HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
July 13, 2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s
Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Amy Fowler, Chair
District 7
James Rogers, Vice Chair
District 1
Dennis Faris
District 2
Chris Wharton
District 3
Ana Valdemoros
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Generated: 15:59:27
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Chair’s determination.
As Salt Lake City Council Chair, I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City
Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety
of those who may be present, and that the City and County building has been ordered
closed to the public for health and safety reasons.
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/
Based on feedback we have received, we will be going back to our regular Formal Meeting
format. Public hearings will be heard in the order on the agenda followed by a general
comment session later in the meeting.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.
Council Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting.
2.
Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.
The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday,
November 17, 2020; Tuesday, December 8, 2020; and Tuesday, February 16,
2021; as well as the formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, February 2, 2021;
Tuesday, February 16, 2021; and Thursday, May 13, 2021.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Resolution: Issuance of Series 2021 Bonds for Financing the
Construction of the New SLC International Airport
The Council will accept public comment about a resolution that would authorize
the sale of Airport Revenue Bond issued to continue to finance construction of the
new Salt Lake City International Airport. The resolution would involve the sale of
up to $1 billion in limited obligation bonds that would be repaid solely by revenue
generated at the Salt Lake City International Airport. The project is scheduled to
be fully complete in 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would amend the zoning map for property at 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue. The
proposal would rezone the parcels from CN (Neighborhood Commercial District)
and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use District). The applicant would like to build 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 demolition or construction must be approved by the Historic Landmark
Commission. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another
zoning district with similar characteristics. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning
may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2020-00703
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
3. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 850 and 870 East
2100 South
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 850 and 870 East 2100
South. The proposal would rezone the properties from CC (Corridor Commercial
District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) and would amend the Sugar
House Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The applicant is requesting to amend
the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from "Mixed Use - Low
Intensity" to "Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale." The intent of
the request is to allow more flexibility to develop a future multi-family residential,
office, or mixed-use development. Consideration may be given to rezoning the
property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.:
PLNPCM2020-00906 and 00925.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
4. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 810 East 800
South
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would amend the zoning map for a parcel of property at 810 East 800 South. The
proposal would rezone the parcel from R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential)
to CB (Community Business District) and would amend the Central Community
Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial.
The applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a two-story building
that would have commercial space on the first floor, residential units on the
second floor, and parking located to the rear. Consideration may be given to
rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar
characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
5. Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution for
project funding allocations in the Capital Improvement Program, which involves
the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other
physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of five or more years and
cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding
in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by
September 1 of the same year.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 and Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. and
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 24, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
6. Ordinance: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance
amending various fees and fee information set forth in the Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled
for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited
to two minutes.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1. Motion: Meeting Remotely Without an Anchor Location
The Council will consider a motion to ratify the Chair’s determination to continue
meeting remotely and without an anchor location due to the health and safety of
the people who may be in attendance, and considering the continued closure of
the City and County Building to the public.
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 - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
1. Ordinance: Goshen Street Alley Vacation
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would close and vacate a
portion of a City-owned alley at approximately 740 South Goshen Street between
Goshen Street and approximately 1075 West as a public right-of-way. The
applicant owns the adjacent lot north of the alley and would like to incorporate
the alleyway with that lot. Petition No.: 400-06-05
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 24, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Ordinances: Truth-in-Taxation Hearing for Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting one or more ordinances adopting the final rate of
tax levy, for all City funds including the Library Fund, in an amount greater than
the Certified Tax Rate, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City
made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and adopting the final budget,
including the Library Budget, for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Council will confirm the date of Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept
public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final
budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal
Year 2021-22. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect
adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes use of federal American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) dollars for police officer compensation and salary adjustments
for non-represented employees among other items.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Confirm Public Hearing date.
4. Mosquito Abatement District Intent to Levy a Property Tax Increase
for Fiscal Year 2022
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment about the Mosquito Abatement District’s intent to levy a property tax
increase for fiscal year 2022, as well as information about the District’s
abatement activity in the City. Information to be provided will include the dollar
amount of additional tax revenue to be generated by the proposed increase, the
approximate percentage increase in tax revenue, and the intended purpose of the
additional tax revenue. The District is a taxing entity separate from the City and
has its own ability to propose property tax changes within certain parameters.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021 and Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
5. Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee – Patrick Casey
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Patrick Casey to the
Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending July 13, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
6. Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee – Samantha Janse
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Samantha Janse to the
Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending July 13, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 13, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
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.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 1
The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday November 17, 2020,
in an Electronic Meeting, pursuant to Chair determination Salt
Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020(2)(b).
In Attendance: Council Members Andrew Johnston, Amy Fowler, Chris
Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, and James Rogers.
Absent: Councilmember Valdemoros.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive
Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Erin
Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine
Lewis, City Attorney; Ben Kolendar, Economic Development Deputy
Director; Allison Rowland, Council Public Policy Analyst; Mary
Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer; Nick Tarbet, Council
Senior Public Policy Analyst; Karl Lieb, Fire Chief; Lani
Eggertsen-Goff, Housing & Neighborhood Development Director; Lisa
Shaffer, Mayor’s Chief Administrative Officer; Amanda Lau, Council
Public Engagement & Communications Specialist; Debra Alexander,
Human Resources Director; Daniel Rip, Housing & Neighborhood
Development Policy & Program Manager; Cindy Lou Trishman, City
Recorder; Blake Thomas, Community & Neighborhoods Director; Robert
Nutzman, Council Administrative Assistant; Benjamin Luedtke,
Council Policy Analyst; and DeeDee Robinson, Deputy City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Jessica Thesing, Urban Affairs Director,
Downtown Alliance (Item #4).
Councilmember Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:09 p.m. 2:09:04 PM
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:10:29 PM Informational: Updates Relating to Mayor’s
Proclamations Declaring Local Emergencies for COVID-19, March
Earthquake, and Windstorm. The Council will receive an update from
the Administration about the Mayor’s emergency declarations
relating to COVID-19 (coronavirus), the March 18th earthquake in
the Salt Lake Valley and the September 8th windstorm. As part of
the update, the Council may discuss public health and other public
safety, policy and budget issues stemming from the emergency
declarations. The Council may also receive information or updates
from organizations or experts related to the emergency responses
and coordination, including but not limited to earthquake damage
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 2
to the City, the functioning of the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), City response and aid, and the status of City buildings.
Mayor Mendenhall briefed the Council regarding:
COVID-19 Updates:
• As COVID-19 cases were rising, current focus was continuing to
ensure employees were safe, getting residents/businesses the
needed access to all available resources, and providing
information on the pandemic on a continual basis.
• An effective vaccine would soon be available, and City wanted
to involve the community well before vaccine availability
ensuring questions could be answered as well as an established
feedback loop for any community member to find vaccine
information therefore increasing vaccine utilization.
• More information would be provided to the Council on
State/County plans for distribution once obtained.
Business support efforts/CARES funding:
• City recognizing restaurants appeared to be the hardest hit
during pandemic – with zero federal support on the horizon (for
winter) - fears that local establishments might suffer/go out
of business.
• Studying the potential for temporary outdoor dining options
through the winter months – allowing for expansion of operations
with temporary structures for patrons to enjoy outdoor dining -
details would be finalized this week and Council would be
notified before any new proclamation was issued.
Digital Equity Update:
• City received 11 pieces of “smart furniture” - ordered in June
2020 and funded through Public Services, Youth & Family Services
Division, and Information Management Systems (IMS).
• Two “smart furniture” pieces would be installed at the Sorensen
Unity Center this month with additional areas across the City
being currently mapped out for installation.
• “Smart furniture” utilized solar power and would provide free
public Wi-Fi and device charging once installed. (Planned
installation of all furniture was throughout this winter and
ready for use in the early spring).
• Internet Backhaul System was installed on the mountain/connected
to Plaza 349 last week.
• Teams currently working to map out areas of the City for
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 3
broadcasting free Wi-Fi - first three anticipated pilot areas:
Liberty, Pioneer, and Jordan River Parks.
• City Connect Network was now available at Sorensen Unity Center,
Youth & Family Administration Offices, and Plaza 349. (Rose Park
Connect, Glendale Connect, and Salt Lake City Library computer
labs were currently closed.)
• Administration was seeking input from Council regarding City
partners to provide additional indoor computer lab locations
this winter.
• Popup labs being provided for constituents to sign up for
programs like stimulus checks - IMS providing Wi-Fi hotspot,
printer, and laptops for the events.
• Digital Navigators (part of Budget Amendment No.4) - IMS
partnered with Youth & Family Services for five apprentice
positions (trained by IMS/Youth City Staff in computer support
skills) to be deployed physically/virtually to assist with
digital literacy/popup labs/other activities.
• Efforts were being made for ownership of City technology assets
- ensuring used equipment could be donated to needs in the
community.
#2. 2:18:17 PM Informational: Updates on Relieving the
Condition of People Experiencing Homelessness. The Council will
hear updates and discuss issues pertaining to relieving the
condition of people experiencing homelessness in neighborhoods
throughout Salt Lake City.
Rachel Otto briefed the Council regarding partnership with
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness/County/City
partners for winter shelter options (priority/goal being a non-
congregate/hotel type setting), Community Commitment Program
recently ended third week of daily outreach with service provider
partners in the 500 West area (out of 166 persons encountered, 40
were willing to engage in conversation with service providers, and
16 expressed interest in shelter options), COVID-19 proving to be
a challenge in the shelter system, outreach team making priority
to place couples together in motels until more shelter options
became available, not proceeding to remove encampments until
assurances were made for enough shelter space, and continuing to
evaluate Community Commitment program/ability of service providers
to staff the outreach efforts.
#3. 2:23:53 PM Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and
Policing. The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 4
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 newly created Commission on
Racial Equity in Policing; and
• Other project updates or discussion.
Allison Rowland and Benjamin Luedtke briefed the Council
regarding Racial Equity in Policing Commission (REP):
• Next meeting was scheduled for November 18, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. -
agenda included reports from the subcommittee and youth
subcommittee meetings
• Plans for a listening session in the coming weeks - providing
opportunity for community feedback/involvement
• Reminder that meetings were hosted by the Salt Lake City Library
and were open to the public (also available on YouTube channel:
“SLC REP Commission”
• Agendas for each meeting were available on the Salt Lake City
Boards webpage and a phone line for any questions 801 535-7644
Updates on the Police Department Audit, including:
• Selection committee of internal City employees met yesterday
with one bid being well received
• Meeting scheduled for next Monday for members of the selection
committee to meet with the auditing firm leadership
• Items identified in the audit scope for potential adjustments
were draft body-camera ordinance, analysis of police officer
turn-over, civil service commission repeal, and the Mobile
Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT) at the University of Utah as an
alternative model responding to mental health crises
• Staff working on the next round of public engagement for the
audit (to run concurrently with the consultant’s audit work) -
ideas being explored were an anonymous feedback mechanism (for
members of the public & City employees), small group meetings
facilitated for interested parties, regular updates to the
Council website (a dedicated webpage for the audit to be updated
as it progressed), and updates to be sent to the REP commission
email list (containing over 4,500 email addresses).
Straw Poll: Support for moving forward with the audit firm
selection process (and engagement letter) before the next Council
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 5
meeting. Council Members Fowler, Mano, Rogers, Wharton, Johnston,
and Dugan were in favor. Councilmember Valdemoros was absent for
the vote.
Councilmember Johnston requested Staff work with Council
leadership to work out a timeframe for the zero-based budgeting
process.
#4. 2:40:55 PM Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 4 for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2020-2021 Follow-up. The Council will receive a follow-up
briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for
Fiscal Year 2020-21. Budget amendments happen several times each
year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including
proposed project additions and modifications. The proposal
includes:
• $1.5 million as part of a proposed expansion to the
Accelerator program ($500 prepaid debit cards in direct aid
to residents ineligible for CARES Act stimulus checks);
• a new apprentice program pairing high school students and
young adults with City employees;
• additional funding for the enhanced YouthCity program;
• homeless camp clean-up funding;
• a downtown ambassadors program expansion into the Rio Grande
neighborhood and North Temple area;
• authorizing the third round of CARES Act funding the City may
receive in the coming weeks to cover payroll expenses in the
Fire Department and 911 Department;
• and other items. View Attachments
Benjamin Luedtke and Jessica Thesing (Downtown Alliance)
briefed the Council and discussion was held regarding Item E-19
Downtown Ambassador expansion: how it overlapped with the Police
Bike Squad, metrics for the expansion (determining if the program
was successful), the Ambassador Program tracked wellness checks,
service provider referrals, and provided citizen/visitor
assistance, all calls made to/from the Ambassador program were
reported weekly/monthly/quarterly, no specific metrics for the
pilot area on North Temple – but could be provided along with any
other additional metrics (including crime reports/other items of
Council interest) as requested by the Council, The Rio Grande
Ambassador expansion having no funding to continue into FY 2022
unless new funding was identified in the next annual budget,
information regarding Rio Grande Ambassador expansion alternative
options (including necessary funding, levels of service,
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 6
days/hours of operation, how many Ambassadors would be needed for
each area), and item E-20 Enhanced Homeless Camp Cleanup: the
Portland Loos (installed by the former Road Home shelter) were now
operational with an Advantage Services attendant at the gate, and
Public Lands having indicated availability of 27 portable
restrooms/vault restrooms that were open in City parks/natural
lands and would be open throughout the winter.
Councilmember Fowler inquired what the funding ($760,110 from
CARES Act Second round) for E-20 would cover. Lani Eggertsen-Goff
said this was an extension of existing work being done (existing
contract for portable restroom attendance, bio-waste clean-up,
trash clean-up, and some power washing) into the remainder of the
fiscal year.
Councilmember Fowler said, due to the name/title of E-20, it
might be misconstrued by the public as to what services the City
was providing with the funding and inquired if the name/title could
be changed. Rachel Otto agreed that it was mislabeled and said the
name/titling should have instead been referred to as the enhanced
neighborhood cleaning (Community Commitment Program), and the
intent was to provide increased cleaning into neighborhoods where
not only people were camping, but to help businesses and residents
with cleaning efforts on public/private property. She added the
Council was recently provided an additional breakdown of expenses
for this item.
#5. 3:07:17 PM Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 5 for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2020-2021. The Council will be briefed about an ordinance
that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the
employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2020-21. Budget
amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments
to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposal includes:
• accepting $7.1 million in U.S. Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) CARES Act grants which will be awarded to specific
community organizations through a separate, open, and
competitive process;
• adding temporary lighting near homeless resource centers;
• repairs to City sidewalks damaged during the September 8
windstorm;
• demolition of the Glendale water park
• $20.5 million from the next issuance of the $87 million voter-
approved Streets Reconstruction Bond;
• and other items. View Attachments
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 7
Benjamin Luedtke, Blake Thomas, Mary Beth Thompson, Ben
Kolendar, Rachel Otto, Katherine Lewis, Cindy Lou Trishman, Debra
Alexander, and Daniel Rip briefed the Council and discussed the
following:
• If Budget Amendment was approved as proposed by the
Administration, Fund Balance would drop to 11.7% ($4 M below
the 13% target but staying above the recommended 10% minimum
threshold)
• A-1 Animal Services County Contract ($44,192 – General Fund)
• A-2 Sustainability – Pick Up Truck ($55,000 – Refuse Fund)
• A-3 Sustainability – (7) Certified Natural Gas (CNG) Refuse
Packers ($2.6 M – Refuse Fund)
• A-4 Public Safety – Costs related to the Vice-Presidential
Debate ($315,944 – General Fund)
• A-5 CARES Act Funding from U.S. Housing & Urban Development
(HUD) ($7,138,203 from HUD) including (3) new temporary/part-
time employees for the life of the one-time CARES HUD-CV dollars
• A-6 Consumer Protection Analyst (Budget Neutral in FY21)
• A-7 Economic Development Deputy Director Funding ($34,878 –
General Fund)
• A-10 Temporary Lighting Near Homeless Resource Centers ($33,000
– General Fund)
• A-11 Department of Air Quality (DAQ) – Lawnmower, Snowblower,
String Trimmer Exchange ($250,000 – General Fund) allowing
residents to exchange gas-powered machines for electric
equipment
• A-12 Attorney’s Office New Positions ($184,075 – General Fund)
(1) Senior City Attorney and (1) Administrative Assistant
• A-14 50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations Project
($45,000 – Refuse Fund)
• A-15 Restore Human Resource Department Deputy Director FTE
($81,317 - General Fund/$14,350 - Risk Fund)
• A-16 Restore Contract Specialist Funding ($20,892 – General
Fund)
• A-17 Right of Way Repairs from September 8 Windstorm ($662,500
– General Fund) including sidewalks, curb/gutter, driveway
approaches, and concrete streets
• A-18 Glendale Water Park Demolition, Fencing and Security
($855,000 – General Fund) including community outreach and plans
for Parks & Public Lands to conduct a visioning exercise soon
to contemplate/analyze potential future uses
• D-3 General Obligation 2020A Streets Reconstruction Bond ($20.5
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 8
M – Bond Issuance)
• D-5 FY 2021 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Landfill
Construction and Planning Projects ($15,000,000 – CIP) budget
funds were a pass through and fully reimbursed by the Landfill
to the City
• D-6 HUD Grant Recaptures ($37,535 from miscellaneous grants and
$1,250,212 from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)).
