit comm ent s .
• Staff did n ot receive any comments from the Suga r House Community Council
• Staff held a n open h ou s e on October 18 , 2018 a nd s ent n oti ce t o all r es iden ces and
property owners within 300' of the alley . There was o n e concern r aised at the open h ouse
b y the prop erty owner a t 1026 E Wood Ave . He wasn 't sur e if his accessory b u il ding was
in the alley right-of-way (see attached)
• The 45-day recogni zed organization co mment period expired on August 16 , 2018
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
• Public h earing n otice maile d on: May 3 1 , 2019 ,
• Public h earing n otice sign p osted on the p roperty: May 3 1 , 2 0 19
• Public n otice p ost ed on Ci ty an d Stat e webs ites & Pl a nning Divisi on lis t serve: June 1 ,
2 019
Page 135
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
October 18, 2018
PlnllDing nn d Zoning Divis ion
Department of Conununity and Economic
Development
Logan Street Alley Vacation-PLNPCM2018-00468
Name: 'Jr,GkJ V .f-(__ etJfb.\
Address:
SL.C. u '(
I
Phone: ~-=E-mail
Comments:
Ra:.:.J t:o!·c'l;c:.I;:> ONcC ,~ate W r
.:J:S V~CATfL;> 5o nfr..-T L.YoW A~
Ldof"];l Les,:::Y vVV;:R. ~~.~--sn_A/3 .T..J~SIR~(ve_cC"""
e_, , C :-e:A (5 ,/{) s ~Tc...
Please provide y u co ntact in fo rma · n so we can notify you of other m lings or hearings on thls issue. You
may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your comments via e-mail at
anna.anglin@s lcgov.com or via mail at th e following address: Anna Anglin, Salt Lake City Planning D iv ision,
PO Box 145480, Sal t L ake City, UT 84114-5480. ----11~¥-You
r ~
Page 136
ATIACHMENT G: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
The proposed alley closure request was sent out for internal review. The following comments
were received:
Engineering -Public Way Assets (Victoria Ostradicky)
This alleyway is not passable by either a car or by walking. Looking at the aerial view
of the alley, it seems to me that almost everybody is encroaching into the alley. So, to
clear it, \•vhy don't we close the whole alley. If we don't, because it is encroachment
into public way, we would have to send everybody a letter telling them that they are
encroaching into public right of way. This would create a lot of work for the property
management and also make some people upset. People who don't agree with a
vacation, they would have to think twice, if they are encroaching. Also, if this "'rill go
through, they need the legal description written by a licensed surveyor. The one
included in the document wouldn't do.
Public Utilities (Jason Draper)
No utility issues '"rith the proposed alley vacation around 1019 E Logan. If the entire
alley is vacated, the re is a sewer lateral for 1059 E Logan that goes through the alley
and would either require that portion of the alley to be vacated in favor of 1059 or an
easement needs to be recorded.
Transportation (Michael Barry)
Transportation does not object to clos ing the alley.
Fire Code (Ted Itchon)
The property has fire depa rtment access from Logan Ave and the closure would not be a
hardship.
Page 137
3C. Planning Commission Agenda & Minutes for June 12, 2019
Page 138
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
June 12, 2019, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission's discretion)
FIELD TRIP-The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
DINNER-Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126 of
the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive training
on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30PM IN ROOM 326
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 22,2019
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Subdivision/Planned Development Amendment at approximately 1570 S Main -Moda on Main -
Brock Loomis of J.F. Capital is re questing app ro va l from the C ity to create an 11-unit residential
subdivision for the previously approved Planned Development at 1570 S. Ma in. The configuration of
two multi-family buildings with a combined total of 11 units has not changed, however each unit is now
being proposed on its own sellable lot with shared common space. The pr oject requ ires approval for
the amended Planned Development and the subdivision. The following two petitions are associated
with this request:
a. Preliminary Subdivision Plat -A request to subdivide and reconfigure three parcels into 11 new
parcels w ith shared common yard and parking areas. Case number PLNSUB2019-00133
b. Planned Development Amendment -A request to amend the Planne d Development approval to
address the creation of 11 lots that do not independently have street f r ontage, yards setbacks, or
the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in the CC Zone but are part of a larger common lot
which meets the standards. Case number PLNSUB2018-00057
The subject property is located in Council Distri ct 5 represented by Er in Mendenhall. (Staff contact: Eric
Daem s at 801-535-7326 or eric.daems@slcgov.com).
2. Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review at approximately 45
South 600 West-A reque st by Auggie Wasmund, from C.W. Urban , for a Planned Development and
Conditional Buil d ing and Site Design Review (CBSDR) to build a four story 48-unit residential building
at approximately 45 S 600 West in the Gateway Mixed Use (G-MU) zoning district. Pla nned
Development approval is required for all new construction in the G-MU zoning district. The applicant is
also requesting a reduction of parking lot landscap ing through the Planned Development process and
the proposed exterior building materials require approval through the CBSDR process . The subj ect
property is within Council District 4 represented by Ana Valde moros (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at
801-535-7281or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2019-00128 and
PLNPCM2019-00129
3. Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation at approximately 1019 East Logan Avenue-Kathleen Bratcher ,
who lives at 1019 East Log an Avenue is proposing to vacate the alley that is to the west and north of
her property. The western portion runs 126 ' north and south along her property line . T he northern
Page 139
portion of the alley r uns east and west 336' from the applicant's property to 1053 E. Logan Avenue and
then follows 1053 E. Logan 's eastern property line 126' north and south. The alley is recorded on the
Fern Subdivision and is adjacent to property on the north that is not part of the subdivision. The subject
property is located in the R-1-5000 zoning district and is located in council district 5, represented by
Er in Mendenhall. (Staff Contact: Anna Anglin at 801-535-6050 or anna.anglin@s lcgov.com) Case
Number PLNPCM2018-00468
4. Sugar Alley Conditional Building and Site Design Review at approximately 2188 S Highland
Drive-Ben Lo we, representing the property owner Sugarhouse Dixon , LLC , has requested Conditional
Building and Site Design Review approval to build an eight-story mixed-use bu ild ing at 2188 S Highland
Drive . The development is proposed to be approximately 85' in height and include 186 apartments and
16 ,000 square feet of retail space . Buildings over 50' in height in the Sugar House Business District-1
zone are required to go through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process , and as the
building exceeds this height it is proceeding through this process . Th rough this process applicant is
also seeking a mod ification to a 15' upper floor step-back requirement for the north-east portion of their
building that faces Hig hland Drive. The property is in the Sugar House Bus iness District-1 (CSHBD -1 )
zone and is in Council District 7, repr esen ted by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Daniel
Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcqov.c om or 801-535-7165) Case number PLNPC2019-00264
5. Sugar House Business District Design Standards Text Amendment -A request by the Ma yo r to
amend the Sugar House Business District (CS HBD ) zoning district regu lations . The amendments would
apply additional design standards to development in the zone. Des ign standa rds incl ude regulations
pertaining to such things as windows , entrances, and bui lding materials. Currently, there are a limited
number of design standards for small developments in Sugar Ho use, whereas la rge developments
have many more standards to comply with. The proposed additional design standards are meant to
bridge this gap and help ensure that new small buildings support a h igh quality, pedestrian oriented
environment in Sugar House. Other miscellaneous related changes and clarifications to the zoning
code are also included in the amendments . The proposal affects both the CSHBD-1 and CSHBD-2
zoning districts . The zone is located w ith in Council District 7, represented by Amy Fo wler. (Staff
Contact: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcqov.com or 801 -5 35-7165) Case number
PLNPCM2018-0021 0
The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County
Building. Please contact the staff planner for information , Visit the Plann ing Divisio n's website at
www.slcgov.com /pla nning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes.
Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they
are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel17; past meetings are recorded
and archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.com . 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 Planning Office at 801 -535-7757, or relay service
711.
Page 140
7 :22:10 PM
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation at approximately 1019 East Logan Avenue -Kathleen
Bratcher, who lives at 1019 East Logan Avenue is proposing to vacate the alley that is to the west
and north of her property . The western portion runs 126' north and south along her property line .
The northern portion of the alley runs east and west 336' from the applicant 's property to 1053 E.
Logan Avenue and then follows 1053 E . Logan 's eastern property line 126' north and south . The
alley is recorded on the Fern Subdivision and is adjacent to property on the north that is not part
of the subdivision. The subject property is located in the R-1-5000 zoning district and is located
in council district 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff Contact: Anna Anglin at 801-535-6050
or anna.anglin@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2018-00468
Anna Anglin, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in
the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positi ve
recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Whether there was a survey conducted regard ing what utility lines are in the alley
• Whether the gas line was included as part of a condition
• Clarification as to who would be responsible for conducting a survey
Kathleen Bratc her, applicant, provided e xplanation for the petition and was available for questions
from the Commission.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following :
• Clarification was requested on the subdivision
• Clarity on how the city enforces surveys required by property owners
PUBLIC HEARING 7:34:28 PM
Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing;
Alan Bloom-Provided feedback regarding his view on the petition.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bachman closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 7:36:08 PM
Commissioner Bell stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report,
testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Fern Subdivision Alley
Vacation, file PLNPCM2018-00468 for the reasons listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Barry, Clark, Hoskins,
Scheer and Bell voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously.
Page 141
4. Original Petition
Page 142
Page 143
Alley Vacation or Closure
OFFICE USE ONL Y
Date Received: 1;;;;;&M ,;;w;s-LXJ~tbS'
--r---~~~R~~~r_e ______ _
FORMATION
location of the Alley :
Name of Applican t :
Kathlee n A. Bratc her
Address of Applicant: Ave I ' r !OlO! 0 ~1\-N H" L. VJU/
E-mail of Applicant:
afkb @ms n.com
Applicant's Interest in Subject Property:
U-r
~ Owner D Contractor Archit ect D Other:
Phone :
801-879-6924
Na me of Prop erty wner abutting the alley if different frQm applicant): ( lr:f\1 I?().
&J A o o / . o ~ .»1.1.1::1 At;UI 1 o ex:> E . ')
E-mail of Property Owner : 1 N r..U. ... A: tMA g..e-:
pau laca rl @xmission.com & sy lvierim masc h@gm ail.com _J 801-596-1669 & 80 1-67 1-2835
\ Pleas e note that additional information m ay be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
i nformat ion is provi d ed fo r st aff analysis. All i nform at ion required for staff analysi s will be r.opied i:lnd
made public, i ncluding pro fes sional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
r ev iew by any i nterest ed pa rty .
A VAILABL E CONSULTATION
\ Plan n ers are avai labl e for consultation prior t o submitting this application. Plea se call (801) 535-7700 if you
have any questions regarding th e requirements o f th is application .