Councilmember Johnston inquired about any overage of funds
above the 10% threshold of Fund Balance being used for the next
FY. Mary Beth Thompson said the current projections were from last
year and final Fund Balance totals would not come until mid to end
of December and hoped that residual funds would be available for
the next FY. Mayor Mendenhall stated this was what Fund Balance
was for (when what was planned did not come through); the City’s
ability to maintain all City services and employees with no
furloughs, with focus on maintaining the wellness of the City’s
corporation through the current uncertainty/unpredictability.
Unanimous Straw Polls: (Councilmember Valdemoros absent)
• Support for the allocation of $2.6 M from the Refuse Fund for
(7) CNG Refuse Packers.
• Support for the allocation of $184,075 from the General Fund
for two new Attorney’s Office FTEs.
• Support for the allocation of $15,000,000 for CIP Landfill
Construction and Planning Project.
• Support for the allocation of $55,000 from the Refuse Fund for
a pickup truck for Sustainability.
#6. Tentative Break
#7. 4:21:42 PM Ordinances: Creating an Appeal Hearing Officer
System by Repealing Civil Service Commission and Employee Appeals
Board. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to replace
both the Civil Service Commission and the Employee Appeals Board
with an appeal hearing officer system. The proposal also includes
a new chapter in Salt Lake City Code to establish competitive
merit-based recruitment and promotion processes for the Fire
Department and the Police Department. View Attachments
Benjamin Luedtke provided a brief introduction to the item,
described the ordinances (and possible revisions) involved, and
indicated this was the first briefing on the item with a public
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 9
hearing scheduled for December 1, 2020.
Rachel Otto, Katherine Lewis, Debra Alexander, and Karl Lieb
provided information regarding drafting the proposed ordinances,
origination/purpose of the Civil Service Commission (serving
Police and Fire employees only and separate from the Memorandum of
Understanding/negotiations between Administration, City Council,
and Unions), the proposed Employee Appeals Board would serve civil
service positions as well as merit employees, benefits included
expediting recruitment/promotion for civil service employees and
increasing the City’s ability to attract diverse candidates into
leadership roles in both the Fire and Police Departments, and
current red-lined ordinance drafts reflected discussions with
Local 81 Fire Union, addressing their concerns.
#8. 4:38:55 PM Ordinance: Demolition of Dangerous or Boarded
Buildings Follow-up Briefing. The Council will receive a follow-
up briefing on changes to the City’s Demolition ordinance. The
proposed changes are intended to streamline the process for
demolitions on commercial and residential properties, remove the
requirement for a replacement use, landscape plan and bond, and
provide clarity to the enforcement process for boarded buildings.
Chapters 18.48, 18.64 and 2.21.030 of the Salt Lake City Code will
be amended as part of this proposal. The continued public hearing
for this item is scheduled during the November 17th formal meeting.
The Council may consider taking action after the public hearing.
*Note, a previous agenda occurrence incorrectly listed Chapter
18.84 instead of 18.48. View Attachments
Nick Tarbet provided a brief introduction to the item,
indicated there was a public hearing this evening with the Council
having the option to adopt the ordinance, and reviewed answers
from the Administration to previous questions from the Council
relating to additional fees for Police/Fire services, persistent
nuisance buildings, per building vs. per parcel, etc.
STANDING ITEMS
#9. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Item not held.
#10. 4:48:24 PM Report and Announcements from the Executive
Director. Report of the Executive Director, including a review of
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
20 - 10
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:
• City Boards and Commissions Vacancies; and
• Scheduling items
See announcements.
#11. Tentative Closed Session. The Council will consider a
motion to enter into Closed Session for any specific purpose under
Section 52-4-205.
Item not held.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 4:54 p.m.
_______________________________
COUNCIL CHAIR
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript
as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio
or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the
official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held
November 17, 2020.
dr
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
20 - 1
The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday December 8, 2020,
in an Electronic Meeting, pursuant to Chair determination Salt
Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020(2)(b).
In Attendance: Council Members Andrew Johnston, Amy Fowler, Chris
Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, and James Rogers.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive
Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Erin
Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine
Lewis, City Attorney; Allison Rowland, Council Public Policy
Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Senior Public Policy Analyst; Mike
Brown, Police Chief; Lisa Shaffer, Mayor’s Chief Administrative
Officer; Nick Norris, Planning Director; Blake Thomas, Community
& Neighborhoods Director; Kira Luke, Council Public Engagement &
Policy Analyst; Jonathan Larsen, Transportation Director; Julianne
Sabula, Transportation Transit Program Manager; Amanda Lau,
Council Public Engagement & Communication Specialist; Benjamin
Luedtke, Council Policy Analyst; and DeeDee Robinson, Deputy City
Recorder.
Absent: Councilmember Analia Valdemoros
Councilmember Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 4:13 p.m. 4:13:02 PM
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 4:14:25 PM Informational: Updates from the Administration.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major
items or projects, including but not limited to:
• Local Emergencies for COVID-19, the March Earthquake, and the
September Windstorm;
• Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing
homelessness;
• Police Department work, projects, and staffing, etc.; and
• Other projects or updates.
Mayor Mendenhall thanked the Council for supporting the
Administration’s efforts regarding the Salt Laker Card (debit card
assisting those who did not receive stimulus checks), Operation
Warm (providing 7,000 winter coats for kids in need), Water Assist
(assisting residents with their water bills), expanding services
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
20 - 2
for those experiencing homelessness, and advocating for a Federal
relief package to provide assistance to small business/residents
who were struggling as well as assistance from the State for rental
assistance/small business relief.
Further information provided included Community Commitment
Program updates: continuing outreach in areas of larger
encampments, closing some areas to camping as additional shelter
resources were becoming available, current capacity of homeless
resource centers (availability at the Men’s Resource Center, King
Resource Center, Millcreek Transitional Winter Housing, and motel
program still having vouchers available), ongoing work with the
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to locate a second
winter shelter location, the City’s A Place for Your Stuff was
open extended hours for people needing storage while pursuing
resources, connecting individuals with intake/service assessments,
shuttle service being available between all Homeless Service
Centers (HRCs) and the Weigand Homeless Resource Center, COVID-19
testing available at all HRCs with off-site options for quarantine
for those who test positive, and the City’s partnership with
Volunteers of America for a winter gear/coat drive on December 19,
2020 at the City & County Building.
Mike Brown briefed the Council regarding the Police
Department’s recent work project – Less Lethal Shotgun program;
450 officers having received training to use less lethal shotguns,
roll-out to occur within the next 30-60 days, 47 shotguns currently
in inventory with another 42 ordered (with plans to eventually
outfit the entire department), and details regarding the make-
up/range of each shot.
Councilmember Johnston inquired as to when this type of
munition would be deployed. Mr. Brown said they would be used in
situations when officers had sufficient cover/concealment, or
enough distance between them and someone with a weapon, and ideally
in place of lethal munitions in certain situations.
Rachel Otto and Katherine Lewis provided a Civil Service
Commission update, including Salt Lake Police Association (SLPA)
having shared concerns about discussions held between the
Administration and Council (regarding policy & procedure) and the
City being committed to resolving as many concerns as possible,
Policy & Procedures regarding recruitment retention and
recruitment of hearing officers were currently being drafted and
would be shared with all three unions for feedback/input before
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
20 - 3
finalization, and responses to SLCPA issues provided (emailed) to
the Council this afternoon.
#2. 4:36:49 PM Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and
Policing. 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 newly created Commission on
Racial Equity in Policing;
• Follow-up on Police Civilian Review Board (known as the
CRB or PCRB) Ordinance Amendments and Legislative
Intents; and
• Other project updates or discussion. View Attachments
Allison Rowland, Katherine Lewis, and Kira Luke briefed the
Council regarding:
• “Action Report: Racial Equity” included information regarding
body-worn cameras, changes to the Police Civilian Review Board
(CRB), Police Budget audit scope (informing the zero based
budget exercise), repeal of the Civil Service Commission
ordinance – providing the City more opportunities for an
inclusive hiring process/lowering barriers for new employees to
bring more diverse approaches, experiences, and ideas
• Updates on the Racial Equity in Policing (REP) Commission,
including: commission currently meeting Wednesdays in sub-
committees through the end of the year and available for the
public to listen to at slc.gov/boards/REPAgenda, no meetings
were scheduled for December 23 and December 30, 2020, an REP
public listening session was planned for January 13, 2021, and
contact information for questions regarding REP was provided
(email repcommission@slcgov.com or call 801-535-7644).
• Clarifications provided on Item 2 - those with criminal records
being able to serve on the CRB, and Item 3 - ensuring that all
panels include at least a majority of Board Members, rather than
the minimum of three currently permitted (located on the
summary report included in the attachment).
Straw Poll: Support for a panel of five Board Members (CRB)
to review a complaint unless it was an officer involved critical
incident (non-OICI cases only). Council Members Dugan, Fowler,
Mano, Rogers, and Wharton were in favor, Councilmember Johnston
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
20 - 4
was opposed, and Councilmember Valdemoros was absent for the vote.
#3. 5:04:07 PM Ordinance: Fleet Block Zoning Amendments (300
and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South) Follow-up Briefing.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal to
create a new land use zone titled Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 3
(FB-UN3) and rezone the 10-acre City block known as the Fleet Block
(located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South)
from Public Land (PL) and General Commercial (CG) to FB-UN3. The
area was previously used by the City for a fleet maintenance
facility that has since been relocated. Form-Based code focuses on
the form and appearance of buildings. It also has more regulations
that control those aspects of development than traditional zones.
The proposal would apply regulations to future developments such
as building design, height, bulk, use, and other development
standards and land uses. The regulations are intended to support
the block’s redevelopment. In addition to the zoning amendments,
the Council will also hear updates from City departments about the
work they have done related to the redevelopment of this City-
owned property. View Attachments
Mayor Mendenhall provided an introduction to the item and
said community feedback was received regarding the Fleet Block
murals and future of the block, the City’s vision for the Fleet
Block reflected benefits to the community as well as the needs of
future generations of Salt Lake City residents, the vision
included: creation of a space that benefitted residents and
reflected the community’s diversity, open space for gathering that
created equitable access to opportunities by design/occupation,
providing additional affordable housing, and expansion of public
transportation, access, and more. She requested the Salt Lake
community continue to communicate their needs and continue
conversations regarding the Fleet Block to move forward together
with the feedback/needs reflected.
Blake Thomas thanked community members for sharing their
stories with the Community & Neighborhoods (CAN) team and input
was necessary (from the public) for elements of the public space
on the block to provide equity/inclusion.
Nick Tarbet provided an introduction and background on the
proposal and noted the goal of the briefing included three main
components: review list of potential motions and potential
conditions to be included in the motions for the Council to
consider, review the Administration’s responses to the October 6,
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
20 - 5
2020 Work Session briefing (questions raised by Council Members),
and review additional policy questions noted in the Staff memo.
Nick Norris indicated that the Administration’s responses to
the Council’s questions included gathering feedback from various
stakeholders involved in the process, outlining items of
concern/need, and identifying what the critical/necessary pieces
of the Fleet Block were to demonstrate the community/stakeholders
ideas/concerns were heard.
Further discussion was held regarding a previous Urban
Feasibility Study conducted for the area (2018/2019),
differences/definitions of parks/public open
space/squares/plazas, and parking considerations and public
transportation options in the area.
Councilmember Wharton said he was interested in exploring a
public art component to ongoing discussions regarding the Fleet
Block.
Straw Poll: Support for language regarding the effective date
based on the criteria of public engagement (making the zoning
effective based on the public engagement process). Council Members
Mano, Rogers, Wharton, Fowler, Johnston, and Dugan were in favor
with Councilmember Valdemoros absent for the vote.
#4. 5:45:20 PM Resolution: Funding Our Future: Transit Master
Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement with the Utah Transit
Authority (UTA). The Council will be briefed about a resolution
that would authorize the Mayor to enter into two proposed
adjustments to an interlocal agreement (ILA) with UTA. Amendment
to Addendum No. 2 provides accounting adjustments and credits to
the City for cost savings from COVID-19 related bus service
reductions, reaching service thresholds, and actual fuel costs.
Addendum No. 3 is the service agreement from August 2020 to August
2021 for the Frequent Transit Service (FTN) routes on 200 South,
900 South, and 2100 South streets. The ILA is a twenty-year
agreement with a goal of full implementation of the Frequent
Transit Network as described in the City’s Transit Master Plan.
View Attachments
Kira Luke, Jonathan Larsen, and Julianne Sabula provided a
summary of the attached proposal. Discussion was held regarding
two addenda to the ILA (No. 2 & 3), true-ups and credits, cost
projection refinements (2020-2021), and timeline impacts due to
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
20 - 6
COVID-19.
Straw Poll: Support for the approval of the addenda (2 & 3)
with the expectation that Transportation return with more
specifications at a later date. Council Members Mano, Rogers,
Wharton, Fowler, Johnston, and Dugan were in favor, with
Councilmember Valdemoros absent for the vote.
#5. 6:04:57 PM Board Appointment: Housing Advisory and Appeals
Board – Katie Sims (formerly Fredrickson). The Council will
interview Katie Sims (formerly Fredrickson) prior to considering
appointment to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board for a term
ending December 31, 2024. View Attachments
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Katie Sims’
name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
Katherine Lewis took a moment of personal privilege and said
she was pleased that Ms. Sims was returning to the City in any
capacity.
#6. 6:08:04 PM Board Appointment: Housing Advisory and Appeals
Board – Carrie Eschler. The Council will interview Carrie Eschler
prior to considering appointment to the Housing Advisory and
Appeals Board for a term ending December 31, 2024. View Attachments
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Carrie
Eschler’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#7. 6:10:24 PM Board Appointment: Housing Advisory and Appeals
Board – Sara Hart. The Council will interview Sara Hart prior to
considering appointment to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board
for a term ending December 31, 2024. View Attachments
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Sara Hart’s
name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
STANDING ITEMS
#8. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
No discussion was held.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
20 - 7
#9. 6:13:13 PM 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:
• Approval of the 2021 Annual Meeting Calendar; and
• Scheduling items.
See File M 20-5 for announcements.
#10. Tentative Closed Session. The Council will consider a
motion to enter into Closed Session for any specific purpose under
Section 52-4-205.
Item not held.
The meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m.
_______________________________
COUNCIL CHAIR
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript
as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio
or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the
official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held
December 8, 2020.
dr
PENDING MINUTES –NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Work Session on Tuesday,February 16,2021 in an
Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair’s determination and Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b).
The following Council Members were present:
Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,
James Rogers
Present Legislative leadership:
Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua Weaver,Associate
Deputy Director
Present Administrative leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer
Present City Staff:
Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,Lisa Shaffer –Chief Administrative Officer,Rachel Otto
–Chief of Staff,Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Amanda Lau –Public Engagement &
Communication Specialist,Ben Luedtke –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Brian Fullmer
–Constituent Liaison,Policy Analyst,Cindy Gust-Jenson –Executive Director,Jennifer Bruno
–Deputy Director,Robert Nutzman –Administrative Assistant,Russell Weeks –Senior Advisor,
DeeDee Robinson –Deputy City Recorder,Chief Mike Brown –Police Chief,Lauren Shafer
–Assistant City Recorder,Orion Goff –City Building Official,Allison Rowland –Council Public
Policy Analyst,Paul Nielson –Senior City Attorney,Amy Thompson –Senior Planner,Eric Daems
–Senior Planner
Full Meeting Audio
Meeting Packet Material
Councilmember Amy Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:02 pm
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
1
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
Minutes:
Mayor Mendenhall provided updates regarding:36%of City employees having used
City/Federally provided leave up to this point,City’s Human Resources webpage to begin
providing vaccine updates (including where and when –as they became available),updates
on Raise UP SLC (“Salt Laker Card”)–available to those who did not qualify for stimulus
payments,in the form of a debit card in the amount of $500,homelessness updates included:
City teams worked with Salt Lake County Health Department for an environmental clean up
on 700 South/Rio Grande area,service provider outreach teams continuing to connect
individuals in the area with services/shelter,shelter availability dashboard being updated
daily,new/growing camps in the areas of 800/900 South,300/400 West,and a few locations
along North Temple –City/County working collaboratively for outreach/resolution plans for
these sites,housing updates included:a resolution before the Council this evening –
allocating over $4.5 M towards housing stability,shelter,and homeless services,City having
invested just over $64 M in affordable housing between 2016-2020 (2,539 units of housing
–including new/rehabbed projects),and information regarding the disbursement of new
funding for housing stability assistance through the US Treasury Emergency Rental
Assistance Program ($6+M).
Mike Brown provided information regarding:Field Training Officer program (FTO)being a
16-week evaluation process and in conjunction with Racial Equity in Policing Commission
(REP)recommendations regarding diversity;20 new FTOs were recently sworn in with
seven being of diverse backgrounds,and recruitment/hiring updates would be forthcoming.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
2
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;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
Minutes:
Allison Rowland provided updates,including:subcommittee meetings would be held
tomorrow February 17,2021 (including School Safety,Policies &Practice,and Officer
Training),information regarding Racial Equity in Policing (REP)Commission available at
slcrepcommission.com (for agendas and links to join meetings),and next full commission
meeting was scheduled for Feb 24,2021 at 5:00 p.m.
Benjamin Luedtke provided information regarding:Matrix Auditors presented the Police
Department audit to the REP Commission on February 10,2021 (presentation and video
were available on the audit page of the Council’s website),REP commission’s draft
recommendations (three sets)were provided to the audit firm,City Finance Department
having set up access for the auditors to run reports in the City’s financial system (saving time
for consultants/City Staff),a draft Police Department Financial Profile (created by the
auditors –detailing revenues,expenses,classifications within the department,etc.–being a
foundation to develop a zero-based budget process)was sent to Council Members today and
would be made publicly available once completed/reviewed internally,the draft Organization
Profile of the Police Department would be ready for review later this week,and the auditors
would next be reviewing Internal Affairs,the discipline system,and categorizing line item
costs.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
3
3.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~2:50 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed by the Administration about issues affecting the City that may
arise during the 2021 Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 12,2021;Tuesday,February 2,2021;Tuesday,February 9,2021;
and Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Minutes:
Kate Bradshaw (Holland &Hart Law Firm,contract lobbyist)provided
information/updates regarding billboard legislation (ongoing negotiations),homelessness
legislation (House Bill 347 was released last week –with new second substitute to be
submitted),Senate Bill (SB)138 (progress being made),HB 98 (Building Code bill
–protecting historic districts),end of session focusing on new revenue estimates (with
announcements forthcoming on Thursday),most items that were cut during special sessions
in the summer would be restored,compromise struck between public education on the
legislature would be upheld (providing bonuses for teachers),and issues regarding modified
exhaust provisions facing an uphill battle due to State’s decision to do away with safety
inspections.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
4
4.Ordinance:Rezone at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South and 710
to 739 West Genesee Avenue ~3:10 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would rezone properties at 706 to 740 West
900 South and 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue,including portions of two alleys,from M-1
(Light Manufacturing)to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use).The applicant intends to develop the
remaining portion of the site with multi-family residential housing that is not currently
permitted under the existing zoning designation.The developer has not proposed a specific
development plan as part of the rezone application.The applicant also intends to renovate two
vacant commercial buildings on the site for commercial uses.Consideration may be given to
rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Other sections of
Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021
Minutes:
Brian Fullmer provided an introduction and background of the proposal.
Amy Thompson provided information regarding:both petitions receiving favorable
recommendations from Planning Commission,location/zoning of site and surrounding
amenities/properties,comparison of existing/proposed zoning regulations (setbacks,height,
open space),condition to impose design guidelines applicable to D-2 zoning district (as per
Planning’s recommendation to Planning Commission –supported by Master Plan policies &
community feedback),letters of support received from Poplar Grove &Glendale Community
Councils,and concerns received from property owner located on the north east corner
regarding setbacks,height,and possible light being blocked by proposed structures.
Maximilian Coreth and Justin Heppler (applicants)thanked Planning Staff,Salt Lake
Redevelopment Agency (RDA),and others involved with the project,provided history of the
site,noted community outreach was conducted for preferences of development,project
included ideas for restaurants,coffee shops,other businesses in existing buildings (west side)
on the site with planned housing on vacant portion to support said businesses,and discussed
preference for requesting R-MU zoning designation vs.other possible zoning designations.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
5
5.Ordinance:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan ~3:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will be briefed about the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan.Some
major changes in the proposed plan include adjustments to how the City chooses lighting in
public spaces based on pedestrian activity and transportation needs,as well as identifies new
street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -TBD
Hold hearing to accept public comment -TBD
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
Minutes:
Item pulled.
6.Tentative Break ~4:00 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
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
6
7.Ordinance:Zoning Text Amendments for Off-street Parking ~4:20 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would amend various sections of the Salt
Lake City Code pertaining to off-street parking regulations.The proposal would:
•Update parking requirements to better reflect demand;
•Simplify parking regulations;
•Address technical issues in enforcement;and
•Establish a responsive ordinance to the City’s changing development patterns.
Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 6,2021
Minutes:
Russell Weeks provided a introduction to the proposed amendments,advised of policy
questions,and noted there was a presentation from Planning Staff.
Eric Daems and Nick Norris provided information regarding background (tasked with
updating off-street parking regulations,including maximum/minimum
parking requirements,permitted alternatives,parking lot design/dimension standards),
purpose (align parking chapter with Master Plan goals of the City,modernize for best
practices,standards that reflected market demand,etc.),key chapter updates (relaxed
requirements for expansion or change of use,creation of parking “contexts”(transit,urban
center,neighborhood center,and general)and their locations in the City,revised strategy for
minimum &maximum parking,increased bike parking,updated parking alternatives),
alternatives to parking calculations (dropped transit demand management –TDM –
strategies,up to 40%combined reductions for affordable/senior housing,carpool/car share,
proximity to mass transit,and shared parking,parking study being conducted to reduce or
increase parking),parking maximums/minimums (parking counts based on consultant
recommendations,City and neighborhood goals,and input from property
managers/developers,minimums generally lower,maximums now based on best practice
–rather than percent of minimum,structured parking not counted against parking
maximum,maximum restaurant parking in Neighborhood Center Context increased from 2.5
stalls per 1,000 s/f to 7 per 1,000 s/f.),proposed multi-family parking requirements and
maximums for each context area,recent items to address (text amendment from
eleemosynary facility to congregate care,pending changes to special exception chapters
for front yard parking &vehicle storage w/o hard surfacing,and recommendations recently
received from Transportation’s parking study for Central 9th and 9th &9th areas).
Further discussion was held regarding reasoning for the 9th Central/9th &9th parking study,
how the current proposal dovetailed with on-street parking study,recommendations from
Fehr &Peers study (determining adequate off-street parking in some areas of the City),
determining appropriate maximum requirements for multi-family parking,providing
adequate affordable housing reductions,and the possibility of allowed parking reductions
being applied/packaged/stacked to avoid no parking requirements.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
7
8.Ordinance:Building Inspections for Modular or Factory-Built
Structures ~5:05 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend sections of the Salt Lake City Code to
allow off-site inspection of “modular”or “factory-built”structures.These types of homes may
be used either as accessory dwelling units (ADUs)on existing residential properties or as
stand-alone units on a larger site.Modular homes are built in factories and then delivered to
the site for “installation,”which can result in lower costs per unit compared to traditional,on-
site construction.The proposed ordinance would provide a process for permitting,inspecting,
and approving these buildings.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Minutes:
Allison Rowland provided an introduction to the proposed ordinance,a corrected
transmittal was provided to the Council an hour ago,and noted the Council would have the
option to adopt/not adopt the ordinance during the Formal meeting this evening,
Orion Goff provided information regarding:increased interest/requests for modular
homes,clarity provided that modular units/factory built structures were not mobile homes
(regulated by the Federal government –built to HUD standards),State allowing for local
jurisdictions to adopt certain standards/polices/procedures to regulate modular homes,
current regulations do not allow City inspectors to inspect modular homes,ICC
(International Code Council)&Modular Building Institute (MBI)having expressed support
of the update to the ordinance (submitting letters of support)and both working to integrate
the proposed requirements into the next code cycle (being every three years),looking for
immediate adoption and be effective as soon as possible,permitting/inspection requirements
(onsite inspections for footings/setbacks/connections to foundations).
Paul Nielson (City Attorney)indicated this was not a land use regulation/issue and did
not require the Planning Commission process.
Jon Hannah-Spacagna (MBI)noted that modular constructed buildings were built to the
same standards/code as a site built structures (built in a factory)providing more efficiency,
less waste,greener,completed 30-50%faster.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
8
9.Informational:Ranked Choice Voting Overview and Pilot Project ~5:25 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will be briefed 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
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Minutes:
Benjamin Luedtke provided an interim update,noting factors might change in the near
future,April 14,2021 was the deadline for the City to provide notice of participation in the
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)pilot program,a primary election would be optional under the
pilot program,three bills in legislature related to RCV (House Bills (HB)75,127,174),and
previous uncertainty in the County’s ability to provide RCV (cost estimates for an election,
timeline to receive/test equipment,and testing size of ballots).
Cindy Lou Trishman and Lauren Shafer provided information regarding:requirement
to notify the Lieutenant Governor’s Office before April 15,2021 of the City’s interest in
participating in the RCV pilot program,should HB 75 pass,the legislative body (City Council)
would be required to notify the Lieutenant Governor’s Office (rather than the City Recorder’s
Office),should HB 174 pass,the City Council would be required to notify the Lieutenant
Governor’s Office of which voting method was preferred (Star,Approval,or Ranking
method),should HB 75 pass,Salt Lake County would be required (by statute)to run the
election –with no option to contract with another County or for the City to run its own
election.
Councilmember Dugan inquired what other cities used the Star method for RCV.Ms.Shafer
said most cities were utilizing the ranking method,and the Star method would be a new
option if HB 174 passed.
Pamela Spencer,Vineyard City Recorder,provided information regarding Vineyard
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
9
City’s experience moving to RCV and said their Council and residents were pleased with the
outcome and did not report any problems,RCV demonstrations/education was provided to
the public,and was an overall good experience for the City.
Sherrie Swenson,Salt Lake County Clerk provided information regarding
not originally having equipment to accommodate RCV,recently signing a contract on
December 31,2020 for new RCV equipment due to be received in separate shipments over
the next several weeks,importance of testing equipment to efficiently support RCV,Utah
having unlimited amount of candidates to be ranked and how they would fit on a ballot,and
costs involved for having a two page ballot (additional $194,000 –including requiring
additional staff for adjudicated ballots),also noting the County having first offered vote-by-
mail contracts (receiving/tabulating ballots)for cities in 1995,a 90.11%turnout of (record
number)registered voters for November 2020 election (over 100,000 more registered voters
in the County since 2016),
10.Board Appointment:Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board –Shelley
Bodily ~5:55 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Shelley Bodily prior to considering appointment to the Housing
Trust Fund Advisory Board for a term ending December 30,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Minutes:
Interview was held.Councilmember Fowler said Shelly Bodily’s name was on the Consent
Agenda for formal consideration.
11.Board Appointment:Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
–José Organista ~6:00 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview José Organista prior to considering appointment to the Housing
Trust Fund Advisory Board for a term ending December 30,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Minutes:
Interview was held.Councilmember Fowler said Jose Organista’s name was on the Consent
Agenda for formal consideration.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
10
Standing Items
12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
Minutes:
Item not held.
13.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.
Minutes:
Item not held.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
11
14.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting
described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but
not limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or
mental health of an individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real
property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if public
discussion of the transaction would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the
best possible terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of
a water right or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the
best possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property
would be offered for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or
systems;and
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
12
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.
Minutes:
Item not held.
Meeting adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
City Council Chair
_______________________________
City Recorder
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed;
please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council
Work Session meeting held 16 February 2021.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
13
PENDING MINUTES –NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Formal Session on Tuesday,February 2,2021 in
an Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair’s determination and Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b).
The following Council Members were present:
Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,
James Rogers
Present Legislative leadership:
Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua
Weaver,Associate Deputy Director
Present Administrative leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer
Present City Staff:
Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,Kory Solorio –Assistant
City Recorder,Cindy Gust-Jenson –Executive Director,Libby Stockstill –Policy Analyst/Public
Engagement,Robert Nutzman –Administrative Assistant
Full Meeting Audio
Meeting Packet Material
Public Comments submitted through the City Council office from January 26 through February
3
Councilmember Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at Tuesday,February 2,2021
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
1
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meetings.
Minutes:
Councilmember Amy Fowler stated the meetings were being conducted electronically due
to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation 2.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes:
A moment of silence was held while the American Flag and Pledge was displayed on the
screen.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NONE.
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
Minutes:
NONE.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
2
2.Comments to the City Council.(Comments are taken on any item not scheduled
for a public hearing,as well as on any other City business.Comments are limited
to two minutes.)
Minutes:
Darren Mann,Village Cooperative,said he created a homeless camp at his personal residence,and the
mission of Village Cooperative was to localize food sources.He said elected officials had not responded to his
efforts to reach out.He stated he had experience managing vacant lands and expressed desire to work
collaboratively with the City to solve the homeless crisis.
Councilmember Johnston took a moment of personal privilege to inform Mr.Mann that his voicemail was full
and shared the option of texting or returning the call.
Kseniya Kniazeva,Nomad Alliance,commented about the homeless crisis,requested the City complete
regular trash pickups at the settlements,expressed desire to collaborate/address homeless issues,and
requested Last Hope camp abatement be rescheduled.
Jen Colby commented about the upcoming public hearing for the zoning amendments proposed at Lincoln
Street and 200 South,documentation indicating the structures were contributing historic structures,and
expressed support of affordable housing opportunities.
Cory Larsen,Nomad Alliance,commented the homeless camp abatements occurring without a destination
for the people was disheartening,requested multiple days notice prior to abatement,and suggested more
opportunities to help those who continue being moved from one location to another.
Annie Charles spoke about the abatements scheduled directly before winter-weather storms,referenced the
CDC guidelines,shared triggering moments within shelters/resource centers (due to the lack of feeling safe),
and suggested more compassion and consideration of the scheduling/practice.