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APP LICATION
Moiling Address: Pl ann i ng Counter
PO Box 145471
Sa lt lake Ci ty, UT 84114
\ Fil ing fee of $253
In Person:
REQU I RED FEE
\ Plus additional fee for required publ ic notices
SIGNATURE
~~--~---------------Planning Counter
451 South State Street, Room 21 5
Telephone: (801) 535-7700
\ If applicable, a notari;:ed st at ement of consen t authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. r .. , ~5/03/2018
~ .. ·;;
~ a::
:::
<t .;;
D 0
D [TI
D 0
D [TI
D [TI
D 0
D [ZJ
SUBMIITAL REQU I REME NTS
Please include with the application : (pleas e attach additional sheet )
1. A letter exp l aining why yo u are requesting this alley vacation or closure .
2. A Sidwe ll map showing the area of the proposed alley v acation or clos u r e. On the map please:
a. Highlight the area of the proposed alley vacation or closure.
b. Indicate w ith co lored dot the property owners who su pport the petition.
c. Submit O t~e paper co~ and a digital (PD F) copy ol the maa -.e ~i.t...U.d ~
3. CJ. ~ ·d fsh~~o f~n m~~l~ ~f ~ ~P s k~ey ~c~~~b~~s~r g3 ~\VjC5V .(6M
• A f ina l le ga l description prepared by a licensed e gineer will be r equired later.
4 . Th e name, address and signatures of all abutting property owners who support the pet ition .
Petition mu st incl ude the signatu res of no less than 80% of the abutting pro perly owners.
Signatures should be from the property owne rs and not from the pro perty ren ters.
You may use the form atta ched to this appl ica tion or provide your own form with sig na ture s.
WHAT IS AN ALLEY VACATION OR CLOSURE?
As pa rt of the subd ivis ion process, e.arly developer s we re required to create alleys which were then deeded to the
City. They were use d for coa l delivery, garbage pickup and other services. They also allow ed.access to ga rage$. Today,
the City is officially the owne r of these alleys. In sit uations where it can be demonstrated that t here is an over-riding
public purpose for vacating the alley, the City may re l inqu is h its pro perty int erest in the alley.
When an alley is next to or abuts a sing le family or duplex re side ntial property, the City vacates the alley, divide s it in
half, nnd the property is conv eyed to the abu tting prope11y owners. If an alley is nex t to o r abuts a non -re side ntial, or
multifamily re siden tial (3 o r more dwelli ng units) property, the Cit y may cl ose the alley and then sell the land at f air
market va l ue to the abutting property owners .
WHAT THE CITY CONSIDERS BEFORE VACATING OR CLOSING AN ALLEY
1. The City police department, fire department, tra nsportation division, and ali other rele vant Ctty departments
have no rea sonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property;
2. Granting t he petition will not deny so le access or required off -s treet parking t o any pro petty adjacent t o t he al ley,
3. Granting the petition w ill no t re sult in any property being landlocke d;
4 . Granting the petition will not res ult in a use of the alley property which is otherwise co ntrary t o the policies of
t he Ci t y, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which
are not lim ited to, mid-block walkways, ped estrian paths, trails, and alterna t ive transportation uses;
5. No opposi ng abutting property owner intends to build a garage req uiring acc ess fro m t he p ro perty, o r has
ma de appl icatio n for a building permit, o r if such a pe rmit ha s be en issued, cons t ruction has be en completed
within 12 months of iss uance of the b uilding pe rmit;
6. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small se gment of it; and
7. Th e alley property i s not necessary for actual or potentia l rea r access to res idences o r for accessory uses.
INCOMPLETE APP LICATI ONS Will NOT BE ACCEPTED -------------
Updotecl 7/1/17
Page 144
Olga Pinney
Real Property Agent, SLC Corp
4S1 South State Street, Rm 42S
Salt La ke City, UT 84114-5640
Re: Salt lake City Right -o f-Way (Alley) Encroachment
Parcel #16-17-2S3-019
Dear Ms. Pinney and SLC Corp Office of Real Estate,
May 20, 2018
My name is Kathl ee n Bratcher. My husband, Richard Kerr, and I own the home on 1019 East Logan Ave .
We are sending this letter explaining why we are requ esti ng an alley closure . This request is being made
in response to a l etter we received on May 05, 2018, from the office o f Olga Pinney.
We purchased this property August 1999 and have been using the half-an-alley next to ou r home as off-
street parking. One of our neighbors who grew up in this neighborhood, Sylvia Rim mach, to ld us in the
sixty years that she ha s lived in this neighborhood, that she has witnessed all residents of this home use
the same half-an-a lley as an off-street parki ng space. I understand now that we were unknowing ly
encroaching on an alley and are wanting to remedy the situation as soon as possible. We had no ill
intent.
When I use the te rm, "half-an-alley," it is because the north side of the through-alley is already closed .
The alley has not been a usable piece of th ro ugh traffic: for at lea st sixty years. Richard and I are i n an
agreement w ith all our surrou ndi ng neighbors and are willing to split the property within the Salt l ake
City's existing guide lines.
I hav e in cluded the signed , "Petition to Vacate the Alley," along with the outlined and dotted Si d ewell
map.
We, (our neighbors, and Richard and I) would like to replace the aged fence at some point. The new
fence will reflect the new property lines, as defined by the office of Salt Lake City, Real Estate Services .
Please feel f ree to contact me, Kathl een Bratcher at······if yo u have any questions or
concerns . Again, we loo k forward t o resolvi ng this situation.
Thank you for your considera tion in this matter.
Kathleen Bratcher
1019 East Logan Ave
Sal t Lake City, UT 8410S
Page 145
BLOC K 16 . 5-AC RE PLA T A.
-l
..... ~ c ••• ~:
·--. -~ -... t.._,_ ........... -.-..... __ _ ... _, ___ '"' _ .. ,. ---.. ·-··---_ ... ···-·-.... . . --...... ·-..... -·-..... -~ ... --... '"-... -·-.... ·--......
j£_
Page 146
ParcellllG-17-253-019 Alley Closure
Written Descrip tion with measurements of the proposed alley closure .
For frames of refe rence, we have enclosed a printed copy of a boundary survey we paid for th is pa st
January, performed by Horrocks Engineers . The outlined area is the alleyway we wish to close .
Ou r home f aces south . For clarity in the following description, "south," refers to the front of t he
property (Logan Ave side), and "north" refers to be abutti ng property line and alleyway we are
proposing to be closed.
All the below measurements were comp leted by my husband and myself working as a team and are
approximate.
The numbers 1.) to 3 .) descriptions and measurements below corre late to t he and numbered areas on
the enclosed survey map.
1.) North/south length of alley, measured from the southern side of the property, (i.e . northern
edge of sidewalk) to the wooden fence in t he bac kyard (abutting line)-114.25 feet
Outlined in blue on map.
2.) North/south side length from true, su rveyed property li ne (measured from set survey cap) to
wooden fence (ab utting line)-5.83 feet
Outlined in red on map.
Th e fence was already installe d , and already aging, when I purcha se d t he property in 1999 .
3.) East/west length of alley, measured on southern side of property, west neighbor's existing fence
to survey cap set-20.33 feet
Outlined in purple on map. ••••••
Page 147
; _,
' ,
.I
Page 148
I
I
1 I
-~I
f
~ ~
. :
I
I I
I
I
I
l:
!.1
I
~ I rj il
il I' '·:
''-4 ~)-~~-,_1,• . ·;·
" l 'L -·
!~~ :~r;_.
I
\
~I .. . ,-
1
I
, I
' I
-,,
-,-.-·
;~·~D.;: -:--~ 1
\ ··-.-I --'
I
I i
Page 149
I I
I
' I
j l
~~
'·
·-·
:::
---. ~~:.::"~'" ... ~ . .,. ··~" ... . --
~L
I
I
I : !+
!
_I ,,
" i'.
~-
·,
BRATCH E~R~=PR---0 --~!::.;.._...,,,~,.~, PERTY
••J tarr•.•
_ll~Ut-IOARY SURVEy
~~~~~ .v>l•.-.u..•u.~u:.u•.
.·~-
I
_J
I
1 i !
I
i
, I,..
I 00 • • .., 0 I a I ~
I "
K lgnt-or-way
Page I so
PETI TION TO VAC ATE OR CLO SE AN ALLE Y
Name of Appli cant:
Ka thleen A . Bratcher
Addres s o f Applicant:
10 19 East Logan Ave Parcel #16-17 -253-019 _______ -----------
Date: Oh / D~ J ~0 TCZJ
---------------------------
As an ow n er o f prope r ty adj acent t o t he alley, I agree t o the proposed va cation or clos ure. I u nd erstand that if my
property is a com m er cia l bu siness or a r ental property w ilh more than three (3) dwel li n g units, I w ill be requ ired to pay
fair market value for my ha lf of th e al ley.
Date _.PrinrNcml! Address /'L( f.ittJ""rure
• ~~~~~!:./(. Upo f J ~£1e?: 5 /000 £)~5~ignotufirt/q Cxrjt s: J ~ !{"
);:> ..... Ula rk.iJ'.u,.(lz <'d. 1 »"'l7 !;,. loa;;;:_ ,f:i;;o'f! 71-~ ,-/.-Jy
~ H ~&J /::E .~/± :·w~ '"'&tlLt ~.'tE l~
--Pri,•t Nomr Address 5igna rure Do te ~
~ ~ -s;~3~rz-__ !D "l9_ /._~,._10 Av e>_ ~~ {vi ~~'J, ~~!~-
~ g P ••:1 No m~ Addres • Sign~gr;: Dote
~ ~ -#u~LJ h~ _j4f~UJ~~ Dore _ ~Jj)(<l_ __
~ .<;l, f.[ o.r~l\.~~!~vl~·j---=IU\-'-Prv._;_;_l-_ ---4.74'4· --1"'-"'L---
~ ~ ~-U; \l-aW--j .?,l"' £ ~lobi!N !Y.f. --k::f:/k.~~=---0 · ~ ~. l (Q
io ~~~rl,!£1.-ll _li~~~., Dare '6/t-~J rg r: ~ 4;9';"!0" &rf-<~1!( , ... .>.~zJAt?~P~
~ ftc.~/J;»th~y f!/.'Ld¥11'1 ~ ,.,h.2z/2£'/&
~ -lf.~ tu,/Jk)}~).P_?Jli~l!f., ... ~--l.b?!zoJJ>_
·---------·---------·---·--F'rintNoTr.e Address Si[tllOIVf" Gate
-" .
Page lSI
)
·ii ... I':··
• ' !: ~ .• • PETITION :fO'VA<;:ATE .ORClOSE -AN ALLEY · -. I ' ',~
~ .....
Name of App li cant: ·--,---:---,--.JG1_f_h~ 9:-)2,£ i-1Aki,
Address of Applicant:
LOtC( E . LeJsv Alit:.. .~t: 8<JLOj
Date :
As an owner of property adjacent to the alley, I agree to the proposed vacation or cl os ure. I underst and that If my
property Is a commerc ial busin ess or a r ental property with more than three (3) dwelling units, I will be requ ired to p ay
fa i r market va l ue f or my half of the all ey.
Print Name Address Signature Date ·
:R~ t\~U' 1.?43 5
Print Name Address
(ClOD E r//~ J-J:~ 'if -/0 -f 8" Sign~/ V ~ ";) ;Date CVJ;
. J~. ov_, ~;;>J,.r ~
--:-:--:-:-:-----------::-:-o-------::--,--~i-1.~:_ Ll. .. Ut.IJr!Lc; 9/iV
Prin t Name Address Signature 'f1L Dav
1 O<;(( f; ~J 4vt ~ 2bi 8\/t 0 I I'%-"'
Address -=--'( _/,;,:_;_
1
"'I.-,-'-'-" ,=---=cSI-gn-at_u_r_e -,-4-.._,...
1
-,.-J----""'-D--'at'e"" '-'-'-'--..:.......,"-----
olv /,)'.-~.-~ VJ I,V ) v '-1 '80 1-r18~;J~t:-
u -1 £XI · 6WJhl .. 5 L/ 1060 £..