Dave Illtis referenced the ordinance regarding free metered parking for green vehicles.He expressed
the effort was supportive of vehicle use,spoke of concern about pollution from tire particles,and suggested a
reduced fee for electric vehicle parking.He commented about the loss of bicycle parking with the installation
of parking meter structures and noted a parking study recently completed (indicated there was too much
parking downtown)was not provided to the public .
Sariah Westfall,Nomad Alliance,expressed concern of current camp abatements without a destination,
commented about Mr.Mann’s resources on his personal property (garbage cans,bathroom use),encouraged
getting to know those without shelter at Mr.Mann’s property,and advocated for the continued allowance of
Mr.Mann’s efforts.
Emily Alworth spoke about the camp abatements and suggested rescheduling upcoming abatements until
after the snowstorm.She said it was safer for the homeless to have their belongings in this weather.
Monica Hilding referenced the proposed ordinance for zoning amendments at Lincoln Street and 200
south,noted the structures were historic (built in the 1890s),and shared historical content was also provided
in the 1980s (while efforts to obtain a local historic district of the neighborhood was being pursued).
She encouraged the Council to consider the public comments and information shared by Planning and the
community.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
3
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1.Motion:Meeting Remotely Without an Anchor Location
The Council will consider a motion to ratify the determination that the Council will
continue to meet remotely and without an anchor location under HB5002.
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 -Tuesday,July 7,2020;Tuesday,August 11,2020;
Tuesday,September 1,2020;Tuesday,October 6,2020;Wednesday,October 28,
2020;Tuesday,November 17,2020;Tuesday,December 8,2020;Tuesday,
January 5,2021;and Tuesday,February 2,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to ratify the
determination that the Council continue meeting remotely and without an
anchor location.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
4
2.Resolution:Local Emergency Declaration Extension –COVID-19
The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would extend the Mayor’s
March 10,2020 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to COVID-19
(coronavirus).The Council’s most recent extension of the local emergency relating
to COVID-19 terminates February 3,2021.
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 -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Mano to adopt
Resolution 3 of 2021,extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency
relating to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus)pandemic,until May 5,2021.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
5
3.Resolution:Local Emergency Declaration Extension –Magnitude 5.7
Earthquake
The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would extend the Mayor’s
March 18,2020 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to a magnitude
5.7 earthquake.The Council’s most recent extension of the local emergency
relating to the earthquake terminates February 3,2021.
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 -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Minutes:
Discussion on the motion from Councilmember Johnston included Ms.Gust-Jenson
stating the purpose of extending this emergency declaration was to preserve City options
for federal funding;noting the Council may rescind it at any time.
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt
Resolution 4 of 2021,extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency
relating to a magnitude 5.7 earthquake,until May 5,2021.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
6
4.Resolution:Local Emergency Declaration Extension –Windstorm
The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would extend the Mayor’s
September 8,2020 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to the
windstorm.The Council’s most recent extension of the local emergency relating to
the windstorm terminates February 3,2021.
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 -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt
Resolution 5 of 2021,extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency
relating to the Windstorm until May 5,2021
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
7
G.CONSENT:
1.Ordinance*:Zoning Amendments at Lincoln Street and 200 South
The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map
and Central Community Master Plan for properties located at 159 South Lincoln
Street,949 East,955 East,959 East and 963 East 200 South.The requested rezone
would change the properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential)to
RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)zoning district.The Master
Plan amendment would change the properties from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential.The proposal would allow the applicant more
flexibility to develop future multi-family residential housing than what is currently
allowed.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning
district with similar characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also
be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2019-00683 and
PLNPCM2019-00684
*The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation,therefore an
ordinance has not been drafted.If the Council decides to approve the zone
amendment,an ordinance would be drafted and considered for approval.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Set date.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
8
2.Ordinance:Rezone at 1301 and 1321 South State Street
The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance to rezone the properties at 1301 and
1321 South State Street.The proposal would change the properties from CC
(Corridor Commercial)to FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2)and
amend the table of the zoning ordinance to include additional land area eligible
for additional building height.The applicant requested the rezone because the FB-
UN2 zoning district better aligns with potential use of the corner lot and potential
for a new mixed-use building,which would replace existing buildings on the
parcels.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning
district with similar characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also
be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-00328
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Set date.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
9
3.Ordinance:Zoning Amendments at Approximately 2903 South
Highland Drive
The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Sugar House
Master Plan and Zoning Map for property at 2903 South Highland Drive.The
property is currently “split zoned.”The applicant is requesting the eastern portion
of the property be changed from Low Density Residential to Low Intensity –
Mixed Use in the Sugar House Master Plan.The applicant is also requesting a
zoning change on the eastern portion of the property from the current R-1-7000
(Single-Family Residential)to CB (Community Business)in order to match zoning
on the western portion.If approved,the changes would allow for potential future
development of the site.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A –
Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.
Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-00053/00054
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Set date.
4.Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.4)Associated with BAM No.7
for Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.4)
for Fiscal Year 2020-21 Associated with Budget Amendment No.7.
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 -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Staff Recommendation -Approve.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
10
5.Board Appointment:Bicycle Advisory Committee –Rachel Manko
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Rachel Manko to the
Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending February 2,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Staff Recommendation -Approve.
6.Board Reappointment:Business Advisory Board –Derek Deitsch
The Council will consider the reappointment of Derek Deitsch to the Business
Advisory Board as an ex-officio member with a term ending December 27,2021.
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 -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Staff Recommendation -Approve.
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to approve the
Consent Agenda.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin
Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
Minutes:
Councilmember Fowler expressed appreciation to Council Staff on their successful efforts
managing electronic meetings and making adjustments based on feedback.
Councilmember Fowler also noted the Grant Applications on the Consent Agenda had already
completed a public hearing and said it was necessary to release funding from the holding
account at this time.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
11
H.ADJOURNMENT:
Minutes:
Meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
City Council Chair
_______________________________
City Recorder
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been
discussed;please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code
§52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council
Formal meeting held 02 February 2021.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 2,2021
12
PENDING MINUTES –NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Formal Session on Tuesday,February 16,
2021 in an Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair’s determination and Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b).
The following Council Members were present:
Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,
James Rogers
Present Legislative leadership:
Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua
Weaver,Associate Deputy Director
Present Administrative leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer
Present City Staff:
Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,Kory Solorio –Assistant
City Recorder,Russell Weeks –Senior Advisor,Sylvia Richards –Public Policy Analyst,Jessica
Waters –Police Department Social Work Director
Full Meeting Audio
Meeting Packet Material
Public Comments submitted through the City Council office from 02/09/2021 thru 02/16/2021
Councilmember Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
1
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meetings.
Minutes:
Councilmember Amy Fowler stated the meetings were held electronically due to the
Emergency Proclamation 2 of Salt Lake City.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes:
A moment of silence was held while the American Flag and Pledge text was displayed on
the screen.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday,June 9,
2020.
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Rogers,seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to approve
the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday,June 9,2020.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor
Mendenhall declaring March 1st as COVID-19 Victims and Survivors Memorial
Day in Salt Lake City.
Minutes:
The resolution was read by Councilmember Dugan.
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to to
adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 6 of 2021 Designating the First Monday
in March as COVID-19 Victims and Survivors Memorial Day in Salt Lake City.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Items B1-B8 will be heard as one public hearing
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
2
1.Grant Application:Local Government On-System Bridge Rehabilitation
Replacement Funding:1500 West 650 North
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Engineering Division to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)for the
Local Government On-System Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Funding for the
bridge at 1500 West 650 North.If awarded,the grant would fund:the replacement
of the entire bridge while maintaining the existing bridge length and width;the
widening of the bridge sidewalk for a combination sidewalk and bike path;the
addition of seismic upgrades;and the restoration of the slopes under the bridge to
match the slopes on the sides of the existing bridge.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda.
2.Grant Application:Fix the Bricks –Building Resilient Infrastructure &
Communities
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Emergency Management Division to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
program.The program is offering a new benefit ($100,000)for the research and
development of an Equity and Inclusion plan to include low income and
underserved communities in Salt Lake City.If awarded,Emergency Management
would engage a consultant to identify solutions to include in the plan.The funding
would also pay salary and benefits for two existing Full Time Employee (FTE)
positions tasked to assist with the program.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
3
3.Grant Application:Surface Transportation Program Fiscal Year
2022-27 –700 North Corridor Transformation
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Engineering Division to the Wasatch Front Regional Council.If awarded,this
grant would fund the 700 North Corridor improvements between Redwood Road
and 2200 West.Improvements would include new pavement,a new traffic signal
and pedestrian and bicycle crossing,intersection improvements,new sidewalk
where sidewalk is missing,new striping for existing bicycle lanes,and upgrades to
two bus stops.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda.
4.Grant Application:Congestion Mitigation Air Quality 2022-27:Utah
Inland Port Authority Electrified Truck Facility
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Community and Neighborhoods to the Wasatch Front Regional
Council.If awarded,this grant would be used to fund the construction of the Utah
Inland Port Authority Electrified Truck Parking Facility at 700 North John Glenn
Road.The facility would accommodate over two hundred electrified trucks to park
overnight with plug-in electric charging equipment.The Department of
Community and Neighborhoods (CAN),as an eligible applicant,agreed to be a
pass through agent for the Utah Inland Port Authority.The Utah Inland Port
Authority will be responsible for oversight,management,and implementation of
the project.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
4
5.Grant Application:Transportation Alternatives Program Grant Fiscal
Year 2022-23 –Kensington East/West Neighborhood Byway Phase 2
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Transportation Division to the Wasatch Front Regional Council.If awarded,the
grant would be used for the Kensington East-West Neighborhood Byway Phase 2
project to enhance bicycle and pedestrian use and connectivity on low-volume
local streets as a through route and to improve crossings at larger streets.
Upgrades would also include enhanced crossings with pedestrian signals,median
refuge islands,traffic calming,and wayfinding signs.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda.
6.Grant Application:Transportation and Land Use Connection Grant
Fiscal Year 2022 –Granary District Area Plan
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Transportation Division to Salt Lake County,the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT),the Utah Transit Authority (UTA),and the Wasatch Front
Regional Council.If awarded,the grant would be used for technical assistance to
develop the Granary District Area Plan.The plan would evaluate options to
maximize all modes of travel to increase connectivity and serve the significant
changes in land use and density in the Granary District.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
5
7.Grant Application:Transportation and Land Use Connection Grant
Fiscal Year 2022 -Downtown Building Height Zoning Update
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Planning Division to Salt Lake County,the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT),the Utah Transit Authority (UTA),and the Wasatch Front Regional
Council.If awarded,the grant would be used for technical assistance in the
development of the Downtown Building Height Zoning Update.The project would
be an evaluation,recommendation,and update to the building height zoning
regulations to support future growth in the downtown area while reducing the
impacts of taller buildings on public spaces.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
6
8.Grant Application:Bureau of Emergency (BEMS)Services –Fiscal
Year 2022 Per Capita Allocation
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Salt Lake City Fire Department to the State Bureau of Emergency Services and
Preparedness.If awarded,the grant would fund the purchase of medical supplies
for the Fire Department.This is an annual grant award based on per capita of
population served.The award amount would be determined in the coming
months.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda.
Minutes:
Sylvia Richards provided a brief summary regarding the grant applications process.
Greg Sanchez expressed support for Grants one and three (Grant Application:Local
Government On-System Bridge Rehabilitation Replacement Funding:1500 West 650 North and Grant
Application:Fix the Bricks –Building Resilient Infrastructure &Communities),the
importance of infrastructures for the city in creating more of a community center.
Amy Hawkins,Chair of the Ballpark Community Council,expressed support for Grant
Item No.5 (Grant Application:Transportation Alternatives Program Grant Fiscal Year
2022-23 –Kensington East/West Neighborhood Byway Phase 2),and said crime would
be deterred with a neighborhood byway.
Kenan Wells was called upon and stated he was unsure if he was in the correct area.It
was determined that his comments should be made during the general comments
session.
Taylor Anderson,co-founder of Sweet Streets,applauded the Transportation Division
for creative funding methods,and expressed support for the Kensington Byway Grant
application (Item No.5)that would create safer routes for pedestrians and children who
attended school in the area.
Monica Hilding expressed concerns with Grant Item No.4 (Grant Application:
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality 2022-27:Utah Inland Port Authority Electrified Truck
Facility),regarding lack of transparency and public opposition to the Utah Inland Port
Authority.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
7
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to to close
the public hearings and refer Items 1-8 to a future Consent Agenda for action.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
9.Resolution:Bond Authorizing the Establishment of Short-term
Borrowing Program for the Benefit of the Department of Airports
The Council will accept public comment about a bond resolution authorizing the
establishment of a short-term borrowing program for the benefit of the
Department of Airports through the issuance and/or incurrence of the
aforementioned Revolving Obligations,from time to time,which may be
outstanding at any one time in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$300,000,000.Approving the revolving line of credit to be provided by JPMorgan
Chase,National Association,and giving authority to certain officers to approve the
final terms and provisions of and confirm the issuance and/or incurrence of the
Revolving Obligations,from time to time,within certain parameters set forth in
the attached Bond Resolution.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 19,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,January 19,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,February 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,January 19,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Minutes:
Russell Weeks provided a brief summary regarding the resolution.
There were no public comments.
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to close the
public hearing
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
8
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
Minutes:
Mayor Mendenhall commented about the storm expected that evening and ensured
preparations had been made for it.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
9
2.Comments to the City Council.(Comments are taken on any item not scheduled
for a public hearing,as well as on any other City business.Comments are limited
to two minutes.)
Minutes:
Councilmember Fowler outlined the public meeting rules and decorum.
Tyler Slack said he worked in Salt Lake City for 20 years and spoke about the
unsheltered population being moved from place to place.He urged the Council to find
better solutions to prevent further trauma and help save lives.
Jen Colby said she opposed amending the master plan and zoning map on 900 East/200
South/Lincoln Street.She said rezoning was harmful to long-term affordability and was
not necessary for new development in the area.
Rich Wilcox said he opposed amending the master plan and zoning map on 900
East/200 South/Lincoln Street.He said the two-year process had been stressful for
residents and nothing had changed since the Planning Commission’s negative
recommendation last year.
Cindy Cromer expressed disagreement with the rezoning map on 900 East/200
South/Lincoln Street.and said more harm would come to the community such as
inadvertently increasing the cost of housing.
Keenan Wells expressed disagreement with the rezoning map on 900 East/200
South/Lincoln Street and commented on the disregard of owners to their tenants by
attempting to evict/evicting tenants during the pandemic.
Kseniya Kniazeva,Executive Director of Nomad Alliance,thanked Council Members
Fowler and Wharton for their interest and involvement with the Nomad supply drive and
requested further cooperation to find permanent solutions to prevent suffering.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
10
George Chapman commented on the parking proposal (agenda item G-3)public
hearing date and asked the Council to give the public more time before holding the
hearing.
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1.Ordinance:Building Inspections for Modular or Factory-Built
Structures
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance amending Sections 18.08.040
and 18.32.020 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow off-site inspection of “modular”
or “factory-built”structures.These types of homes may be used either as accessory
dwelling units (ADUs)on existing residential properties or as stand-alone units on
a larger site.Modular homes are built in factories and then delivered to the site for
“installation,”which can result in lower costs per unit compared to traditional,on-
site construction.The proposed ordinance would provide a process for permitting,
inspecting,and approving these buildings.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Rogers,seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to adopt
Ordinance 2 of 2021,adopting changes related to modular building
construction and inspections.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
11
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
12
1.Resolution:Awarding U.S.Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)Coronavirus Aid,Relief,and Economic Security
(CARES)Act Grant Funds
The Council will consider adopting a resolution about funding recommendations
from resident advisory boards and the Mayor and approving an interlocal
agreement between the City and the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).This agreement allocates and awards funding to those
applicants.Community partners submitted applications for one-time pandemic
response funding from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV),
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV)and Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS (HOPWA)grants.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 19,2021 and Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Minutes:
Councilmember Fowler took a moment of personal privilege to thank those involved
–specifically those in Community &Neighborhoods and Housing and Neighborhood
Division for their swift work to prepare the necessary materials to distribute the funds to
the community.
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Rogers,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to approve an
appropriations resolution (Resolution 8 of 2021)updating the 2020-2021
action plan as set forth in Exhibit A for Volunteers of America application
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
13
ESG #4.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,James
Rogers
RECUSED:Andrew Johnston
Final Result:6 –0 Pass
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Rogers,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to to authorize
an interlocal agreement between the City and HUD and approve an
appropriations resolution (Resolution 8 of 2021)updating the 2020-2021
action plan as set forth in Exhibit A awarding CDBG,ESG,and HOPWA funds
except for ESG #4.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
2.Joint City Council-Mayor Resolution:Applauding the Work of the Salt
Lake City Hostage Negotiation Team and Director Jessica Waters
The Council will consider adopting a joint resolution with Mayor Erin
Mendenhall applauding the work of the Salt Lake City Police Department Hostage
Negotiation Team and Director Jessica Waters.For their dedicated work,
committed compassion,and successful de-escalation during a highly stressful
situation,ensuring the safety and well-being of Salt Lake City’s residents.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Minutes:
Councilmember Fowler commented on the resolution and pervious work/discussions.
Jessica Walters thanked those involved in the process and mentioned the team effort it
required.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
14
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Rogers,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt joint
Resolution 7 of 2021 applauding the work of the Salt Lake City Hostage
Negotiation Team and Director Jessica Waters.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,
Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
G.CONSENT:
1.Ordinance:Rezone at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South and
710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue
The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would rezone properties at 706
to 740 West 900 South and 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue,including portions of
two alleys,from M-1 (Light Manufacturing)to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use).The
applicant intends to develop the remaining portion of the site with multi-family
residential housing that is not currently permitted under the existing zoning
designation.The developer has not proposed a specific development plan as part of
the rezone application.The applicant also intends to renovate two vacant
commercial buildings on the site for commercial uses.Consideration may be given
to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.
Petition Nos.:PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLN2020-00442
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
15
Staff Recommendation -Set date.
2.Ordinance:Library Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 16,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance to amend the budget for the Library
Fund for Fiscal Year 2020-21.Budget amendments happen several times each year
to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,including proposed project additions
and modifications.The proposed amendment includes funding to complete the
Library’s Master Facilities Plan,a grant to increase digital access to underserved
populations in the City,for earthquake repairs to the Main Library Branch,and
Sprague Branch renovations,among other changes.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 9,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 6,2021
Staff Recommendation -Set date.
3.Ordinance:Zoning Text Amendments for Off-street Parking
The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 16,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections
of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to off-street parking regulations.The
proposal would:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
16
•Update parking requirements to better reflect demand;
•Simplify parking regulations;
•Address technical issues in enforcement;and
•Establish a responsive ordinance to the City’s changing development patterns.
Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this
petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2017-00753
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 6,2021
Staff Recommendation -Set date.
4.Board Appointment:Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board –Shelley
Bodily
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Shelley Bodily to the
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board for a term ending December 30,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Approve.
5.Board Appointment:Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board –José
Organista
The Council will consider approving the appointment of José Organista to the
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board for a term ending December 30,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
17
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Approve.
6.Board Reappointment:Transportation Advisory Board –Dave
Alderman
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Dave Alderman to the
Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending February 20,2024.
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 -Tuesday,February 16,2021
Staff Recommendation -Approve.
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Mano to to approve the
Consent Agenda.
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin
Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:7 –0 Pass
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
18
H.ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
City Council Chair
_______________________________
City Recorder
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been
discussed;please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code
§52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council
Formal meeting held 16 February 2021.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 16,2021
19
PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Formal Session on Thursday,May 13,2021 in an
Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair’s determination and Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b).
The following Council Members were present:
Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,James Rogers
Present Legislative leadership:
Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua
Weaver,Associate Deputy Director
Present Administrative leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer
Present City Staff:
Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,Thais Stewart –Minutes
and Records Clerk
Full Meeting Audio
Meeting Packet Material
Councilmember Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:15 PM
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Thursday,May 13,2021
1
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meetings.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
D.COMMENTS:
E.NEW BUSINESS:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Thursday,May 13,2021
2
1.TENTATIVE–Resolution:Appointing a Member of the Salt Lake City
Council,District Two Vacancy
The Council will consider adopting a resolution appointing a new member of the
Salt Lake City Council to fill the term until January 3,2022 of the vacated office
representing District Two and administration of the Oath of Office.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,May 13,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Thursday,May 13,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Rogers,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to Adopt
Resolution 17 of 2021,appointing Dennis Faris as a member of the Salt
Lake City Council for the District 2 Vacancy
AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,James Rogers
Final Result:6 –0 Pass
Minutes:
Cindy Lou Trishman explained the oath of office procedures.
Councilmember Faris took the oath of office electronically.
Councilmember Valdemoros congratulated the new Councilmember and
expressed how difficult the process of selecting a new Councilmember was.
Andrew Johnston commented on Councilmember Faris’s qualifications for the
position.
Mayor Mendenhall congratulated Councilmember Faris on being selected as the
District two Councilmember,also welcomed the Councilmember to the position.
Councilmember Fowler urged all applicants to continue supporting the City
through community engagement opportunities,welcomed Councilmember Faris to
the City Council.
Councilmember Faris thanked Andrew Johnston for his time as a
Councilmember and expressed his excitement to work in the second district.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Thursday,May 13,2021
3
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
G.CONSENT:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Thursday,May 13,2021
4
H.ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 2:29 PM
Minutes Approved:PENDING
_______________________________
City Council Chair
_______________________________
City Recorder
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been
discussed;please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code
§52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council
Formal meeting held Thursday,May 13,2021.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Thursday,May 13,2021
5
Item B1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE: RESOLUTION: AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021A AND SERIES 2021B
MOTION: To Close the Public Hearing
I move that the Council close the public hearing.
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: Russell Weeks
Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:October 31, 2022
RE: RESOLUTION: AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021A AND SERIES 2021B
NEW INFORMATION
This report pertains to the July 13, 2021, public hearing pertaining to the resolution to authorize the
issuance and sale of not more than $1 billion in airport revenue bonds.
Utah law regulates bond issues, including the sequence of adopting a bond resolution and holding a
public hearing. Under Utah law, a city council adopts a resolution first, then takes public comment at a later
hearing. After the public hearing, a Council could amend a resolution, but amending a resolution is a rare
occurrence.1
Under the law, the public hearing will focus on two things: the issuance of … the Bonds themselves;
and (b) “the potential economic impact that the project(s) will have on the private sector.”
If the Council closes the public hearing and determines not to amend the resolution after the July 13
hearing, Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s Administration would take several steps to prepare for the bond sale. The
bonds tentatively are scheduled to be sold on either on July 27 or July 28, 2021, pending the July 13 public
hearing and market conditions.2 The same day the bonds are sold the Mayor and City Council Chair will sign a
“certificate of determination” as part of the sale process. The bond sale tentatively would close about two weeks
after the sale and signing.3
Given past City Council actions pertaining to airport revenue bonds, Council staff has prepared a
motion to close the public hearing.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: May 18, 2021
Set Date: June 1, 2021
Public Hearing: July 13,
2021
Potential Action: June 1,
2021
Page | 2
To recap briefly the project’s and the new airport’s effect on the private sector:
o The new Salt Lake City International Airport is the largest public works project in Utah’s
history.
o The estimated total construction cost of the new airport when it’s completely built is about
$4.45 billion.4
o The project’s economic impact is estimated at $5.5 billion.5
o Of more than $2 billion in contracts awarded for the project to date, $1,359,453,965 in contracts
have been awarded to 124 companies along the Wasatch Front. The remaining $672,091,052 in
contracts have been awarded to 29 out of state contractors.6
o The new airport “provides Delta (Air Lines) a strategic presence in the western half of the U.S.,
and allows Delta to provide more efficient traffic flows than it could otherwise offer from its
other hub airports to and from connecting markets in the western U.S. The Airport serves a
unique purpose in Delta’s network, as both a north-south and east-west connecting point. The
absence of the Airport hub would create a noticeable void in Delta’s network, as it could not
otherwise connect passenger traffic efficiently to key markets throughout the western U.S.”7
o The airport is the 23rd busiest in the North America and the 85th busiest airport in the world in
terms of passenger numbers.8
A detailed analysis of the Airport project’s potential for the bond issue can be found in the draft
Report of the Airport Consultant. The report starts at Page 157 of the Administration transmittal.
Information below this line has appeared in previous reports.
The City Council received a briefing on this item at its May 18 work session. The Council is scheduled
to formally consider the proposed resolution at its June 1 meeting. Adopting the resolution starts a formal
process to issue the airport revenue bonds, including a July 13 public hearing. A motion sheet is attached to this
report.
To recap, the proposed resolution would authorize the issuance and sale of not more than $1 billion in
airport revenue bonds. Formal Council adoption of the resolution at its June 1 meeting also would do two things:
1) Start publication in a newspaper of record of a notice of the proposed bond issue. The second publication of
the notice would start a 30-day “contest” period pertaining to the bonds. 2) Set a date for a July 13 public
hearing before the City Council to “receive input from the public with respect to (a) the issuance of … the Bonds;
and (b) the potential economic impact that the projects will have on the private sector.”
Page 2 contains a tentative schedule presented by Department of Airports officials at the May 18 work
session:
Page | 3
If the Council takes no further action after the July 13 hearing, Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s
Administration would take several steps to prepare for the bond sale. The bonds tentatively are scheduled to be
sold on July 26, 2021, pending the City Council’s formal consideration of the resolution at its June 1 meeting,
and a July 13 public hearing.9 The same day the bonds are sold the Mayor and City Council Chair will sign a
“certificate of determination” as part of the sale process.
At the May 18 meeting, Department of Airports officials said the assumed interest rate on the bond
issue is 3.5 percent on the based on current market conditions. The resolution contains a not to exceed interest
rate of 6 percent.
State law regulates bond issues, including the sequence of adopting a bond resolution and holding a
public hearing. Under Utah law, a city council adopts a resolution first, then takes public comment at a later
hearing. After the public hearing, a Council could amend a resolution, but amending a resolution is a rare
occurrence.10
Information below this line has appeared in a previous report.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Goal of the briefing: To inform the City Council about the schedule and particulars of a
proposed issuance of up to $1 billion of airport revenue bonds to continue the project to build
the new Salt Lake City International Airport and supporting facilities.
Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s Administration is scheduled on May 18 to brief the City Council on a
proposed resolution to issue up to $1 billion in airport revenue bonds to continue what is now known as the New
Salt Lake City International Airport project. Project construction has been under way since 2014 and is
scheduled to end in 2024. The bonds would mature over a period no more than 40 years.
The bonds tentatively are scheduled to be sold on July 26, 2021, pending the City Council’s formal
consideration of the resolution at its June 1, and a July 13 public hearing.11 The same day the bonds are sold the
Mayor and City Council Chair will sign a “certificate of determination” as part of the sale process. The public
hearing will focus on the proposed bond issue and the potential economic impact the Airport project will have on
the private sector. The entire transaction tentatively is scheduled to close “on or about August 19, 2021.”12
The resolution before the City Council would:
Page | 4
o Authorize the issuance and sale of “not to exceed” $1 billion aggregate principal of one or more
series of airport revenue bonds.
o Give authority to “certain officials and officers” to approve the final terms and provisions of the
series of 2021 bonds.
o Authorize and approve the delivery of documents related to issuing the bonds.
o Provide for the publication of a July 13, 2021, public hearing notice.
If issued, the bonds would be airport revenue bonds. Bonds like that are limited obligation bonds paid
solely from revenue generated at the Airport including landing fees collected from airlines, rental revenues
collected from airlines and concessionaires operating at the Airport, and parking fees collected at parking
facilities located at the Airport. The revenue bonds do not oblige the City’s taxing power or pledge the City’s “full
faith and credit” to repay the bonds.
It might be noted that the proposed resolution lists an interest rate on the bonds that would “not
exceed 6 percent” a year.13 However, the Administration estimates that the bond will be sold “at a true interest
cost” of about 3.5 percent a year “assuming interest rates remain at their present levels.”14
It also might be noted that the Department of Airports estimates that total construction costs
pertaining to the new airport will be $4.45 billion, including construction funded by the proposed bonds.15
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Given the available information, including documents pertaining to the May 18 briefing and the
Department of Airports budget presentation for the next fiscal year on April 20, 2021, is the City Council
sufficiently comfortable to formally consider the proposed resolution at its June 1 meeting?
2. Given the continued upward pressure on the cost of construction materials, will the final cost of building
the new airport be within current estimated expenses for the project?
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
According to the department of Airports, “The Series 2021 Bonds are being purchased by Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, [BofA Securities, Inc. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, and ZB National Association] (collectively, the “Underwriters”), for whom Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. (“Citi”), is acting as representative (the “Representative”). The Underwriters have agreed, subject to
certain conditions, to purchase all of the Series 2021 Bonds” …16
The proposed bond sale is scheduled to take place at a fluid time. The Department of Airports draft
Official Statement and draft Report of the Airport Consultant acknowledge and address the effect of the Covid-
19 pandemic on the airport and the airlines. For example, here is a pertinent section from the draft Official
Statement:
“During the first eight months of FY 2020 (the City’s fiscal year ends June 30), prior to the COVID-19
outbreak, the Airport continued to experience strong business activity. Airport Revenues, enplaned passengers,
landed weights and PFCs collected increased each fiscal year from 2016 through 2019, but Revenues were 7%
less in FY 2020 than FY 2019, and enplaned passengers were reduced by 22.9% during the same period. Since
the COVID-19 outbreak, however, the Airport has seen steep declines in many financial and operating metrics,
although many of these same metrics have shown improvement since spring 2020.
April 2020 represented the low point in terms of enplaned passengers, which totaled 87,557 or 8.1% of
April 2019 enplanements. Scheduled seat capacity was reduced starting in April 2020, although actual passenger
traffic was reduced starting mid-March 2020. Decreases in passenger numbers started in mid-March 2020, and
by March 2021 had recovered to 62.4% of those recorded in March 2019. Unlike many U.S. airports, domestic
service at the Airport has begun to rebound and did not dip as substantially as at other airports during the same
period. In particular, Delta has increased seat capacity at the Airport in April and May 2021 compared to the
same months in 2019, before the impacts of the pandemic.”17
Page | 5
As the paragraphs indicate, the amount of air travel has risen from 2020 pandemic levels and may
continue on an upward arc as the pandemic diminishes.
As with previous bond issues, two things besides the project itself and the City’s record of managing of
the project and department appear to make rebuilding the airport an attractive public investment: the market
for origin and destination air passengers, and the airport’s position as a hub for Delta Air Lines.
Here is how Landrum and Brown of Cincinnati describe the area served by Salt Lake City
International in its draft Report of the Airport Consultant:
•The region has historically exhibited stronger employment trends than the nation as a whole. As
of March 2021, the region’s unemployment rate is 2.8% as compared to the overall U.S. of 6.2%.
•The region is in relatively close proximity to many national parks, state parks, and ski resorts
that offer unique outdoor activities that are more conducive for visitors during the COVID-19
pandemic. Visitor traffic to these areas was robust during the latter portion of 2020 and early
2021.
•Passenger traffic at the Airport has not been as impacted as the overall U.S.
•Scheduled departing seats for the Airport for May 2021 as compared to May 2019 are up by
4.3%. The seat capacity for the nation is still down as compared to 2019 levels.