Print Name
Print Nom e Address
Signature Da te tSJ!o/IB
S1.A '3ClY'\ ~~ cJ'Vl 1 5~'i S I ootl {;
Print Name Address
---y;:·~V ). L-v~ /OZ~· E Woo) ~L
Prin t Name Address Sl{lnot Dote
~-~ N~~£.e_io~c.fl:-1-Alo-a.olt1u~, ~~ o-2h-t ~
Print Name A dress Signature Date
_L!Ji./~ dl,.//!r[ le£t%~1-1n.-. __.('/#-~ Q-22-#1
Pri nt Name '--,IV -Address Signal~~ Date
~ ~ A~~r~ss/p £<)~ ~. ~ii!!t~---D-o te 1-J-("g_ ___ _
iJYr£--~ /03.~ \Q~WL ~ <::j.·l/·1&
Print Name Address Signature Da te
El-li e-t+ir:hk{LjQ32 WIJO\) __ ~ ~lAAA ~-~~~-
Prlnt Name jddress Signa~~~ Date
(\?'~ . .\;e. ]e.-vl-\.k~.t.\ \Obo Wt>Oc:\ Ave.. Ao c:Af~o/l'B
Print Name Address Sl~ Dote
.... -------------~---
Updated 7/1/17
Page 152
I
I
5. Mailing List
Page I 53
Name Address1 Address2
980 BRYAN LLC 980 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84 105-2310
AIR VIEW SERVICE INC 1646 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2440
ASZMANN, JOSEPH G 1059 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84 105-2409
BAIRD , J ENN IFE R 10 BROADRICK RD SINGAPORE, 43947-5
BA IRD , JENNIFER PO BOX 521237 SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84152-1237
BATES, DANIEL & JOSAL YN ; JT 1067 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2411
BA THEN , JOHN C 1033 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2409
BENTLEY, ANNABEL & PA TRICK 1066 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84 105-2402
M; JT
BERNHISEL, ASHLIE A 2 740 E W ILSHIRE DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109-1 633
BEVACQUA, BRUCE & PAULA; JT 1020 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2410
BICKNELL, RACHEL M; TR 1621 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2358
SIEGING, ER IK & KAISER, 1029 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2409
JENNIFER; JT
BLAKE, GARRY L 1598 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84 105-2357
BLUHM, ALAN & PAMALA; TRS 1053 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2409
BRATCHER, KATHLEEN A & 1019 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2409
KERR, R ICHARD P ; JT
BROWN , ROBERT B & LILIAN M 1038 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2402
BRYAN WOOD CONDM COMMON 4285 S PARKVIEW DR SALT LAKE CI TY , UT 84124-3446
AREA MASTER CARD:
BURT ON, STEPHEN M 2686 E SKYLINE DR SALT LAKE C ITY, UT 84108-2855
CARL, PAULA E; TR (PEC RE V LIV 1020 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE C ITY , UT 84105-2412
TRUST)
CLAYTON , ANDREA; TR (AC TR) 1038 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE C ITY , UT 84105-2410
CORTEZ, ALEX & JANET F; TC 1036 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE C ITY, UT 84105-2410
COYNE , DAV ID ; JT MILLER, 1056 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2412
OLIVIA; JT
CROFT, ROGER G 1615 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2331
DEMKOV, JAMES S & CASSIDY; 1041 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-3421
J T
DONNER, PETER N 1034 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE C ITY, UT 84105-2402
EICHENBERGER, PAUL 1050 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE C ITY, UT 84105-2402
EM IGRATION CREEK LLC 6860 CANYON DR PARK CITY, UT 84098
FOLEY, DANIEL P & FOX-FOLEY, 2112 COUNTRY COVE CT LAS VEGAS, N V 89 135-1556
MARI SSA; J T
FROST, KATHRYN A ; TR 1045 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-3421
GARDNER, JOHN P ET AL 2050 S 1400 E STGEORGE , UT 84790
GARDNER, NOEL C & CONNIE L ; 1026 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2410
TRS (G FA M TR)
G-BAR VENTURES LLC 1570 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2441
GI ANNOPOULOS I NVESTMENTS 2537 S 1900 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106-4153
LC
GORDON , WILLIAM J PO BOX 521563 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84152-1563
GREIS, PATRICK & HIRSHBERG, 1384 E YALE AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-1613
ELIOTTE ; JT
HAAG, M ICHELLE L 1568 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2441
HAINES , JAMES R ; TR 6931 S 825 E MIDVALE , UT 84047
HAK,KATE 1034 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2412
HALE , ABBEY & DRUMOND, 976 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2310
TYLER; JT
Page I 54
HARPER, PETER 1593 S 1000 E SALT LAKE C ITY , UT 84105-2379
HICKEN , DREW D & PAISLEE; 2397 E MAYWOOD DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109-1609
TRS (D&PHFL TRUST}
HIGGINS, TRINA A 1050 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2412
HINNERS, SARAH J & PASKO, 1648 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-2359
CHRISTOPHER P ; JT
HOFFMAN, BENGTA 1066 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2412
HUTCHISON , WARREN J & 1056 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2410
BECKYW; JT
J&DWT ET AL 3553 E SUTTON CIR COTTONWOOD HTS, UT 84121-
6150
JENSEN, JAN D PO BOX 526434 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84152 -6434
JOHNSON, DAVID E & 1589 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2379
ANDERSON, SUSAN M; TRS
KING, RAYMOND 1118 S W IND SOR ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-1312
LENART, JOSHUA & TANNER ; JT 1026 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2412
MORAHAN, JU STINE & LEBEDA, 1594 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84 105-2357
KEITH T; TC
NAY, CATRINA Y & TRAVIS W; JT 1590 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2357
NEIL PAYNE VELSEY FAM TR 864 GRAND AVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
THORNTON , RICHARD N; TR
NELSON , TRENT L & LAURA Q; JT 1044 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2402
NETMENDERS LLC 955 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2329
NIELSON, WILLIAM F 1032 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2410
OLSON, KEVIN 1028 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2402
OPHEIKENS , STEVEN C & 1025 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2409
ROBYN R; TR S (0 FAM TRUST}
PAUL & KAREEN SWENSON FAM 1064 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-1 521
TR ET AL
PEDERSEN , BRENT S 1602 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2332
PINE , TIMOTHY A 1049 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2409
POCOCK, DOROTHY V; TR 1435 S EL REY ST SALT L AKE CITY, UT 84108-2613
POOLE, CHRISTOPHER 1600 S 1100 E SALT L AKE CITY, UT 84105-2414
PRICE , NICKOLAS W; JT PRICE, 986 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2310
CARLY; JT
REDFORD , DONNALEY E 1633 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2358
Res ident 979 E LOGAN AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2329
Resident 981 E LOGAN AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2329
Resident 1606 S 1000 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2332
Resident 1640 S 1000 E #1 Sa lt Lake City, UT 84105-2378
Resident 1640 S 1000 E #2 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2378
Resident 1640 S 1000 E #3 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2 378
Resident 1640 S 1000 E #4 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2378
Resident 1620 S 1000 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105-235 9
Resident 1573S 1000E #A Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2355
Residen t 1573S 1000 E #B Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2355
Resident 1573S 1000E #C Sa lt Lake City, UT 84105-2355
Resident 1573 S 1000 E #D Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2355
Resident 1007 E WOOD AVE Salt La ke City, UT 84105-2411
Resident 1575 S 1000 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2355
Resident 1022 E BRYAN AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2402
Page I 55
Resident 1032 E WOOD AVE Sal t Lake City, UT 84105 -2412
Resident 1060 E WOOD AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105 -241 2
Resident 1072 E WOOD AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2412
Resident 1041 E LOGAN AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2409
Resident 1043 E LOGAN AVE Sa lt Lake City, UT 84105-2409
Resident 1069 E LOGAN AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105 -24 09
Resident 1592S1100E Salt Lak e City, UT 84105-2454
Resident 1594 S 1100 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2454
Resident 1604 S 1100 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2414
Resident 1616S1100E Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2414
Res ident 1627 S 1000 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2358
Resident 1005 E 1700 S Salt Lak e City, UT 84105-3421
Resident 1641 S 1000 E Salt Lak e City, UT 84105 -2358
Resident 1009 E 1700 S Salt Lake City, UT 84105 -3421
Resident 1011 E 1700S Sa lt Lake City, UT 84105-3421
Resident 1035 E 1700 S Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3421
Resident 1063 E 1700 S #1 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3427
Resi dent 1063 E 1700 S #2 Sal t Lak e City, UT 84105 -3427
Resident 1063 E 1700 S #3 Salt Lake City, UT 84105 -3427
Resident 1063 E 1700 S #4 Salt Lake Ci t y, UT 84105-3427
Resident 1063 E 1700 S #5 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3427
Resident 1063 E 1700 S #6 Salt Lak e City, UT 841 05-34 27
Resident 1067 E 1700 S #1 Sal t Lake City, UT 84105-3426
Resident 1067 E 1700 S #2 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3426
Resident 1067 E 1700 S #3 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3426
Resident 1067 E 1700 S #4 Sa lt Lake City, UT 84105-3426
Resident 1067 E 1700 S #5 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3426
Resident 1067 E 1700 S #6 Salt Lake City, UT 84105 -3426
Resident 1624 S 1100 E Sa lt Lake City, UT 84105-2440
Resident 1640 S 1100 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2440
Resident 1068 E BRYAN AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2402
Resident 1069 E WOOD AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84105 -241 1
Resident 1630 S 1000 E Sa lt Lake City, UT 84105-2359
Resident 1019 E 1700 S #1 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3428
Resident 1019 E 1700 S #2 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3428
Resident 1019 E 1700 S #3 Salt Lak e City, UT 84105 -3428
Resident 1019 E 1700S #4 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3428
Residen t 1019E 1700S #5 Salt Lake City, UT 84105-3428
Resident 1019E 1700S #6 Sa lt Lake City, UT 84105-3428
RIMMASCH, SYLVIA & MARK H ; 1597 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CI T Y, UT 84105-2379
J T
ROG ERS , DAVIS J & VAN ESSA H; 105 W SUMMER ST OJAI , CA 93023
JT
ROMBOY , RODERICK P & 1067 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CI T Y, UT 84105-2409
CONNIE J; JT
SCHLAUDERAFF , CALE B; ET AL PO BOX 2222 SHELTON, WA 98584-5051
SIMPSON, GREGORY & JILLIAN; 1040 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAK E CI T Y, UT 84105-2410
JT
SJ COMMERCIAL RENTALS, LLC 5334 S CASTLE GATE DR MURRAY, UT 84117-7363
Page ls6
SMITH, LONDA F & DE LA CRUZ, 1070 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2402
ANA M ; JT
SNOW, JINNY LEE ; TR (JLS REV 4285 S PARKVIEW DR SALT LAKE C ITY , UT 84124-3446
TR}
STEELE, CHRISTOPHER & 1047 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84105-3421
WANG, CHANG H; JT
SUMSION, JOSEPH E & ANN H; 1039 E 1700 S SALT LAKE C ITY, UT 84105-3421
JT
THOMAS, FRANK L; TR 1044 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2412
TRAYNHAM, LEE E 818 N QUINCY ST A PT2 103 ARLINGTON, VA 22203-2086
WHITEHALL, LLC 3505 S LITTLE FARM L N SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109-3432
WINTERS, ALAN R & BRIDGETTE 1024 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2402
A; JT
WJM REAL ESTATE, LLC 1487 EARLINGTON DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-4427
WOODRU FF, A LYS IA 1 039 E LOGAN AVE SALT L AKE C ITY, UT 84105-2409
YORK FAMILY PARTNERSHIP , 2257S1100E SALT LAKE C ITY, UT 84106-2320
THE
Anna Anglin -Salt La ke City PO Bo x 145480 Salt Lake City , Utah 84114
Planning Division
Page I 57
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
WWW.SLC.GOV
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:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Community & Neighborhoods
________________________
SUBJECT: 2020 Six Year Plan and Roadway Selection Committee Presentation
STAFF CONTACT: Matt Cassel, PE, City Engineer, 801-535-6140
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: The information in the report should be helpful in upcoming
discussions regarding ongoing pavement conditions and projects in the City. City Council
has requested this report be provided once completed.
BUDGET IMPACT: The report is not a specific request for funds; however, Funding Our
Future Funding budgets are discussed within the context of the Six Year Plan.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The goal of the Six Year Plan is to:
•Review previous pavement projects and successes;
•Summarize the findings from the 2017 pavement condition report review pavement
condition ratings;
•Explore updated decision trees and suggested treatment types used for developing
scenarios;
•Update budget plan scenarios for various roadway type and construction methods;
•Provide project lists including those identified within the $87M Streets Bond which
comprise part of Funding our Future project scope; and,
•Make recommendations to address preservation methods and scenarios.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Not applicable.
EXHIBITS:
2020 Roadway Selection Committee Presentation
2020 OCI Analysis as Requested by Council Staff
2020 Engineering Six Year Plan Executive Summary
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486
March 22, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 23, 2021 12:44 MDT)
03/23/2021
03/23/2021
Roadway Selection
Committee
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Agenda
Welcome and explain purpose of RSC working group
Discuss and review upcoming CY 2021 FoF Bond Projects
Briefly discuss status of current Engineering Division allocationsfor the 2021 FY
Discuss Project Milestones List and revised Six Year Plan
2022/2023 FY plans -Discuss upcoming projects and synergies
Briefly discuss any budget considerations; impact fees and Class C
CY 2021 FoF Bond Projects
Street From To Status
300 West -Phase 1 900 South 2100 South 2 Year
900 East Hollywood Ave 2700 South
900 South -Phase 1 900 West Lincoln St 2 Year
100 South University 900 East
Local Streets Projects
Listed on Page 5
FoF Dashboard Website
Bond Funded Roadway Projects –Arterial and Collector Candidates
Arterial & Collector Reconstruction Candidates
Year Street From To Cost Impact Fee Total for Year
2020
500 East*1700 South 2100 South $1,500,000 $124,500
$4,800,0002000 East Parley's Way City Limit $1,300,000 $107,900
700 West 1600 South 2100 South $2,000,000 $150,600
2021
300 West -Phase 1 900 South 1300 South $8,650,000 $651,345
$16,250,000900 East Hollywood Ave 2700 South $2,600,000 $172,640
900 South 900 West Lincoln St.$2,000,000 $144,000
100 South University Ave 900 East $3,000,000 $282,000
2022 300 West -Phase 2 1300 South 2100 South $8,600,000 $651,345 $14,600,000200 South -Phase 1 400 West 900 East $6,000,000 $406,550
2023
1100 East / Highland Dr Ramona Ave Warnock Ave $2,900,000 $192,560
$14,400,0001100 East 900 South Ramona Ave $3,900,000 $232,400
200 South -Phase 2 400 West 900 East $6,000,000 $406,550
300 North 300 West 1000 West $1,600,000 $133,480
2024
Virginia St South Temple St 11th Ave $1,300,000 $122,200
$8,300,0001300 East 2100 South City Limit $3,000,000 $722,166
West Temple North Temple 400 South $4,000,000 $283,600
2025 1700 East 1700 South 2700 South $2,000,000 $132,800 $9,500,0002100 South 700 East 1700 East $7,500,000 $622,500
2026 900 West North Temple 600 North $2,800,000 $2,800,000
This plan will be revaluated annually based on funding and City priorities.
Total $70,650,000Change from previous year
Bond Funded Roadway Projects –2021 and 2022Local Street Reconstruction Candidates
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
2021
1900 E SUNNYSIDE AV 900 S $140,801
$3,269,305
200 N 400 W W TERMINUS END $180,606
ALTA ST 2ND AV 3RD AV $108,932
ALTA ST 3RD AV FEDERAL HEIGHTS DR $212,668
BLAINE AVE NEVADA ST FOOTHILL DR $514,874
CAMBRIDGE CIR (remove 2017 overlay)CAMBRIDGE WY N TERMINUS END $149,863
CAMBRIDGE WAY (change extents)CHANDLER DR TOMAHAWK DR $420,559
GREENWOOD TER 900 S SUNNYSIDE AV $105,601
FOLSOM AVE (added)900 W 1000 W $513,333
KENSINGTON AVE KEN REY ST 2100 E $385,770
L ST 7TH AV 8TH AV $155,347
L ST 9TH AV 10TH AV $149,095
M ST 3RD AV 4TH AV $163,352
NEVADA ST WILSON AV BLAINE AV $111,276
WALL ST COLUMBUS ST 400 N $107,091
2022
600 S (move to 2025)900 W 800 W $746,984
$3,342,173
800 W ARAPAHOE AV 600 S $191,476
800 W ARAPAHOE AV 700 S $218,109
900 S (remove -reconstructed in 2019)1100 E 1200 E $501,825
BRYAN AVE 800 E 900 E $310,153
INDUSTRIAL RD 2100 S ASSOCIATED AVE $401,643
JEFFERSON ST S TERMINUS END 1400 S $80,300
KENSINGTON AVE 800 E 900 E $308,933
LIBERTY AVE LAKE ST 800 E $81,454
PARAMOUNT AVE (ADDED)300 W TERMINUS $262,167
ROOSEVELT AVE 600 E 700 E $239,128
Bond Funded Roadway Projects –2023 and 2024
Local Street Reconstruction Candidates
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
2023
100 S 600 W 500 W $696,337
$3,218,677
1000 E ATKIN AV 2700 S $327,363
1700 E (ADDED)1300 S SHERMAN AVE $176,000
640 S IVERSON ST CONWAY CT $49,804
ASHTON AVE (remove)1100 E HIGHLAND DR $228,845
DALLIN ST COUNTRY CLUB DR STRINGHAM AV $371,763
GREGSON AVE 900 E LINCOLN ST $127,494
LINCOLN ST ELM AV 2100 S $244,435
MEADOW LN GREEN ST 700 E $61,644
PIERPONT AVE 400 W 300 W $182,269
RICHARDS ST 900 S 800 S $405,280
SIMPSON AVE (remove)1100 E HIGHLAND DR $164,211
UNIVERSITY ST 600 S 700 S $183,231
2024
18TH AVE LITTLE VALLEY RD TERRACE HILLS DR $156,924
$3,194,638
BONNEVIEW DR (ADDED)1500 E MICHIGAN AVE $305,250
COUNTRY CLUB CIR (ADDED)PARLEYS CANYON BLVD TERMINUS $133,833
DE SOTO ST GIRARD AV N TERMINUS END $317,145
DEVONSHIRE DR SUNSET OAKS DR LANCASTER DR $623,231
KENSINGTON AVE WASATCH DR INDIAN HILLS CIR $274,482
KRISTIANNA CIR VIRGINIA ST E CULD AC END $292,344
OQUIRRH DR OAK HILLS WY ST MARYS WY $581,727
PERRY AVE TRAFFIC -Y-SIGSBEE TRAF CIR $116,446
PERRY AVE VIRGINIA ST LAUREL ST $144,856
PERRYS HOLLOW RD TOMAHAWK DR NEW BONNEVILLE PL (PVT)$75,171
SIGSBEE AVE SIGSBEE TRAF CIR SIGSBEE TRAF CIR INCLUSIVE $112,534
WEST CAPITOL ST ZANE AV GIRARD AV $60,695
Bond Funded Roadway Projects –2025 and 2026
Local Street Reconstruction Candidates
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
2025
800 W (move to 2022 PU project)800 S 700 S $399,162
$2,220,335
800 W (move to 2022 PU project)900 S 800 S $423,512
EMILY CIR S TERMINUS END 800 N $48,876
GARNETTE CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST $65,516
GOODWIN CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST $54,420
GREEN ST (remove -recon complete)FULLER AVE (private)500 S $146,682
IRVING ST S CULDESAC END 800 N $96,787
NEBULA WAY W TERMINUS END SILVER STAR DR $70,430
PARK ST BROWNING AV SHERMAN AV $222,546
PRINCETON AVE 1100 E DOUGLAS ST $389,756
REDONDO AVE 600 E 700 E $210,658
VAN NESS PL 400 E E TERMINUS END $91,990
2026 1100 W HAYES AVE AMERICAN AVE $200,000 $200,000
•*If there are extra funds from 2025, funds will be applied to Ashton and Simpson from 2023
FoF Project Milestones
Revised Six Year Plan
(will be provided for
internal review prior
to RSC meeting)
Short Discussion
of Current
Estimated OCI
Distribution
Overall
Condition
Index (OCI)
Range
Condition
Description
Initial Percentage
of Network (2017)
Estimated
Percentage of
Network
(Current)
Legend
86 - 100 Good 1.60%5.12%
71 - 85 Satisfactory 8.89%6.70%
56 - 70 Fair 25.84%9.32%
41 - 55 Poor 36.61%22.70%
26 - 40 Very Poor 21.31%26.30%
11 - 25 Serious 5.41%20.00%
0 - 10 Failed 0.34%8.83%
Total 100.00%100.00%
OCI Distribution updated
November 2020
The table above presents the OCI distribution shift from 2017 to
current estimates. The overall network estimates illustrates an
overall shift of many roadway segments from the Fair category to
the Poor category and from the Poor category and Very Poor
category to the serious category. These are estimates, however,
and when the roadway survey is performed again in 2021, these
numbers can be fine-tuned.