•As the 4th largest airport for Delta in terms of seat capacity, the Airport is currently scheduled
to have an increase of 7.2% in departing seats for FY 2021 as compared to FY 2020. The Airport
is the only airport within Delta’s ten largest that is scheduled to have an increase in seats.18
Origin and Destination Market
To elaborate, according to the draft Report, “There are 38 Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs) in the U.S.
with a population in excess of 1.5 million people, including the Salt Lake City CSA. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, population in the Salt Lake City CSA or Air Service Area has increased from 2.3 million in 2010 to an
estimated 2.6 million in 2019. This relatively rapid growth ranked the Salt Lake City CSA as the 11th fastest
growing CSA with a population in excess of 1.5 million people.”19
The draft Report’s assessment of the area’s economic base for air traffic goes on to say:
•The Air Service Area has a lower proportion of working age residents (25 to 64 years old) than
the U.S. (48.9% versus 52.1%). However, it does have a higher proportion of population in the
younger working age range or ages 24 to 46. This provides an opportunity for the Air Service
Area to maintain a robust working age population for years to come as the population ages.
Additionally, the Air Service Area has a higher population with college degrees as compared to
the U.S. (45.9% versus 41.7%). Both demographics have historically accounted for a higher
demand for air travel.
•The Air Service Area has historically exhibited more favorable employment trends than the
nation; however, both the Air Service Area and U.S. have experienced significant unemployment
increases since March 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic. State unemployment claims
have decreased significantly since the peak in April 2020. While unemployment rates are still
relatively high on a national level, the Air Service Area’s unemployment rate for March 2021 was
2.8%. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the national unemployment rate will
continue to decrease as the economic recovery continues. It is expected that the Air Service Area
would continue to follow the national trend while continuing to be at a more favorable rate.
•The Air Service Area has historically exhibited strong income indicators. It has a higher
proportion of household income greater than $100,000 than the nation, which is indicative of a
higher demand for air travel.
•On a per capita basis, the Air Service Area’s gross regional product (GRP) has consistently been
lower than that of the gross domestic product (GDP) for the U.S. It is generally assumed that the
Air Service Area’s lower share of working age population as compared to the U.S. contributes to
GRP per capita being lower. The CBO has forecast GDP recovery for the nation and is currently
estimating that GDP will return to 2019 levels in the third quarter of 2021. It is expected that the
GRP for the Air Service Area would continue to generally trend with that of the U.S. As
described previously, the economy in the Air Service Area is also connected to visitors to the
region, including both leisure and business travelers.
Page | 6
•The Air Service Area is in relatively close proximity to many national parks (including the
Mighty 5), state parks, and ski resorts that offer visitors unique and exceptional activities in an
open and outdoor natural setting more conducive to restrictions in place during health
pandemics. Many of these activities have been as popular as ever during the COVID-19
pandemic. While, overall, the associated impacts and restrictions resulting from the COVID-19
pandemic have negatively affected the regional economy, tourism, conventions, and events over
the past year, it is anticipated these will recover as the spread of COVID-19 is controlled and the
U.S. economy continues to recovery and again stimulate demand for air travel.20
It also should be noted that the draft Report says, “All cargo airlines’ landed weights actually
increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to remain relatively stable.”21
Position within Delta Air Lines System
The draft Report describes Salt Lake City International as providing “Delta a strategic presence in the
western U.S. allowing for connectivity to and from the U.S. mountain-west and Pacific regions.” It goes on to
say, “For Delta’s passengers traveling to and from the west region the Airport served as the connecting point for
25.8% of passengers in FY 2020. This was only second to Delta’s largest airport of Atlanta (ATL) which served
28.4% of west region connections.
Indicative of its connecting share, the Airport provides Delta a strategic presence in the western half of
the U.S., and allows Delta to provide more efficient traffic flows than it could otherwise offer from its other hub
airports to and from connecting markets in the western U.S. The Airport serves a unique purpose in Delta’s
network, as both a north-south and east-west connecting point. The absence of the Airport hub would create a
noticeable void in Delta’s network, as it could not otherwise connect passenger traffic efficiently to key markets
throughout the western U.S.”22
1 Email, Brian Butler, February 11, 2021.
2 Emails, Brian Butler, May 13 and July 2, 2021.
3 Email, Brian Butler, July 2, 2021.
4 Administration Transmittal letter, May 11, 2021, Bill Wyatt, Page 2.
5 New SLC International Fact Sheet, Airport Website, Financial Facts.
6 Email, Mike Williams, July 7, 2021.
7 Draft Report, Page 55.
8 SLC Fast Facts, Airport Website.
9 Email, Brian Butler, May 13, 2021.
10 Email, Brian Butler, February 11, 2021.
11 Email, Brian Butler, May 13, 2021.
12 Administration Transmittal Letter, May 11, 2021, Bill Wyatt, Page 1.
13 Proposed Resolution, Page 5, Section 3 (b) (iii).
14 Transmittal letter, Page 2.
15 Transmittal letter, Page 2.
16 Draft Preliminary Official Statement of Salt Lake City Utah Relating to Its Airport Revenue Bonds, Page 81.
17 Draft Official Statement, Page 11.
18 Draft Report of the Airport Consultant, Landrum and Brown, Page vi.
19 Draft Report, Page 28.
20Draft Report, Page 47.
21 Draft Report, Page 94.
22 Draft Report, Page 55.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
4821-6554-8008.2
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: May 11, 2021
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council: May 11, 2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 11, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Bill Wyatt, Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Issuance of Series 2021 Bonds (the “Bonds”) for Financing the Construction of the
New SLC International Airport
STAFF CONTACTS: Bill Wyatt, Executive Director, 801-575-2408
Brian Butler, Airport Chief Financial Officer, 801-575-2923
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution (the “Bond Resolution”) on
June 1, 2021, authorizing and/or approving: (1) the issuance and sale of up to $1,000,000,000
principal amount of Salt Lake City, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and Series 2021B
(collectively the “2021 Bonds”), and the giving of authority to certain officers to approve the final
terms and provisions of and confirm the issuance of the 2021 Bonds within certain parameters set
forth in the attached Bond Resolution; (2) certain documents to be entered into by the City in
connection with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds or to be used in the marketing of the 2021 Bonds,
(3) holding a public hearing on July 13, 2021, with respect to the issuance of the 2021 Bonds and the
continued borrowing under the JPMorgan Chase line of credit at tax-exempt rates, and (4) certain
other related matters associated with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds. This timeline (the adoption of
the Bond Resolution on June 1, 2021, the subsequent publication of the notice of public hearing and
the notice of bonds to be issued, and holding a public hearing on July 13, 2021) accommodates the
required 30-day contest period to price and close the transaction on or about August 19, 2021.
BUDGET IMPACT: This financing will have no impact on the City’s General Fund budget as no
General Fund revenues are pledged toward the repayment of the 2021 Bonds. Further, neither the
full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State or any political subdivision or agency
of the State is pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium if any, and interest on the 2021
Bonds.
Instead, 100% of the debt service on the 2021 Bonds will be paid from the various types of revenues
generated at Salt Lake City International Airport (the “Airport). Such revenues include the landing
Bill Wyatt (May 11, 2021 10:47 MDT)
Lisa Shaffer (May 11, 2021 17:32 MDT)
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
4821-6554-8008.2
fees, terminal rentals, and other fees paid by the airlines serving the Airport, as well as various
revenues generated from sources other than the airlines. Such non-airline revenues are derived from
sources such as parking, rental cars, food and beverage concessions, news and gift concessions,
cargo revenues and various types of rental income. The passenger facility charge (“PFC”) revenues
that the Airport receives from the $4.50 charge imposed on passengers boarding planes at the
Airport will also be applied toward the payment of project costs and debt service on the 2021
Bonds, the Airport’s outstanding bonds and any additional Airport bonds issued in the future.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2014, the City entered into a new 10-year Airline Use
Agreement (“AUA”) with the airlines serving the Airport. In the AUA, the airlines authorized the
City to undertake the full Terminal Redevelopment Program (the “TRP”) planned for the Airport.
The Airport offered an extension of the AUA through June 30, 2034, which has been executed by
Delta Air Lines. The Airport is currently in discussion with the other Signatory Airlines regarding
their execution of the AUA extension. The TRP is a comprehensive and integrated series of
projects that will result in the replacement of substantially all of the Airport’s landside and terminal
complex facilities. The TRP has a current estimated cost of $2.72 billion. Further, on April 30,
2015, the airlines that are signatories to the AUA voted unanimously to approve construction of the
North Concourse Project (the “NCP”). The NCP will be undertaken instead of retaining and
renovating the Airport’s existing Concourses B, C and D. The NCP includes an additional
concourse with approximately 31 gates and capacity for future expansion, and a connecting tunnel
to the main terminal complex. The NCP is estimated to cost $1.73 billion.
Phase one of the TRP opened on September 15, 2020, and phase one of the NCP opened on
October 27, 2020. Due to the global pandemic of COVID-19, the Airport, in consultation with the
airlines, decided to accelerate demolition of the existing facilities and advance the schedule for
additional phases of the TRP, including the construction of Concourse A-East. All of the legacy
facilities of the old airport have been demolished and construction has commenced on Concourse
A-East and the central tunnel. Additionally, construction of the next phases of the NCP, including
the central node on Concourse B, as well as eight additional gates, are scheduled to begin in Q1
2022 (July 2021).
Proceeds of the Series 2021 bonds will be used to:0 (1) fund a portion of the costs of both the TRP
and NCP which is now being referred to as the “New SLC”, (2) repay the current outstanding
balance of the Line of Credit, (3) fund capitalized interest on the 2021 Bonds, (4) fund a deposit to
the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund, and (5) pay the costs of issuance on the series 2021
bonds. The Airport currently forecasts that additional bonds will be issued in 2023.
The Airport currently projects that the $4.45 billion of costs to construct the New SLC, as described
above, will be funded from the following sources:
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
4821-6554-8008.2
Estimated Sources of Funding
Amounts in
(millions)
Proceeds of 2017 Bonds $925
Proceeds of 2018 Bonds 798
Proceeds of 2021 Bonds 900
Proceeds of Future Bonds 683
Pay-as-you-go Passenger Facility Charges (“PFCs”) 333
Customer Facility Charges (“CFCs”) 200
Federal Grants (AIP and TSA) 191
Airport Internally-Generated Funds 421
Total $4,451
The current interest rate environment provides another favorable opportunity for the financing for
the Airport’s very large capital development program. Assuming interest rates remain at their
present levels at the time the 2021 Bonds are sold, the City’s municipal advisor and underwriters
estimate that the 2021 Bonds will be sold at a true interest cost of approximately 3.5% per annum.
The current plan calls for the 2021 Bonds to be sold on or about July 26, 2021. The Designated
Officers defined in the attached Bond Resolution are authorized to approve the principal amounts,
interest rate(s) and other terms and provisions relating to the 2021 Bonds by executing the
Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached to the Bond Resolution.
The Certificate of Determination will need to be signed by the Mayor and Council Chair or their
respective designees on the afternoon of the date of pricing and sale of the 2021 Bonds, which is
currently scheduled for July 26, 2021.
Included in section 11 of the Bond Resolution is a Declaration of Official Intent (Reimbursement of
Expenditures) that will allow the Airport to seek reimbursement with proceeds of the Series 2021
Bonds, additional Bonds and/or the JPMorgan Chase line of credit for expenditures previously
made with Airport cash related to the TRP and the NCP. This will allow the Airport to have more
flexibility when paying for the construction costs of the TRP and the NCP at those times when
there is a gap between the paying of construction costs and the Airport’s issuance of debt.
The Bond Resolution and draft copies of the Certificate of Determination, the Third Supplemental
Trust Indenture, the Preliminary Official Statement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement, the Notice of Public Hearing and the Notice of Bonds to Be Issued are
included for your review. Please keep in mind that, other than the Bond Resolution, these
certificates, documents and notices are preliminary drafts and are subject to change and completion.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
4821-6554-8008.2
Attachments: Bond Resolution
Exhibit A: Certificate of Determination
Exhibit B: Third Supplemental Trust Indenture
Exhibit C: Preliminary Official Statement
Exhibit D: Bond Purchase Agreement
Exhibit E: Continuing Disclosure Agreement
Exhibit F: Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit G: Notice of Bonds to Be Issued
4842-9446-9092
RESOLUTION NO. _______ OF 2021
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO
EXCEED $1,000,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ONE OR
MORE SERIES OF AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS (THE “SERIES 2021
BONDS”) FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING AND REFINANCING
CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SALT LAKE CITY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; GIVING AUTHORITY TO CERTAIN
OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS TO APPROVE THE FINAL TERMS AND
PROVISIONS OF THE SERIES 2021 BONDS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS
SET FORTH HEREIN; AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION
AND DELIVERY OF A THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE, A
BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND THE DISTRIBUTION THEREOF;
PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND A NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED; PROVIDING FOR THE
RUNNING OF A CONTEST PERIOD; AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL
OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSUMMATION OF THE
TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION; AND
RELATED MATTERS.