Discuss Subcommittee Synergies –6-Year Outlook
Roadway Selection
Committee
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
2021
OCI Range Description All Local Arterial/Collector
0-10 Failed 8.96 10.8 2.52
11-25 Serious 20.7 22.3 14.9
26-40 Very Poor 26.5 27.2 24
41-55 Poor 21.2 21.4 20.5
56-70 Fair 9.22 7.76 14.4
71-85 Satisfactory 6.6 5.58 10.2
86-100 Good 5.78 3.65 13.3
2017
OCI Range Description All Local Arterial/Collector
0-10 Failed 0.947 1.22 0
11-25 Serious 10.6 12.1 5.15
26-40 Very Poor 23 24.3 18.8
41-55 Poor 36.7 37.7 33.2
56-70 Fair 14.2 13.2 17.9
71-85 Satisfactory 8.88 6.95 15.7
86-100 Good 4.93 3.74 9.1
Percentage of Network
Percentage of Network
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Failed
Serious
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Satisfactory
Good
2021 Distribution
Arterial/Collector Local All
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Failed
Serious
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Satisfactory
Good
2017 Distribution
Arterial/Collector Local All
Engineering Six-Year Pavement Plan
2020
Proposal for Street Reconstruction and
Pavement Preservation
Engineering Division
Community and Neighborhoods
Salt Lake City Corporation
December 2020
Page | 2
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 3
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Past Pavement Projects ................................................................................................................................ 5
2016 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2017 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2018 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2019 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Pavement Condition Report Summary ......................................................................................................... 6
Decision Trees and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 8
Updated Decision Tree .............................................................................................................................. 9
Remaining Service Life ................................................................................................................................ 10
Project Prioritization ................................................................................................................................... 11
Maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction ......................................................................................................... 13
Review - Asphalt Pavement Management and Maintenance Strategies ................................................... 14
Pothole Filling.......................................................................................................................................... 14
Patching and Crack Sealing ..................................................................................................................... 14
Slurry Seal and Chip Seal Surface Treatments ........................................................................................ 15
Asphalt Pavement Mill and Overlay ........................................................................................................ 15
Pavement Reconstruction ....................................................................................................................... 15
Project Plan and Budget Methodology ....................................................................................................... 16
Budget Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Project Breakout ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................................. 18
Reconstruction Plan Map- .......................................................................................................................... 19
Current Proposed Streets Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................. 20
Proposed Street Listing by Year and Reconstruction Type ..................................................................... 21
Appendix A: Descriptions and Photos of Pavement Condition Classifications ........................................... 32
Overall Pavement Condition (OCI) Ratings Examples ...................................................................... 32
Appendix B: Descriptions and Photos of Pavement Activities .................................................................... 36
December 2020
Page | 3
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Laser Profiler and Van Survey Equipment .................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 - Sample Preservation and Maintenance Tree ................................................................................ 9
Figure 3- Optimal Pavement Treatment Timing ......................................................................................... 11
Figure 4 – Preferred Asphalt Pavement Maintenance Strategy ................................................................. 12
Figure 5 - Fund Distribution Scenario ......................................................................................................... 17
List of Tables
Table 1 - Overall Condition Percentages from the 2017 inspection ............................................................. 7
Table 2 – Current Overall Condition Percentage Estimates.......................................................................... 7
Table 3 - OCI Condition Distribution, Initial to Current ................................................................................. 8
Table 4 – OCI Maintenance Method Framework........................................................................................ 14
December 2020
Page | 4
Executive Summary
Salt Lake City’s transportation network includes 1830 lane miles of Class C streets. Class C streets
are maintained by the City. Engineering is also currently surveying the extensive alleyway
network throughout the City which include a vast network of public and privately-owned
alleyways. The inventory will be complete in the latter portion of this year. These streets are a
mix of asphalt, concrete, and unsurfaced pavement types. The network of streets is further
classified as Local/Residential streets (Local) and Arterial/Collector (Arterial) streets.
The City’s pavement assets are subdivided into administrative segments units comprising the
City-wide network. A segment is a measurable portion of the roadway used for the analysis. The
segments provide a means of tracking asset condition and work within the Cartegraph asset
management system.
This plan’s first iteration was produced in 2019. The 2020 plan will include updates to several
areas including updating project lists: highlighting new strategies for pavement maintenance;
providing an updated flowchart for decision making; and revising current ideas for prioritizing
pavement management scenarios.
Management of a well-maintained street system requires a balanced program of pavement
maintenance and preservation strategies. The objective of the ongoing six-year pavement
management plan is to extend the functional life of the City’s street network to the highest
degree possible with available funds. This is accomplished through periodic pavement surface
treatments (preservation and maintenance techniques) and major rehabilitation or
reconstruction at appropriate times in the pavement life cycle. In summary, the goal of this
management plan is to:
• Review previous pavement projects and successes;
• Summarize the findings from the 2017 pavement condition report review pavement
condition ratings;
• Explore updated decision trees and suggested treatment types used for developing
scenarios;
• Update budget plan scenarios for various roadway type and construction methods;
• Provide project lists including those identified within the $87M Streets Bond which
comprise part of Funding our Future project scope; and,
• Make recommendations to address preservation methods and scenarios.
Responsibilities
Engineering partners with the Transportation Division on the planning, design, reconstruction
and day-to-day operations of the street and trail transportation system. The Streets Division,
who are part of the Public Services Department, provide for the maintenance of the roadways
through filling potholes, applying necessary preservation treatments, street sweeping and winter
operational activities on City pavement assets.
December 2020
Page | 5
Past Pavement Projects
The following is a list, by year, of pavement reconstruction projects completed by Salt Lake City
Engineering. The funding over the past four years has allowed for reconstruction of 43 lane
miles of roadway. A lane mile is a measurement of pavement area. It is calculated by multiplying
the length of a road segment by lane width(s).
The list of these projects follows:
2016
Street From To Treatment Type
1300 South (phase 2) 400 West 500 West Concrete Reconstruction
Rose Park Ln. 2000 North 2200 North Concrete Reconstruction
Regent St. 100 South 200 South Concrete Reconstruction
Sunnyside Dr. Guardsman Way Foothill Dr. Asphalt Reconstruction
2017
Street From To Treatment Type
900 West 400 South 950 South 3” Asphalt Overlay
900 West North Temple 400 South 3” Asphalt Overlay
Berkeley St. 2100 South Wilmington Ave Concrete Reconstruction
Normandie Cir. Harvard Ave. Terminus Concrete Reconstruction
900 South/Indiana Ave. Surplus Canal 3600 West Concrete Reconstruction
East Capitol Blvd. 500 North Ensign Vista Dr. 3” Asphalt Overlay
2018
Street From To Treatment Type
S Gladiola St. 500 South 900 South Concrete Reconstruction
2100 East 1700 South 2100 South 3” Asphalt Overlay
1500 East 900 South 1300 South 3” Asphalt Overlay
1200 East 600 South 800 South Asphalt Reconstruction
Simpson Ave. Wyoming St. Broadmoor St. Concrete Reconstruction
Wilmington Ave. Highland Dr. 1300 East Concrete Reconstruction
Wilmington Ave. 2000 East 2100 East Concrete Reconstruction
2019
Street From To Treatment Type
1700 South 1700 East 1900 East Concrete Reconstruction
2500 East Foothill Drive 2100 South Concrete Reconstruction
Downington Avenue 2500 East Foothill Drive Concrete Reconstruction
2700 South Highland Drive 1930 East Asphalt Reconstruction
1000 West 700 South 800 South Concrete Reconstruction
Post Street 700 South 800 South Concrete Reconstruction
900 South 950 East 1300 East Concrete Reconstruction
December 2020
Page | 6
Pavement Condition Report Summary
A pavement condition report was funded by Salt Lake City Council and Administration in 2016
and completed in 2017. The next pavement survey is scheduled to be completed in 2022. The
pavement condition survey employed a set of tools to rate existing pavement surface conditions
for each roadway segment.
All Class C roadways were analyzed using a series of instruments which include images of all
roadway segments. Pavement distress type, distress extent, and distress severity were quantified
from these images. A pavement condition index (PCI) was assigned to each roadway segment.
International Roughness Index (IRI) values were also collected along the survey segments, as
part of the analysis, utilizing a laser profiler.
Figure 1 - Laser Profiler and Van Survey Equipment
IRI indexes were obtained from measured longitudinal road profiles and provides a driver’s
perspective to the bumpiness and roughness of the ride.
The overall condition index (OCI) is calculated using the PCI and IRI values. This survey project
used pavement management software for calculating the PCI and OCI value, as well as analyzing
the network PCI and OCI ranges. An Overall Condition Index (OCI) was applied to all City-
maintained roadway segments. The OCI measure is a classification of the overall pavement
condition, on a scale of 0-100 with the highest numbers representing the best roadway
segments in the City. The results of the survey are presented below. In summary, the City
roadway network average, as of 2017, was rated as poor (48 OCI). This figure was obtained by
averaging all street segments, regardless of type and length to obtain an overall network
average.
December 2020
Page | 7
Table 1 - Overall Condition Percentages from the 2017 inspection
Overall
Condition Index
(OCI) Range
Condition
Description
Percentage
of Network Legend
86 - 100 Good 1.60%
71 - 85 Satisfactory 8.89%
56 - 70 Fair 25.84%
41 - 55 Poor 36.61%
26 - 40 Very Poor 21.31%
11 - 25 Serious 5.41%
0 - 10 Failed 0.34%
Total 100.00%
The survey and report are available on the Funding Our Future website here. The survey
summary states that approximately 63% of the roadway segments within the City are rated in
the poor or worse classifications. As the table depicts, more than half of local streets, arterials
and collectors, in 2017, are no longer candidates for preservation or rehabilitation treatments.
Many pavement segments have deteriorated below a level where preservation methods are
effective. Most are candidates for reconstruction.
Salt Lake City Engineering newest estimates of pavement OCI are presented in Table 2. Methods
developed by Engineering staff and implemented within Cartegraph provide up to date
estimates of OCI. These estimates account for preservation, maintenance and reconstruction
work conducted after the conclusion of the 2017 survey
Table 2 – Current Overall Condition Percentage Estimates
Overall
Condition Index
(OCI) Range
Condition
Description
Percentage
of Network Legend
86 - 100 Good 5.27%
71 - 85 Satisfactory 7.28%
56 - 70 Fair 8.89%
41 - 55 Poor 26.8%
26 - 40 Very Poor 25.0%
11 - 25 Serious 18.8%
0 - 10 Failed 7.69%
Total 100.00%
December 2020
Page | 8
Table 3 - OCI Condition Distribution, Initial to Current
Table 3 (updated November 2020) above presents the OCI distribution shift from 2017 to the
current estimates. The overall network estimate illustrates an overall shift of many roadway
segments from the Fair category to the Poor category and from the Poor and Very Poor
category to the Serious category. These are estimates, however, and when the roadway survey is
performed again in 2021 1, these numbers can be fine-tuned. The following section explains
approaches to making decisions given the current conditions of the roadway network.
Decision Trees and Recommendations
Decision trees are a helpful mechanism to determine strategies for roadway maintenance on an
overall street network scale. The Overall Condition Rating (OCI), previously mentioned, is a good
guide, but final decisions and prioritizations should be done with human interaction, field
verification, and sound engineering judgement.
The following chart is a refined decision tree used to determine the preservation and
maintenance methods meant to be used alongside the Overall Condition Rating results.
Engineering will create a decision tree, in cooperation with Streets, specific to Salt Lake City.
1 After the 2020 Roadway Selection Committee, the decision to move the pavement survey to 2021 was decided.
Overall
Condition
Index (OCI)
Range
Condition
Description
Initial Percentage
of Network (2017)
Estimated
Percentage of
Network
(Current)
Legend
86 - 100 Good 1.60%5.12%
71 - 85 Satisfactory 8.89%6.70%
56 - 70 Fair 25.84%9.32%
41 - 55 Poor 36.61%22.70%
26 - 40 Very Poor 21.31%26.30%
11 - 25 Serious 5.41%20.00%
0 - 10 Failed 0.34%8.83%
Total 100.00%100.00%
December 2020
Page | 9
Updated Decision Tree
Figure 2 - Sample Preservation and Maintenance Tree
December 2020
Page | 10
Remaining Service Life
Remaining Service Life (RSL) is another strategy the Engineering Division is evaluating as a
measure of pavement maintenance and preservation. RSL is defined as the anticipated number
of years that a pavement can remain structurally and functionally sound with expected
scheduled maintenance. Ideally the service life proceeds in the following manner:
• The service life begins when the pavement has been constructed or reconstructed;
• Preservation techniques should be employed within the following two years to provide
the new pavement surface with adequate protection;
• Next, rehabilitation treatments must be applied before the roadway has suffered too
much damage. Therefore, the timing of rehabilitation techniques is crucial to make the
properly leverage funding;
• Pavement segments in advanced states of degradation require reconstruction in order to
restart the service life clock. Pavement in deteriorated condition are not suitable
candidates for maintenance activities. Moreover, maintenance of deteriorated pavement
is an inefficient use of funds and these activities are best used elsewhere.
Determining the optimal threshold for treatments is the key strategy to preserving and
rehabilitating pavement assets. Those thresholds are set to correspond to the ideal conditions
for preservation and maintenance activities while the life-cycle cost is within an optimal cost
range. The graph below depicts the concept of applying the proper treatment at the proper time
within the pavement’s life cycle.
December 2020
Page | 11
Figure 3- Optimal Pavement Treatment Timing
Two of the key components to an effective pavement management plan is to recognize the
optimal timing for treatments and establishing acceptable thresholds for roadway performance.
A balanced perspective of observing OCI, understanding the remaining service life, and knowing
when the last maintenance activity occurred is fundamental to maintaining optimal pavement
network health.
The use of Cartegraph by Streets and Engineering has led to further collaboration and alignment
of preservation, rehabilitation, maintenance and construction activities. Using a balanced view of
RSL and OCI to establishes a framework and will continue to refine our processes. Cartegraph
will be used to track the asset condition and Engineering, in cooperation with Streets, will plan
work accordingly. This is explained in further detail in the Project Prioritization section below.
Project Prioritization
Maintenance
The Streets Division began utilizing Cartegraph in 2019 to capture and plan streets maintenance
activities. The Engineering Division and the Streets Division interact cooperatively to develop a
3-year fiscal plan for maintenance. The flow chart in Figure 2 provides the framework for the
segment selection and Cartegraph is used to document and plan work. The schedule for
maintenance roughly follows:
December 2020
Page | 12
• A slurry seal is applied 2 years after a roadway reconstruction as a general maintenance
strategy. As mentioned above, this provides a roadway section with protective sealant
preventing oxidation and moisture intrusion.
• Another round of slurry seal is applied within 7 years of reconstruction or when the OCI
is estimated to be within 75-85. Spot patching or pothole repair might also be required
during this time. If there is minor cracking, crack-sealing can be utilized to prevent
infiltration of water.
• Once the segment has deteriorated or when the OCI is estimated to be within 56-74, or
if there are potholes in more than 10% of the roadway surface, a preliminary crack-seal
is applied. Specific areas can be patched and filled to level the adjoining areas of
deterioration, then the segment receives a chip-seal. Highly deteriorated sections may
require a thin 1” overlay to further extend the roadway surface. A deeper overlay of 3”
may be required for roadway surfaces which are significantly rutted but are still within
this OCI range. Per the State Code, overlays of 2” or less in thickness are considered a
maintenance activity while overlays over 2” are considered a construction project.
• Additional maintenance considerations:
o Areas unusually impacted by traffic loads or construction may receive inlays to
keep them passable until reconstruction funds are available.
o Chip seal is sometimes used on poorer roads to keep them pothole free.
o In-lays are also used to smooth out rutted roads caused by heavy traffic.
Figure 4 represents the preferred asphalt maintenance strategy with attention to best practices
relating to properly timed treatments and ideal service life thresholds.
Figure 4 – Preferred Asphalt Pavement Maintenance Strategy
December 2020
Page | 13
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
The Engineering Division partnered with the Streets Division, Transportation Division, Public
Utilities Department, and the Redevelopment Agency to produce a sound project prioritization
plan. While primarily a pavement plan focused on street reconstruction needs, Engineering seeks
input from many other affected groups to achieve more inclusive project prioritization results.
Maintenance is a critical aspect of ensuring pavement longevity, therefore, this plan also
includes recommendations for maintenance activities.
This plan helps collaborate efforts with Public Utilities and other private utility companies as they
determine their utility needs. With a moratorium of 7 years on excavation within newly
constructed streets, and 3 years on repaved (overlaid) streets, it is critical that projects are
planned and prioritized with consideration of planned future utility improvements.
Engineering’s goal is to improve overall condition of the roadway network to a Fair condition
(minimum average OCI of 55 or greater).
In addition to the decision tree noted above, Engineering uses the general OCI guidelines and
observes threshold timing in the service life to help provide a simple framework to help guide
rehabilitation and reconstruction activities.
December 2020
Page | 14
Table 4 – OCI Maintenance Method Framework
Overall
Condition Index
(OCI) Range
Condition
Description Method Legend
86 - 100 Good
Do Nothing or Slurry Seal
in First Two Years
75 - 85 Satisfactory Patch or Crack Seal
56 - 74 Fair Slurry or Chip Seal
40- 55 Poor Rehabilitate (Overlay)
26 - 39 Very Poor Reconstruct
11 - 25 Serious Reconstruct
0 - 10 Failed Reconstruct
Visual examples of pavement conditions are included in Appendix A.
Review - Asphalt Pavement Management and Maintenance Strategies
A brief review of pavement management strategies is presented below as guidance of
techniques employed by the City’s Divisions. Pavement maintenance strategies are
accomplished through the Streets Division. Asphalt overlay and reconstruction projects are
funded by the City’s Capital Improvement Program and administered by the Engineering
Division.
Pothole Filling
This is an emergency type repair to fill holes in existing deteriorated roadways. Quality
construction, timely maintenance activities, and proper utility cut restorations, are all
components that significantly reduce the frequency of pothole repairs.
Patching and Crack Sealing
These maintenance strategies address specific distresses in the roadway surface. Localized
patching addresses significant defects in the pavement surface. Crack sealing places specialized
materials into asphalt pavement cracks to prevent infiltration of water. These repair types are
generally followed by a roadway surface treatment within two years to provide a cost-effective
program of roadway preservation.
Preventative
Maintenance
Preservation
Rehabilitation
Reconstruction
December 2020
Page | 15
Slurry Seal and Chip Seal Surface Treatments
Slurry seals and chip seals are thin surface treatments applied to the entire pavement surface of
a roadway section to prevent oxidation and moisture intrusion. Slurry seals are applied to
streets that are in good condition, and chip seals are applied to streets that have deteriorated to
a satisfactory condition rating. Both treatments extend the pavement life and improve long-
term performance.
Asphalt Pavement Mill and Overlay
Asphalt mill and overlay projects remove the top 1” to 3” of the existing pavement and replace it
with a new asphalt overlay, which adds structural strength to the existing pavement. This
pavement maintenance strategy is generally applied to roadways that have a poor condition
rating. In accordance with City’s commitment to the elimination of pedestrian barriers in the
public way, ADA accessibility ramps are installed in conjunction with all overlay projects. Curb
and gutter are also evaluated, and appropriate repairs are included in the overlay project to
enhance safety and alleviate drainage problems. Per the State Code, overlays of 2” or less in
thickness are considered a maintenance activity while overlays over 2” are considered a
construction project. A 3” mill and overlay is advised for road which have deteriorated to a range
of an OCI of 40-55. This is typically the bottom limit of refurbishment and per the State Code, is
not considered a maintenance activity. The Streets Division coordinates with the Engineering
Division when segments have deteriorated to this level. Spot activities can occur to preserve a
segment or area along these routes, but overlays are required to rebuild substructures to
prevent further degradation.
Pavement Reconstruction
Roadway pavements that have exceeded their functional life are designated for reconstruction
through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Pavement reconstruction projects involve
removal of the deteriorated roadway section and replacement with a new roadway structural
system using new or recycled materials. Reconstruction projects address all necessary street
repairs, including roadway base materials, asphalt or concrete pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, accessibility ramps, and drainage improvements.
To maximize our investment in road reconstruction, maintenance should be funded at a level
that prevents further degradation, increase remaining service life, and delays the need for
reconstruction. The most efficient maintenance strategy is to keep good roads in good
condition. With proper and timely application of surface treatments on new roads, it is feasible
that the pavement can be kept in good condition for a very long time – 25 to 35 years or longer.
The current range of pavement conditions requires careful planning to select the best pavement
treatment options.
As a comparison, for the cost of every lane mile that is reconstructed, roughly 50 miles can
receive a surface treatment. Street maintenance is closely coordinated between the Engineering
and Streets divisions utilizing the Cartegraph asset management system.
December 2020
Page | 16
Project Plan and Budget Methodology
From the data collected, Engineering developed a six-year project list. This plan provides a
framework for planning and budgeting purposes with the goal of improving pavement
condition to a fair condition network wide. The plan, discussed in detail below, identifies and
prioritizes the following:
• Selecting roadway reconstruction candidates
• Selecting roadway rehabilitation candidates
• Ranking candidates according to needs as identified by other City divisions
• Specifying roadway treatments to be performed by the Streets Division
• Developing an annual budget framework for decision-makers and stakeholders
Engineering created a proposed project list, as a first step in the planning process. The list
utilized OCI data to identify the worst local/residential 200 roadway segments in the City.
Engineering developed an in-house geospatial application to curate the list of 200
local/residential street segments. This application allowed other divisions and departments to
rank, by degree of importance, these street segments. This refined list was combined with some
of the worst arterial/collector roadway segments previously identified in a combined effort
between Engineering, Streets, Public Utilities, and Transportation Divisions. The arterial/collector
list includes some roadway segments that do not meet the “worst” criteria as determined by
OCI. Instead, these segments met other critical needs as identified by other departments.
In addition, a subset of roadway candidates falling into a middle classification having an OCI of
50 to 51 was selected. This group comprises a list of roadways qualified to receive a mill/overlay
rehabilitation.
Budget Strategy
Engineering in consultation and agreement with Transportation recommends that the funding
sources for street reconstruction and overlays be distributed 80% for arterials/collectors and
20% for local streets. For the purposes of planning, the Engineering Division adopted this
hierarchy as an approach to budgeting for future pavement construction. Salt Lake City Council
agreed with this recommendation and supported the expenditure of street Bond funds in this
way. Support for prioritizing arterials and collectors in this hierarchy follows:
• These are the primary emergency response routes to hospitals and snow removal routes
and should be maintained at the highest level possible.
• Greatest value for the $/mile – though the average cost to reconstruct an
arterial/collector street is higher than a local street, a much larger segment of the
community will benefit from the upgraded arterial/collector street. Most everyone in the
community uses the arterial/collector streets on a daily basis whereas each local street
serves a smaller segment of the community.
• Local roads have much less Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT of less than 2,000) versus
arterial/collector streets (AADT of 5,000 – 15,000). The slower posted speeds and shorter
December 2020
Page | 17
travel distances makes it much easier for drivers on local streets to tolerate pavement
distresses such as potholes.
• Inclusion of the Transit Master Plan priorities, such as enhanced bus corridors, occurs
along arterial and collector routes such as 200 S.
• Economic activity, movement of people, goods and services rely on a well-maintained
transportation network with arterials and collectors as its core that connects population
hubs and council districts.
Based on the issuance of $87 million in bonds over the next six years along with $3.0 million of
Class C funds received each year ($18 million over 6 years), the 80/20 breakout is shown below.
Figure 5 - Fund Distribution Scenario
The capital budget plan does not include City-wide roadway maintenance, which is funded
through other programs.