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), is a duly organized and existing city of the
first class, operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the “State”); and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, pursuant to authority contained in the Local
Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the
“Act”), and other applicable provisions of law, and the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of
February 1, 2017 (the “Master Indenture”), by and between the City and Wilmington Trust,
National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), and the First Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated
as of February 1, 2017, by and between the City and the Trustee, the City issued its Airport
Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A (AMT) and Series 2017B (Non-AMT) (collectively, the “Series
2017 Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000,000; and
WHEREAS, the Series 2017 Bonds were issued to (a) finance certain capital improvements
to the Salt Lake City International Airport; (b) fund capitalized interest on the Series 2017 Bonds;
(c) make a deposit to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund (as defined in the Master Indenture);
and (d) pay the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Series 2017 Bonds;
and
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2018, pursuant to authority contained in the Act, and other
applicable provisions of law, and the Master Indenture and the Second Supplemental Trust
Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2018, by and between the City and the Trustee, the City issued
its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A (AMT) and Series 2018B (Non-AMT) (collectively, the
“Series 2018 Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $850,550,000; and
2
4842-9446-9092
WHEREAS, the Series 2018 Bonds were issued to (a) finance certain capital improvements
to the Salt Lake City International Airport; (b) fund capitalized interest on the Series 2017 Bonds
and the Series 2018 Bonds; (c) make a deposit to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund; and
(d) pay the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Series 2018 Bonds; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2021, pursuant to authority contained in the Act, and other
applicable provisions of law, the Master Subordinate Trust Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2021
(the “Master Subordinate Indenture”), by and between the City and Zions Bancorporation,
National Association, as trustee (the “Subordinate Trustee”), the First Supplemental Subordinate
Trust Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2021 (the “First Supplemental Subordinate Indenture,”
and together with the Master Subordinate Indenture, the “Subordinate Indenture”), by and
between the City and the Subordinate Trustee, and the Credit Agreement, dated as of March 1,
2021 (the “Subordinate Credit Agreement”), by and between the City and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association (the “Subordinate Bank”), the City established a short-term borrowing
program that provides for the issuance and/or incurrence, from time to time, of subordinate airport
revenue short-term revolving obligations (the “Subordinate Revolving Obligations”), which may
be outstanding at any one time in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $300 million; and
WHEREAS, the Subordinate Revolving Obligations are issued and/or incurred, from time
to time, to finance capital improvements to the Salt Lake City International Airport, to pay costs
of issuance related to the Subordinate Revolving Obligations and to finance such other purposes
permitted under the Act, the Subordinate Indenture and the Subordinate Credit Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City
and its residents to issue additional Airport Revenue Bonds pursuant to the Master Indenture, in
one or more series as hereinafter provided, for the purposes of (a) financing additional capital
improvements to the Salt Lake City International Airport (the “Series 2021 Projects”);
(b) repaying all or a portion of the outstanding Subordinate Revolving Obligations; (c) funding
capitalized interest on all or a portion of such additional Airport Revenue Bonds; (d) funding any
necessary reserves in connection with such additional Airport Revenue Bonds; and (e) paying the
costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of such additional Airport Revenue Bonds
(including, but not limited to, the purchase of one or more municipal bond insurance policies); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority contained in the Act and other applicable provisions of
law, the Master Indenture and a Third Supplemental Trust Indenture (the “Third Supplemental
Indenture,” and together with the Master Indenture, the “Indenture”), to be executed and
delivered by and between the City and the Trustee, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B,
and for the purposes set forth above, the City has determined to (a) issue its additional Airport
Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$1,000,000,000 (collectively, the “Series 2021 Bonds”) (subject to the further limitations outlined
herein); and (b) cause the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to be applied in accordance
with the Indenture; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act and the Master Indenture to execute and
deliver the Third Supplemental Indenture, and to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to finance the Series
2021 Projects, to repay all or a portion of the outstanding Subordinate Revolving Obligations, to
fund capitalized interest on the Series 2021 Bonds, to make a deposit to the Common Debt Service
3
4842-9446-9092
Reserve Fund and/or one or more Series Debt Service Reserve Funds (as defined in the Master
Indenture), and to pay all related costs authorized by law (including, but not limited to, one or
more municipal bond insurance policies); and
WHEREAS, Sections 11-14-316 and 11-14-318 of the Act provide that, before issuing
bonds, an issuing entity (a) may provide public notice of its intent to issue such bonds, and (b) must
hold a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to (i) the issuance of such bonds,
and (ii) the potential economic impact that the improvement, facility or property for which the
bonds pay all or part of the cost will have on the private sector; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the Series 2021 Bonds and a portion of the Subordinate Revolving
Obligations will be issued and/or incurred, as the case may be, as “exempt facility bonds” as
defined under Section 142(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”),
and therefore are subject to the public approval and public hearing requirements set forth in Section
147(f) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, a public hearing was held with respect to the issuance
and/or incurrence of up to $300 million in aggregate principal amount of the Subordinate
Revolving Obligations issued and/or incurred as “exempt facility bonds”; and
WHEREAS, solely for purposes of the public approval and the public hearing requirements
set forth in Section 147(f) of the Code, the City considers it necessary and desirable to hold an
additional public hearing with respect to the issuance and/or incurrence of additional Subordinate
Revolving Obligations to be issued and/or incurred as “exempt facility bonds” in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $300 million (which principal amount shall be in addition to the
$300 million presented at the public hearing on February 16, 2021); and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Section 11-14-316 of the Act, the City desires to provide
for the publication of a Notice of Bonds to be Issued (the “Notice of Bonds to be Issued”) and the
running of a 30-day contest period, and to cause the publication of the Notice of Bonds to be Issued
at this time with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds; and
WHEREAS, (a) with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, in compliance with
Section 11-14-318 of the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code, and (b) with respect to the issuance
and/or incurrence of an additional $300 million of Subordinate Revolving Obligations, solely for
purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code, the City desires to call a public hearing and to publish a
notice of such hearing with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the issuance and/or
incurrence of an additional $300 million of Subordinate Revolving Obligations and the capital
improvements to the Salt Lake City International Airport to be financed with the proceeds of the
Series 2021 Bonds and the Subordinate Revolving Obligations, and to provide for the publication
of a Notice of Public Hearing (the “Notice of Public Hearing”) at this time with respect to the
issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the issuance and/or incurrence of an additional $300 million of
Subordinate Revolving Obligations and the capital improvements to the Salt Lake City
International Airport to be financed with the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds and the
Subordinate Revolving Obligations; and
4
4842-9446-9092
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City
Council”), it is in the best interests of the City and its residents that (a) the Designated Officers
(defined below) be authorized to approve the final terms and provisions relating to the Series 2021
Bonds and to execute the Certificate of Determination (defined below) containing such terms and
provisions and to accept the offer of Citigroup Global Markets Inc., on behalf of itself and
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, BofA Securities, Inc. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, and ZB National Association (collectively, the “Underwriters”), for the purchase
of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (b) the Designated Officers, and such other officials and officers of
the City named herein, be authorized to execute and deliver the Third Supplemental Indenture, the
Final Official Statement (defined below), the Bond Purchase Agreement (defined below), the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement (defined below) and such other necessary documents with
respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, all as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the City desires that this Resolution serve as an official action of the City
Council in order to comply with Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2 and any other regulations of
the U.S. Department of the Treasury relating to the qualification for reimbursement of expenditures
incurred by the City prior to the date(s) of issue of the Series 2021 Bonds, additional Bonds (as
defined in the Master Indenture) and/or the Subordinate Revolving Obligations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
Section 1.Issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds.
(a)For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby authorized and directed the
execution, issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds in one or more series (with
such adjustments to the series designation as are necessary or desirable) in the aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $1,000,000,000. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be dated as
of their date of initial delivery, issued in authorized denominations, and payable all as
provided in the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to
maturity as provided in the Indenture and the Certificate of Determination.
(b)The form of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the form of the Third
Supplemental Indenture, subject to appropriate insertions and revisions in order to comply
with the provisions of the Indenture, is hereby approved. The Mayor of the City or the
Mayor’s designee (the “Mayor”) and the City Recorder of the City (the “City Recorder”)
or any Deputy City Recorder are hereby authorized and directed to execute and seal the
Series 2021 Bonds and to deliver the Series 2021 Bonds to the Trustee for authentication.
Any such execution of the Series 2021 Bonds by the Mayor and the City Recorder or any
Deputy City Recorder may be made by manual or facsimile signature. Any facsimile
signature of the Mayor and/or the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder shall have
the same force and effect as if the Mayor and/or City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder
had manually signed each of such Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 2. Pledge to Secure the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds will be
limited obligations of the City, payable solely from and secured by a pledge of Net Revenues (as
defined in the Master Indenture) derived by the City from the operations of the Airport System (as
5
4842-9446-9092
defined in the Master Indenture) and certain funds and accounts established pursuant to the
Indenture, on parity with the Series 2017 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds and any additional Bonds
issued in the future. None of the properties of the Airport System will be subject to any mortgage
or other lien for the benefit of the owners of the Series 2021 Bonds, and neither the full faith and
credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State of Utah (the “State”) or any political subdivision
or agency of the State will be pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on the Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 3. Series 2021 Bond Details; Delegation of Authority.
(a)The Series 2021 Bonds shall mature on the dates and in the principal
amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of
twelve 30-day months) at the rates per annum and be payable on the dates, all as to be
provided in a Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A,
to be delivered pursuant to this Section 3, which shall set forth certain terms and provisions
of the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Certificate of Determination”).
(b)For the purposes of this Resolution and the Series 2021 Bonds, there is
hereby delegated to (i) the Mayor or, in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor,
the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, or in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Mayor
and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, either the Executive Director for the Department of
Airports of the City or his designee (the “Airport Executive Director”) or the Director of
Finance for the Department of Airports of the City (also referred to as the Chief Financial
Officer for the Department of Airports of the City) or his designee (the “Airport Director
of Finance”); and (ii) the Chair of the City Council or, in the event of the absence or
incapacity of the Chair of the City Council, the Vice Chair of the City Council, or in the
event of the absence or incapacity of both the Chair and the Vice Chair of the City Council,
the most senior member of the City Council then available (collectively, the “Designated
Officers”), subject to the parameters set forth in this Resolution, the power to determine
the following with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, and any one of the Designated Officers
from each of (i) and (ii) above are together hereby authorized to make such determinations:
(i)the principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds
necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the
recitals hereto; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Series 2021
Bonds shall not exceed $1,000,000,000; provided further, that, if so determined by
the Designated Officers in the Certificate of Determination, the Series 2021 Bonds
may be issued as two or more series, with the appropriate adjustment to the series
designation, and the combined principal amount of all series of the Series 2021
Bonds may not exceed the maximum aggregate principal amount set forth in this
Section 3(b)(i) (all series of bonds are subject to all of the determinations set forth
in this Section 3(b));
(ii)the maturity date and principal amount of each maturity of each
series of the Series 2021 Bonds to be issued; provided, however, that the Series
2021 Bonds shall mature over a period of not to exceed forty (40) years from their
date of initial delivery;
6
4842-9446-9092
(iii)the interest rate or rates to be borne by the Series 2021 Bonds, the
dates on which interest shall be paid and the date on which payment of such interest
shall commence, provided, however, that the interest rate or rates to be borne by
any Series 2021 Bond shall not exceed six percent (6.00%) per annum;
(iv)the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds and the purchase price to be paid
by the Underwriters; provided, however, that the discount from par of the Series
2021 Bonds in the aggregate shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a
percentage of the principal amount);
(v)the Series 2021 Bonds, if any, to be retired from mandatory sinking
fund redemption payments and the dates and the amounts thereof;
(vi)the time and redemption price, if any, at which the Series 2021
Bonds may be called for redemption prior to their maturity at the option of the City;
and
(vii)any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers
not materially in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution.
Following the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Designated Officers shall obtain such
information as they deem necessary to make such determinations as provided above and shall make
such determinations as provided above and shall execute the Certificate of Determination
containing such terms and provisions of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds, which execution
shall be conclusive evidence of the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the
matters stated therein.
Section 4. Approval and Execution of the Third Supplemental Indenture. The Third
Supplemental Indenture, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby
authorized and approved, and the Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute
and deliver the Third Supplemental Indenture on behalf of the City, and the City Recorder or any
Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to affix to the Third
Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and countersign such Third
Supplemental Indenture, with such changes to the Third Supplemental Indenture from the form
attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive
evidence of such approval. The Master Indenture and the Third Supplemental Indenture, shall
constitute a “system of registration” for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act of
Utah.
Section 5. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The Preliminary Official
Statement (including the Report of the Airport Consultant provided by Landrum & Brown,
Incorporated appended to the Preliminary Official Statement as Appendix B thereto) with respect
to the Series 2021 Bonds, in substantially the form presented at this meeting and in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit C (collectively, the “Preliminary Official Statement”), including the
use and distribution thereof, is hereby authorized and approved, with such changes, omissions,
insertions, revisions and supplements as shall be necessary to complete the same and as the Mayor,
the Airport Executive Director or the Airport Director of Finance shall deem advisable. The
7
4842-9446-9092
Mayor, the Airport Executive Director and the Airport Director of Finance are, and each of them
is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such certificates, documents
and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to deem final the Preliminary Official
Statement within the meaning and for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, as amended (“Rule 15c2-12”), subject to completion
thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds. The
Underwriters are hereby authorized to distribute (via printed format and/or electronic means) the
Preliminary Official Statement in connection with the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the public.
In connection with the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement, the Underwriters are
hereby further authorized to distribute (via printed format and/or through electronic means) copies
of the most recent comprehensive annual financial report of the Department of Airports of the City
and such other financial statements of the City or the Department of Airports of the City as the
Airport Executive Director or the Airport Director of Finance shall deem necessary or desirable.
Section 6. Final Official Statement. The final Official Statement with respect to the
Series 2021 Bonds, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement (including the
Report of the Airport Consultant provided by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated appended to the
Preliminary Official Statement as Appendix B thereto) presented at this meeting and in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit C (collectively, the “Final Official Statement”), including the use and
distribution thereof, is hereby authorized with such changes, omissions, insertions, revisions and
supplements as the Mayor, the Airport Executive Director and the Airport Director of Finance
shall deem advisable in order for such Final Official Statement to be deemed a “final official
statement” within the meaning of and for purposes of Rule 15c2-12, including the completion
thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth
in the Certificate of Determination. The Mayor and the Airport Executive Director shall sign and
deliver the Final Official Statement, and any supplements thereto, for distribution (via printed
format and/or electronic means) to prospective purchasers of the Series 2021 Bonds and other
interested persons. The approval of any such changes, omissions, insertions, revisions and
supplements shall be conclusively established by the Mayor’s and the Airport Executive Director’s
execution of such Final Official Statement. The Underwriters are hereby authorized to distribute
(via printed format and/or electronic means) the Final Official Statement in connection with the
sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the public. In connection with the distribution of the Final Official
Statement, the Underwriters are hereby further authorized to distribute (via printed format and/or
through electronic means) copies of the most recent comprehensive annual financial report of the
Department of Airports of the City and such other financial statements of the City or the
Department of Airports of the City as the Airport Executive Director or the Airport Director of
Finance shall deem necessary or desirable.
Section 7. Sale of the Series 2021 Bonds; Bond Purchase Agreement. The Series 2021
Bonds authorized to be issued herein are hereby authorized to be sold and delivered to the
Underwriters, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement. The
Mayor and the Airport Executive Director (or the Airport Director of Finance) are hereby
authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Bond Purchase Agreement on
behalf of the City in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, with such changes therein
from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor and the Airport Executive Director
(or the Airport Director of Finance), their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of
such approval (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”). The City Recorder or any Deputy City
8
4842-9446-9092
Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to affix to the Bond Purchase Agreement
the seal of the City and to attest such seal and countersign the Bond Purchase Agreement.
Section 8. Other Certificates and Documents Required to Evidence Compliance with
Federal Tax and Securities Laws. Each of the Mayor, the City Recorder or any Deputy City
Recorder, the Airport Executive Director and the Airport Director of Finance, acting singularly, is
hereby authorized and directed to execute (a) such certificates and documents, including one or
more tax compliance certificates, as are required to evidence compliance with the Code relating to
the tax-exempt status of interest on the Series 2021 Bonds; and (b) a Continuing Disclosure
Agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E (the “Continuing Disclosure
Agreement”), and such other certificates and documents as shall be necessary to comply with the
requirements of Rule 15c2-12 and other applicable federal securities laws.
Section 9. Other Actions With Respect to the Series 2021 Bonds. The officers and
employees of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect
to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action necessary or
desirable in conformity with the Act and the Indenture to carry out the issuance of the Series 2021
Bonds, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other
documents required to be delivered in connection with the sale and delivery of the Series 2021
Bonds. If (a) the Mayor; (b) the City Recorder; (c) the Airport Executive Director; or (d) the
Airport Director of Finance shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and countersign,
respectively, the Series 2021 Bonds or the other documents that they are hereby authorized to
execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed, or attested and countersigned,
respectively, (i) by the Mayor’s Chief of Staff; (ii) by any Deputy City Recorder; (iii) by any
designee of the Airport Executive Director; or (iv) by any designee of the Airport Director of
Finance. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the officers and employees of the City
are authorized and directed to take such action as shall be necessary and appropriate to issue the
Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 10. Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Bonds to be Issued; Contest
Period.
(a) Notice of Public Hearing. In accordance with Section 11-14-318 of the Act
and Section 147(f) of the Code, as applicable, the City shall hold a public hearing on
July 13, 2021, or such other date as selected by the City Council, to receive input from the
public with respect to (i) (A) the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $1,000,000,000; and (B) the potential economic impact that
the Series 2021 Projects will have on the private sector, and (ii) the issuance and/or
incurrence of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations in an additional aggregate principal
amount of $300,000,000, from time to time. The hearing date shall not be less than 14
days after the Notice of Public Hearing is published, such publication to be made (x) in
The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and (y) on the Utah
Public Notice Website created under Section 63A-12-201 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended. The City directs its officers and staff to cause the Notice of Public Hearing, in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, to be published at the time and in the
newspaper and on the website described in this Section 10. After the public hearing, the
Mayor is hereby authorized to approve the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and the
9
4842-9446-9092
issuance and/or incurrence of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations in accordance with
Section 147(f) of the Code.
(b) Notice of Bonds to be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with
Section 11-14-316 of the Act, the City directs its officers and staff to cause the Notice of
Bonds to be Issued with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, in substantially the form attached
hereto as Exhibit G, to be published in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City; (ii) on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63A-
12-201 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended; and (iii) on the Utah Legal Notices
website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Section 45-1-101, Utah Code Annotated
1953, as amended. The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this Resolution (together with
all exhibits hereto) to be kept on file electronically and at 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake
City, Utah, for public examination during the regular business hours of the City until at
least thirty (30) days from and after the date of publication of the Notice of Bonds to be
Issued.