Engineering also recommends continuing to fund the pavement condition survey every 5 years.
A regular census of pavement condition provides detailed information from an independent
source, allowing for Engineering to calibrate Cartegraph OCI estimates. The time period of five
years balances the desire to regularly collect data on pavement condition with budgetary
constraints. We will also reevaluate this plan annually based on funding received and new
priorities.
Project Breakout
The following pages detail the planned project lists for the next six years. Items on this list
include funding from the $87 million Bond issuance and $18 million Class C funds. The project
priorities for these projects are listed below:
December 2020
Page | 18
• Worst First
o Data driven
o Based on OCI from pavement condition survey
• Transportation Priorities
o Safety needs
o Multimodal and Complete Streets needs
• Public Utilities Priorities
o Curb/Gutter/Storm Drain study
o Impacts to Public Utility project budgets
o East West Aqueduct alignment
• Overlap with Current Plan where Available
o Impact fees, capital facility plans
o 9-line plans
o The list does not include provisions for new roads in Northwest Quadrant
It should be noted that this list is only a current snapshot in time of the priorities at the time of
the revision of this document. Roadways do not deteriorate at the same pace due to many
competing factors. As mentioned, Engineering expects to revisit this list, and the priorities,
annually during the Roadway Selection Committee to insure the current needs of the City are
being addressed.
Plan Implementation
As the plan is executed, Engineering acknowledges that there are variables affecting the actual
cost of projects. The following will help staff manage the expected differences between the
actual project costs versus staff’s estimated costs:
• Every fall, staff will revisit the plan with the Roadway Selection Committee. Based on the
past summers actual cost of construction, adjustments to the plan will be made adding
or deleting projects as necessary. In addition, another year of projects will be added to
the plan, so it remains a 6 year look ahead.
• The current plan shows an estimated $100 million to be spent. The Bond and Class C
funds total $109 million. The $5 million contingency will be managed as follows:
o If staff finds that final project costs exceed the estimated budgets, the
contingency funds will be used to cover the overruns;
o Once the contingency funds are spent, projects will need to be removed from the
plan;
o If final project costs are coming in lower than the estimated budget, staff will be
adding projects to the list;
o At the end of the six-years, all $87 million plus earned interest of the bond funds
will be spent.
December 2020
Page | 19
Reconstruction Plan Map- link to map here
December 2020
Page | 20
Current Proposed Streets Maintenance Plan link to map here
December 2020
Page | 21
Proposed Street Listing by Year and Reconstruction Type
This page intentionally left blank.
Year Street From To Cost Impact Fee Total for Year
500 East*1700 South 2100 South $1,500,000 $124,500
2000 East Parley's Way City Limit $1,300,000 $107,900
700 West 1600 South 2100 South $2,000,000 $150,600
300 West - Phase 1 900 South 1300 South $8,650,000 $651,345
900 East*Hollywood Ave 2700 South $2,600,000 $172,640
900 South 900 West 900 East $2,000,000 $144,000
100 South University St 900 East $3,000,000 $282,000
300 West - Phase 2 1300 South 2100 South $8,600,000 $651,345
200 South - Phase 1 400 West 900 East $6,000,000 $406,550
200 South - Phase 2 400 West 900 East $6,000,000 $406,550
1100 East / Highland Dr Ramona Ave Warnock Ave $2,900,000 $192,560
1100 East 900 South Ramona Ave $3,900,000 $232,400
300 North 300 West 1000 West $1,600,000 $133,480
Virginia St South Temple St 11th Ave $1,300,000 $122,200
1300 East**2100 South City Limit $3,000,000 $722,166
West Temple North Temple 400 South $4,000,000 $283,600
1700 East 1700 South 2700 South $2,000,000 $132,800
2100 South 700 East 1700 East $7,500,000 $622,500
2026 900 West***North Temple 600 North $2,800,000 $2,800,000
This plan will be revaluated annually based on funding and City priorities.
*Coordinate with Public Utilities
**1300 East (2100 South to City Limit) is receiving federal funding.
***Dependent on funding and City priorities
2022 $14,600,000
Arterial & Collector Reconstruction Candidates
2020 $4,800,000
2021 $16,250,000
2023 $14,400,000
2024 $8,300,000
$70,650,000
2025 $9,500,000
Total
Page 22
Year Street From To Impact Fee Cost Total for Year
1700 North 2200 West I-215 Overpass -$ $202,600
2200 West 470 North 600 North -$ $323,960
11th Ave Terrace Hills Dr Virginia St -$ $385,760
200 East 200 South 400 South -$ $490,960
300 South West Temple St Main St -$ $91,160
400 East 200 South 400 South -$ $434,680
600 East 200 South 400 South -$ $321,240
800 South 600 West 500 West -$ $197,320
900 East 200 South 500 South -$ $628,400
1700 South 1100 East 1200 East -$ $143,640
Amelia Earhart Dr 5600 West Admiral Byrd Rd -$ $184,200
Harold Gatty Dr Challenger Rd Wright Brothers Dr -$ $251,600
Main St 2100 South Hartwell Ave -$ $219,160
200 West 600 South 500 South -$ $137,120
2100 South 200 East 500 East -$ $416,560
2100 South 3480 West 3730 West -$ $282,400
Emigration Canyon Rd Rotary Glen Park City Limit -$ $473,080
200 South 1500 West Navajo St -$ $306,120
200 South 500 West 400 West -$ $328,320
400 South 1000 West 900 West -$ $206,680
700 East South Temple St 100 South -$ $331,040
400 West 400 North 500 North -$ $220,080
500 South 500 East 600 East -$ $303,880
900 West 400 North 500 North -$ $123,120
900 East 900 South 800 South -$ $194,520
1300 South 600 East 700 East -$ $174,200
2100 South 2100 East Berkley St -$ $244,160
This plan will be revaluated annually based on funding and City priorities.
Arterial & Collector Overlay Candidates
Total $7,615,960
2020
2021
2022
2024
$526,560
$2,693,160
$1,491,040
$1,259,960
2023 $1,645,240
Page 23
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
500 N JORDAN RIVER REDWOOD RD $186,274
ARIES CIR CULDESAC END NEW STAR DR $193,975
BRIARCLIFF AVE AMERICAN BEAUTY DR AUTUMN AV $147,286
COATSVILLE AVE 800 E 900 E $251,049
DUPONT AVE CAPISTRANO DR AMERICAN BEAUTY DR $209,736
DUPONT AVE CAROUSEL ST 1500 W $229,937
ELIZABETH ST CRYSTAL AV STRATFORD AV $122,209
ELIZABETH ST STRATFORD AV WHITLOCK AV $132,387
HASLAM CIR CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST $75,267
KENSINGTON AVE 1400 E 1500 E $223,691
PARKWAY AVE ELIZABETH ST HIGHLAND DR $121,678
RAMONA AVE 900 E LINCOLN ST $86,240
RAMONA AVE LINCOLN ST 1000 E $133,535
TALISMAN DR 800 N 1200 W $288,113
TALISMAN DR CULDESAC END CORNELL ST $139,477
ZENITH AVE 800 E 900 E $253,329
Local Street Reconstruction Candidates
2020 $2,794,181
Page 24
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
Local Street Reconstruction Candidates
1900 E SUNNYSIDE AV 900 S $140,801
200 N 400 W W TERMINUS END $180,606
ALTA ST 2ND AV 3RD AV $108,932
ALTA ST 3RD AV FEDERAL HEIGHTS DR $212,668
BLAINE AVE NEVADA ST FOOTHILL DR $514,874
CAMBRIDGE WAY CHANDLER DRIVE TOMAHAWK DR $420,559
GREENWOOD TER 900 S SUNNYSIDE AV $105,601
FOLSOM AVE 900 W 1000 W $513,333
KENSINGTON AVE KEN REY ST 2100 E $385,770
L ST 7TH AV 8TH AV $155,347
L ST 9TH AV 10TH AV $149,095
M ST 3RD AV 4TH AV $163,352
NEVADA ST WILSON AV BLAINE AV $111,276
WALL ST COLUMBUS ST 400 N $107,091
2021 $3,269,305
Page 25
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
Local Street Reconstruction Candidates
800 W ARAPAHOE AV 600 S $191,476
800 W ARAPAHOE AV 700 S $218,109
800 W 700 S 800 S $423,512
800 W 800 S 900 S $399,162
BRYAN AVE 800 E 900 E $310,153
INDUSTRIAL RD 2100 S ASSOCIATED AVE $401,643
JEFFERSON ST S TERMINUS END 1400 S $80,300
KENSINGTON AVE 800 E 900 E $308,933
LIBERTY AVE LAKE ST 800 E $81,454
PARAMOUNT AVE 300 W TERMINUS $262,167
ROOSEVELT AVE 600 E 700 E $239,128
100 S 600 W 500 W $696,337
1000 E ATKIN AV 2700 S $327,363
1700 E 1300 S SHERMAN AVE $176,000
640 S IVERSON ST CONWAY CT $49,804
DALLIN ST COUNTRY CLUB DR STRINGHAM AV $371,763
GREGSON AVE 900 E LINCOLN ST $127,494
LINCOLN ST ELM AV 2100 S $244,435
MEADOW LN GREEN ST 700 E $61,644
PIERPONT AVE 400 W 300 W $182,269
RICHARDS ST 900 S 800 S $405,280
UNIVERSITY ST 600 S 700 S $183,231
2022 $2,916,038
2023 $2,825,621
Page 26
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
Local Street Reconstruction Candidates
18TH AVE LITTLE VALLEY RD TERRACE HILLS DR $156,924
BONNEVIEW DR 1500 E MICHIGAN AVE $305,250
COUNTRY CLUB CIR PARLEYS CANYON BLVD TERMINUS $133,833
DE SOTO ST GIRARD AV N TERMINUS END $317,145
DEVONSHIRE DR SUNSET OAKS DR LANCASTER DR $623,231
KENSINGTON AVE WASATCH DR INDIAN HILLS CIR $274,482
KRISTIANNA CIR VIRGINIA ST E CULD AC END $292,344
OQUIRRH DR OAK HILLS WY ST MARYS WY $581,727
PERRY AVE TRAFFIC -Y-SIGSBEE TRAF CIR $116,446
PERRY AVE VIRGINIA ST LAUREL ST $144,856
PERRYS HOLLOW RD TOMAHAWK DR NEW BONNEVILLE PL (PVT)$75,171
SIGSBEE AVE SIGSBEE TRAF CIR SIGSBEE TRAF CIR INCLUSIVE $112,534
WEST CAPITOL ST ZANE AV GIRARD AV $60,695
600 S 900 W 800 W $746,984
EMILY CIR S TERMINUS END 800 N $48,876
GARNETTE CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST $65,516
GOODWIN CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST $54,420
IRVING ST S CULDESAC END 800 N $96,787
NEBULA WAY W TERMINUS END SILVER STAR DR $70,430
PARK ST BROWNING AV SHERMAN AV $222,546
PRINCETON AVE 1100 E DOUGLAS ST $389,756
REDONDO AVE 600 E 700 E $210,658
VAN NESS PL 400 E E TERMINUS END $91,990
2026 1100 W HAYES AVE AMERICAN AVE $200,000 $200,000
This plan will be revaluated annually based on funding and City priorities.
$1,997,963
Total $17,197,747
2024 $3,194,638
2025
Page 27
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
12th Ave J St K St $55,680
1300 East Frontage Rd Stratford Ave 1300 East $68,240
1400 East 3000 South Hudson Ave $42,320
1900 East Parleys Canyon Blvd Wilmington Ave $96,760
5th Ave C St E St $131,680
6th Ave D St E St $70,120
800 West 100 South South Temple St $158,400
800 West Paxton Ave California Ave $124,200
8th Ave E St G St $134,480
Beverly St Claybourne Ave 2700 South $58,280
C St 7th Ave 9th Ave $135,520
Crandall Ave 1400 East 1500 East $98,680
Driggs Ave Highland Dr 1300 East $116,120
Glenmare St 2700 South Stratford Ave $161,280
J St 13th Ave Northcrest Dr $13,920
Jeremy St 600 South 500 South $119,920
Lynwood Dr 2500 East Parleys Way $113,600
Mary Dott Way Melbourne St Preston St $91,480
1200 East Gilmer Dr 900 South $50,960
1400 East 1700 South Kensington Ave $147,640
1600 East Bryan Ave Emerson Ave $130,520
1600 East Harrison Ave Sherman Ave $34,440
800 East Harrison Ave 1300 South $95,920
Belmont Ave 900 East 1000 East $126,640
Bryan Ave 600 East 700 East $107,160
Glenmare St Harrison Ave Sherman Ave $45,640
Herbert Ave 1000 East McClelland St $29,000
Kelsey Ave 200 East 300 East $112,480
Lake St Belmont Ave Princeton Ave $155,960
Westmoreland Dr 1500 East Filmore St $83,960
Local Street Overlay Candidates
2021
$1,790,680
$1,120,320
2020
Page 28
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
Local Street Overlay Candidates
2100 South Redwood Rd Empire Rd $376,400
3200 West Directors Row California Ave $389,920
400 East 2100 South Hollywood Ave $107,840
900 South Foothill Dr 2000 East $43,840
Cannon Ave Natura St 1000 West $49,960
Emery St Dalton Ave Mead Ave $76,480
Glendale Dr Navajo St Bell Ave $106,360
Michigan Ave 1500 East Fairview Ave $108,600
Park St Ramona Ave Downington Ave $125,360
Rosewood Ave 200 East 300 East $91,960
Wilson Ave 300 East 400 East $126,000
Yale Ave 1900 East 2000 East $91,640
1000 West 200 South 100 South $116,680
1000 West 500 South 400 South $123,760
1st Ave O St P St $65,600
1st Ave T St U St $64,920
2nd Ave N St O St $67,160
2nd Ave P St Q St $66,560
2nd Ave U St Virginia St $54,320
4th Ave K St L St $55,600
Federal Heights Dr Alta St Federal Heights Cir $272,960
Glen Oaks Dr Scenic Dr Belaire Dr $94,280
J St South Temple St 1st Ave $69,520
M St 4th Ave 5th Ave $53,880
Pierpont Ave 1200 West 1100 West $84,280
Promontory Dr Summit Cir Scenic Dr $84,400
Pueblo St Terminus 900 South $39,320
Q St South Temple St 1st Ave $50,400
Sigsbee Ave Sigsbee Traffic Circle Military Traffic Circle $41,960
T St 3rd Ave 4th Ave $55,240
U St 1st Ave 2nd Ave $45,160
Yuma St Emerson Ave St Marys Dr $74,880
$1,694,360
$1,580,880
2022
2023
Page 29
Year Street From To Cost Total for Year
Local Street Overlay Candidates
600 North 600 West 600 North Overpass $66,000
Connor St Westminster Ave Downington Ave $102,600
Crestview Dr Oak Hills Way Vista View Dr $281,080
Denver St Gudgell Ct at 729 South 800 South $36,040
Dickens Pl Donner Way Terminus $46,480
East Capitol Blvd Edgecombe Dr South Sandrun Rd $237,280
Kensington Ave 2300 East Foothill Dr $86,760
Northvale Way Terrace Hills Dr Terminus $30,560
Wilton Way Canterbury Dr Sherwood Dr $206,680
This plan will be revaluated annually based on funding and City priorities.
$1,093,4802024
$7,279,720Total
Page 30
Arterial & Collector
Reconstruction
Arterial & Collector
Overlay
Local Street
Reconstruction Local Street Overlay Yearly Totals
2020 $4,800,000 $526,560 $2,794,181 $1,790,680 $9,911,421
2021 $16,250,000 $2,693,160 $3,269,305 $1,120,320 $23,332,785
2022 $14,600,000 $1,491,040 $2,916,038 $1,694,360 $20,701,438
2023 $14,400,000 $1,645,240 $2,825,621 $1,580,880 $20,451,741
2024 $8,300,000 $1,259,960 $3,194,638 $1,093,480 $13,848,078
2025 $9,500,000 $1,997,963 $11,497,963
2026 $2,800,000 $200,000 $3,000,000
Method
Totals $70,650,000 $7,615,960 $17,197,747 $7,279,720 $102,743,427
This plan will be revaluated annually based on funding and City priorities.
Summary
Page 31
December 2020
Page | 32
Appendix A: Descriptions and Photos of Pavement Condition
Classifications
Overall Pavement Condition (OCI) Ratings Examples
The following pages present examples of roadway maintenance strategies that would be
recommended based on the stated roadway pavement condition.
____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Condition: Good
Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Pavement requires only minor or no
maintenance activities over the next five years
December 2020
Page | 33
____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Condition: Satisfactory (Minor cracking and oxidation)
Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Slurry Seal
______________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Condition: Fair (Significant cracking and oxidation)
Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Chip Seal
December 2020
Page | 34
______________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Condition: Poor (Major cracking, rutting, and oxidation)
Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Rehabilitation (Overlay)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Condition: Very Poor (Major cracking, patches, and sunken pavement)
Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Reconstruction
December 2020
Page | 35
____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Condition: Serious and Failed (Pavement has failed – ongoing repairs needed
to maintain the roadway in a safe passable condition)
Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Reconstruction
December 2020
Page | 36
Appendix B: Descriptions and Photos of Pavement Activities
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
April 6, 2o2i Tuesday 2:00 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation.
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(See separate agenda)
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 maybe moved and/or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or
availability of speakers.
Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI-Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and
durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair's discretion.
Generated:15:46:36
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair's determination
that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical location presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor
location.
The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined that conducting a meeting at an anchor
location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the
health and safety of those who may attend in person. For these reasons,the Council Meeting
will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all attendees will connect
remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most
comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are available on
the following platforms:
• Facebook Live:www fa("(bi)OOi(.("OrT ,/Sl(',COI.l�l(',il,/-
• YouTube: e �u��:� � �be�� u/�N�l.��
• Web Agenda:
• SLCty Channel 17 Live:
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or
general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect
through Webex, or if you need call-in phone options,please vkif: our website or callus at
801-535-7607 to learn more.
As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an email:
•• 24-Hourcomment line: 8 01-53 5-.7654
(",0 H dlif o Aeii0i)s u$(.)v.(,.g.p)More info and resources can be found at:
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here: esNu°o-?u /�°�:uuu �iN du?�:kurilus
We welcome and encourage your comments!We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and
voicemail, as always,to receive and share your comments with Council Members.All agenda-
related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Council
Members and added to the public meeting record.View comments by visiting the Co uulcil
VirriG,tui ] :eoing Onrnri.ens page.
Work Session Items
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,including
but not limited to:
• COVID-19,the March 202o Earthquake, and the September 2020 Windstorm;
• Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
• Police Department work,projects, and staffing,etc.; and
• Other projects or updates.
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a
2• aka ;;,,;,; � ;;,,,, ,,,;, "c��r�i��1=� '%� �r ;:,;c'`��c ���� •�'�// s=,,r,_°
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working
on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of
community concern about race,equity, and justice in relation to law enforcement policies,
procedures,budget, and ordinances.Discussion may include:
• An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;
a presentation of recommendations from the School Safety Subcommittee; and,
• Other project updates or discussion.
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a
3.
rectr
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an option to participate in the State-
authorized Municipal Alternative Voting Method Pilot Program project, otherwise known as
single-winner ranked-choice voting or instant runoff voting. Discussion will include how the
ranked-choice voting process works,how the elections would be conducted,relevant bills in the
Legislature's 2021 General Session and public education efforts.
Under ranked choice voting,voters rank the candidates in order of preference. Election
equipment tabulates the preference numbers for each ballot. If none of the candidates receive
more than 50% of the overall vote after the first round of tabulation,the candidate with the least
number of votes is eliminated.The voters who had selected the eliminated candidate as their
first choice would then have their votes tabulated for their second-choice candidate.This process
of elimination continues until a candidate crosses the 50%threshold and is declared the winner.
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Tuesday,February 16,2021 and Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a
4.
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend a section of the Salt Lake City
Code related to idling of vehicles,penalty amendments, and exemption amendments.The
proposed changes include updated language for idling restriction exceptions, such as during
extreme temperatures, operation of equipment in emergency and law enforcement vehicles, or
stopped for traffic control devices.The proposed update would also allow the City to issue a
citation after only one warning.
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the Mayor's funding recommendations and an
appropriations resolution that would adopt the One-year Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year
2021-22.The plan includes Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)funding, HOME
Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant(ESG)funding, Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)funding.The resolution would approve an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Tuesday,March 23, 2021 and Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday,March 16, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,April 6, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday,April 20, 2021
/
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a
7.
r
The Council will receive a briefing about the Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU) annual report.The
report is required to include the number of applications received,the address of each unit for
which an application was submitted, an explanation of why an application was denied, and a
map showing approved accessory dwelling units.This report covers the time period from
October 2018 to December 31, 2020.The report is required by ordinance to be transmitted to
the City Council by February 15, 2021.
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a
/
/
8.
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would vacate a City-owned alley adjacent to
properties at 1025 West North Temple and 1022, 1028, 103o and 1032 West Learned Avenue.The
applicant petitioned to vacate the 18o-foot long section of public alley to consolidate the properties
immediately abutting the alley. If approved, the applicant plans to consolidate the lots adjacent to
the alley and construct a multi-family residential structure.The proposed project would still need to
meet relevant zoning requirements and the applicant would need to submit a separate petition.The
closure will not impact traffic or access.
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,May 18, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday, June 1, 2021
9.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would vacate a City-owned alley known as the
Fern Subdivision Alley located between l000 East and iloo East and between Wood Avenue and
Logan Avenue.The east-west portion of the alley runs behind eight homes between 1oig East
and 1053 East Logan Avenue.
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,May 18, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday, June 1, 2021
10.
The Council will receive a written briefing about the 2020 Six Year Pavement Plan regarding street
conditions and projects in the City.A presentation to the Roadway Selection Committee is also
included.The plan and presentation identify upcoming street reconstruction locations and estimated
costs.The reconstructions are largely funded by an$87 million voter-approved bond which is part of
the Funding Our Future initiative.Other information provided includes the street network overall
pavement condition, recently completed street reconstructions, and the City's approach to street
maintenance.
FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing-Tuesday,April 6, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a
Standing Items
/%/
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
12.
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.
i
3•
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting
described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not
limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a
water right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the
best possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would
be offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems;
and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged
pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the
pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 P.m. on Thursday,April 1, 2021,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-1-70 1, and(2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune
and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not
limited to adoption,rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options
discussed.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate
formats,interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments Ca?slcgov.com,
801-535-7600, or relay service 711.