Section 11. Declaration of Official Intent (Reimbursement of Expenditures). The City
Council hereby declares the official intent of the City to reimburse the City with proceeds of the
Series 2021 Bonds, additional Bonds and/or the Subordinate Revolving Obligations for
expenditures with respect to the “Terminal Redevelopment Program” and the “North Concourse
Program” at Salt Lake International Airport, made on and after a date that is no more than 60 days
prior to the adoption of this Resolution. The “Terminal Redevelopment Program” and the “North
Concourse Program” at Salt Lake International consist of the following components, among
others: Concourse A-East, Concourse A-West, Concourse B-East, Concourse B-West, Terminal
Building, Gateway Center, the Central Utility Plant, hardstand facilities, baggage handling
systems, the Central Tunnel, airfield projects, “remain-overnight” airfield pavement, apron paving,
the hydrant fueling system, taxiway paving, the parking garage, surface parking lots, parking
roadways and terminal roadways.
Each of said expenditures was and will be either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a
capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date
of the expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, additional Bonds
and/or the Subordinate Revolving Obligations, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily
payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to pay a party that is not related to or an agent of the
City so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to
repay any amount to or for the benefit of the City. The maximum principal amount of the Series
2021 Bonds, additional Bonds and/or the Subordinate Revolving Obligations to be issued to
finance the remaining portions of the “Terminal Redevelopment Program” and the “North
Concourse Program” at Salt Lake International is approximately $1.6 billion (inclusive of
financing costs).
The City will make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the City
that evidences the City’s use of proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds, additional Bonds and/or the
Subordinate Revolving Obligations to reimburse an expenditure, no later than 18 months after the
later of the date on which the expenditure is paid or the applicable component of the “Terminal
Redevelopment Program” or the “North Concourse Program” at Salt Lake International is placed
10
4842-9446-9092
in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the
expenditure is paid.
Section 12. Prior Acts Ratified, Approved and Confirmed. All acts of the officers and
employees of the City heretofore or hereafter undertaken in connection with the issuance of the
Series 2021 Bonds are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 13. Resolution Irrepealable. Following the execution and delivery of the Third
Supplemental Indenture, this resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until all of the Series 2021
Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged.
Section 14. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this Resolution
shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of
such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of
this Resolution.
Section 15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
approval and adoption.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows]
S-1
4842-9446-9092
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 1st day of
June, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By
Chair, Salt Lake City Council
ATTEST:
By
City Recorder
[SEAL]
APPROVED:
By
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Megan DePaulis
Senior City Attorney
5/11/2021
4842-9446-9092
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION
PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION NO. [____] OF 2021
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS
Dated: [____________], 2021
1. Authority; Definitions. Pursuant to Resolution No. [___] of 2021, adopted by the
City Council (the “City Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”) on June 1, 2021 (the
“Resolution”), the City Council has authorized the issuance of the City’s Airport Revenue Bonds,
Series 2021A (AMT) (the “Series 2021A Bonds”) and Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B
(Non-AMT) (the “Series 2021B Bonds,” and together with the Series 2021A Bonds, the “Series
2021 Bonds”) under and pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2017 (the
“Master Indenture”), by and between the City and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as
trustee (the “Trustee”), and a Third Supplemental Trust Indenture, to be dated as of [________] 1,
2021 (the “Third Supplemental Indenture,” and together with the Master Indenture, the
“Indenture”), to be executed and delivered by and between the City and the Trustee. This
certificate is executed pursuant to and in accordance with the delegation of authority contained in
the Resolution, as authorized by law. All terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall
have the meanings specified in the Resolution or the Indenture.
2. Acceptance of Offer. The offer of Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and
ZB National Association (collectively, the “Underwriters” ) for the purchase of the Series 2021
Bonds, which is set out in full in the Bond Purchase Agreement, dated [________], 2021 (the
“Bond Purchase Agreement”), between the City and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., on behalf of
itself and the other Underwriters, is hereby accepted, it being hereby found, determined and
declared that such offer is in the best interests of the City. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be issued
by the City for the purposes set forth in the Indenture.
The sale of the Series 2021A Bonds to the Underwriters at the price of $[__________]
(representing the par amount of the Series 2021A Bonds, plus an original issue premium of
$[_________], less an original issue discount of $[__________], and less an Underwriters’
discount of $[_________]) is hereby confirmed. The Series 2021A Bonds shall be delivered to
the Underwriters and the proceeds of sale thereof applied as provided in the Indenture, the Bond
Purchase Agreement and paragraph 5 hereof.
The sale of the Series 2021B Bonds to the Underwriters at the price of $[__________]
(representing the par amount of the Series 2021B Bonds, plus an original issue premium of
$[_________], less an original issue discount of $[__________], and less an Underwriters’
discount of $[_________]) is hereby confirmed. The Series 2021B Bonds shall be delivered to the
Underwriters and the proceeds of sale thereof applied as provided in the Indenture, the Bond
Purchase Agreement and paragraph 5 hereof.
A-2
4842-9446-9092
3. Maturity Dates, Principal Amounts and Interest Rates of Series 2021 Bonds.
The Series 2021A Bonds shall be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $[________]. The
Series 2021A Bonds shall mature on July 1 of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall
bear interest payable semiannually on January 1 and July 1, commencing on January 1, 20[22], at
the rates per annum, as follows:
Maturity Date
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
$%
The Series 2021B Bonds shall be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $[________].
The Series 2021B Bonds shall mature on July 1 of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall
bear interest payable semiannually on January 1 and July 1, commencing on January 1, 20[22], at
the rates per annum, as follows:
Maturity Date
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
$%
A-3
4842-9446-9092
4. Redemption of Series 2021 Bonds.
Optional Redemption of the Series 2021 Bonds.
(a)The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on or before July 1, 20[__] are not
subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on or
after July 1, 20[__] are redeemable at the option of the City on or after [_______] 1, 20[__],
in whole or in part at any time, from any moneys that may be provided for such purpose,
at a redemption price equal to [___]% of the principal amount of the Series 2021A Bonds
to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium.
(b)The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on or before July 1, 20[__] are not
subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on or
after July 1, 20[__] are redeemable at the option of the City on or after [_______] 1, 20[__],
in whole or in part at any time, from any moneys that may be provided for such purpose
and at a redemption price equal to [____]% of the principal amount of such Series 2021B
Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without
premium.
Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption of the Series 2021 Term Bonds.
(a) The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on July 1, 20[__] are subject to
mandatory sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100% of
the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption,
without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following principal amounts:
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
$
*
*Final Maturity Date
(b) The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on July 1, 20[__] are subject to
mandatory sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100% of
the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption,
without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following principal amounts:
A-4
4842-9446-9092
July 1
of the Year
Principal Amount
$
*
*Final Maturity Date
5. Use of Proceeds of Series 2021 Bonds.
(a) The proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021A Bonds, being the amount of
$[________] (which sum represents the par amount of the Series 2021A Bonds of
$[________] plus an original issue premium of $[_________], less an original issue
discount of $[__________], and less an Underwriters’ discount of $[_________]), shall be
deposited and used as follows:
(i) $[__________], representing Capitalized Interest, shall be deposited
into the Interest Account of the Series 2021A Debt Service Fund (held by the
Trustee) to be used to pay the interest due and payable on the Series 2021A Bonds
on the following dates and in the following amounts:
Interest Payment
Date
Amount to be Used to
Pay Interest
All remaining amounts on
deposit in Interest Account
(ii) $[________] shall be deposited into the Common Debt Service
Reserve Fund (held by the Trustee);
(iii) $[________] shall be deposited into the Series 2021A Costs of
Issuance Account (held by the City) to be used to pay the Costs of Issuance of the
Series 2021A Bonds; and
(iv) $[________] shall be deposited into the Series 2021A Construction
Fund (held by the City) to be used to pay the Costs of the Series 2021A Project.
A-5
4842-9446-9092
(b) The proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021B Bonds, being the amount of
$[________] (which sum represents the par amount of the Series 2021B Bonds of
$[________] plus an original issue premium of $[_________], less an original issue
discount of $[__________], and less an Underwriters’ discount of $[_________]), shall be
deposited and used as follows:
(i) $[__________], representing Capitalized Interest, shall be deposited
into the Interest Account of the Series 2021B Debt Service Fund (held by the
Trustee) to be used to pay the interest due and payable on the Series 2021B Bonds
on the following dates and in the following amounts:
Interest Payment
Date
Amount to be Used to
Pay Interest
All remaining amounts on
deposit in Interest Account
(ii) $[________] shall be deposited into the Common Debt Service
Reserve Fund (held by the Trustee);
(iii) $[________] shall be deposited into the Series 2021B Costs of
Issuance Account (held by the City) to be used to pay the Costs of Issuance of the
Series 2021B Bonds; and
(iv) $[________] shall be deposited into the Series 2021B Construction
Fund (held by the City) to be used to pay the Costs of the Series 2021B Project.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows)
A-6
4842-9446-9092
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand on the _____ day of ____, 2021.
By
Mayor
By
Chair, Salt Lake City Council
Approved as to form:
By
Senior City Attorney
4842-9446-9092
EXHIBIT B
[ATTACH FORM OF THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE]
DRAFT
4842-0126-6915.1
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE
by and between
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH,
a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah
and
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
as Trustee
Relating to
$[PARA]
Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds
Series 2021A
(AMT)
$[PARB]
Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds
Series 2021B
(Non-AMT)
Dated as of [] 1, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4842-0126-6915.1
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS; INTERPRETATIONS
Section 1.01. Definitions........................................................................................................ 2
Section 1.02. Article and Section References ........................................................................ 4
ARTICLE II
THE SERIES 2021 BONDS
Section 2.01. Designation of the Series 2021 Bonds; Principal Amount .............................. 4
Section 2.02. Series 2021 Bonds Under the Master Indenture; Security; Parity ................... 5
Section 2.03. General Terms of the Series 2021 Bonds ........................................................ 5
Section 2.04. Exchange of Series 2021 Bonds ...................................................................... 7
ARTICLE III
REDEMPTION OF THE SERIES 2021 BONDS
Section 3.01. Notices to Holders............................................................................................ 7
Section 3.02. Redemption Dates ............................................................................................ 8
Section 3.03. Optional Redemption of the Series 2021 Bonds .............................................. 9
Section 3.04. Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption of the Series 2018 Term Bonds .......... 9
Section 3.05. Payment of Series 2021 Bonds Called for Redemption ................................ 11
Section 3.06. Selection of Series 2021 Bonds for Redemption; Series 2021 Bonds
Redeemed in Part ........................................................................................... 12
Section 3.07. Effect of Redemption Call ............................................................................. 12
ARTICLE IV
ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS AND APPLICATION THEREOF
Section 4.01. Establishment of Funds and Accounts ........................................................... 12
Section 4.02. Application of Series 2021A Bond Proceeds................................................. 13
Section 4.03. Application of Series 2021B Bond Proceeds ................................................. 14
Section 4.04. Series 2021A Debt Service Fund ................................................................... 15
Section 4.05. Series 2021A Construction Fund ................................................................... 16
Section 4.06. Series 2021B Debt Service Fund ................................................................... 17
Section 4.07. Series 2021B Construction Fund ................................................................... 18
Section 4.08. Series 2018 Costs of Issuance Fund............................................................... 19
Section 4.09. Common Debt Service Reserve Fund ............................................................ 19
Section 4.10. Sources of Payment of the Series 2021 Bonds .............................................. 20
Section 4.11. Perfection of Security Interest ....................................................................... 20
ARTICLE V
TAX COVENANTS
Section 5.01. Series 2018 Rebate Fund ............................................................................... 20
Section 5.02. Preservation of Tax Exemption ..................................................................... 20
ii
4842-0126-6915.1
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 6.01. Parties in Interest............................................................................................ 21
Section 6.02. Continuing Disclosure ................................................................................... 21
Section 6.03. Severability .................................................................................................... 22
Section 6.04. No Personal Liability of City Members and Officials; Limited
Liability of City to Bondholders .................................................................... 22
Section 6.05. Execution of Instruments; Proof of Ownership ............................................. 22
Section 6.06. System of Registration ................................................................................... 23
Section 6.07. Plan of Financing ........................................................................................... 23
Section 6.08. Governing Law .............................................................................................. 23
Section 6.09. Notices ........................................................................................................... 23
Section 6.10. Holidays ......................................................................................................... 23
Section 6.11. Counterparts ................................................................................................... 23
Section 6.12. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for City Officers and
Employees and Former City Officers and Employees ................................... 23
EXHIBIT A FORM OF SERIES 2021 BOND
EXHIBIT B DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULES
EXHIBIT C-1 SERIES 2021A PROJECTS
EXHIBIT C-2 SERIES 2021B PROJECTS
4842-0126-6915.1
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE
THIS THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE (this “Third Supplemental
Indenture”), dated as of [] 1, 2021, is entered into by and between SALT LAKE CITY,
UTAH (the “City”), a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah, and
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association
organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee (the “Trustee”),
and supplements that Master Trust Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2017 (as amended, restated,
supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof, the
“Master Indenture”), by and between the City and the Trustee.
WHEREAS, the Master Indenture provides in Section 2.09 thereof for the issuance of
Bonds and in Section 10.02 thereof for the execution and delivery of Supplemental Indentures
setting forth the terms of such Bonds; and
WHEREAS the City now, for the purpose of providing money to finance certain capital
improvements to Salt Lake City International Airport, by execution and delivery of this Third
Supplemental Indenture and in compliance with the provisions of the Master Indenture (a) sets
forth the terms of its (i) $[PARA] Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT) (the “Series
2021A Bonds”) and (ii) its $[PARB] Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT) (the
“Series 2021B Bonds” and, together with the Series 2021A Bonds, the “Series 2021 Bonds”),
(b) provides for the deposit and use of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds, and (c) makes
other provisions relating to the Series 2021 Bonds.
GRANTING CLAUSE
In order to secure the payment of the Series 2021 Bonds, the City hereby pledges, assigns
and grants to the Trustee with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds all of the liens, rights, interests
and privileges set forth in the Granting Clauses of, and elsewhere in, the Master Indenture. To
secure further the payment of the Series 2021 Bonds, the City in furtherance of the Master
Indenture hereby pledges and grants to the Trustee a lien on and security interest in and assigns
to the Trustee all right, title and interest of the City, except as otherwise provided herein, in and
to (a) the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund (as defined in the Master Indenture) and all
moneys and securities held from time to time therein and, with respect to any Debt Service
Reserve Fund Surety Policy (as defined in the Master Indenture) provided at any time in
satisfaction of all or a portion of the Reserve Requirement (as defined in the Master Indenture)
with respect to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund, all rights, title and interest in such
instruments and the proceeds thereof, (b) the Series 2021A Construction Fund (as hereinafter
defined) and all moneys and securities held from time to time therein, (c) the Series 2021B
Construction Fund (as hereinafter defined) and all moneys and securities held from time to time
therein, (d) the Series 2021A Debt Service Fund (as hereinafter defined) and all moneys and
securities held from time to time therein, including any Capitalized Interest, (e) the Series 2021B
Debt Service Fund (as hereinafter defined) and all moneys and securities held from time to time
therein, including any Capitalized Interest, and (f) the Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund (as
hereinafter defined) and all moneys and securities held from time to time therein.
2
4842-0126-6915.1
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS; INTERPRETATIONS
Section 1.01. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to terms used in this
Third Supplemental Indenture unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Capitalized terms
not otherwise defined in this Section 1.01 or elsewhere in this Third Supplemental Indenture
shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Master Indenture.
“Authorized Denominations” means $5,000 principal amount and integral multiples
thereof.
“Continuing Disclosure Agreement” means the agreement of the City, dated the date of
issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, pursuant to which the City shall agree to undertake for the
benefit of the Holders and the beneficial owners of the Series 2021 Bonds certain ongoing
disclosure requirements.
“Costs of Issuance” means all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with
the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, but not limited to, costs and expenses of
printing and copying documents, the preliminary and final official statements and the
Series 2021 Bonds, underwriters’ compensation, and the fees, costs and expenses of rating
agencies, the Trustee, counsel, accountants, financial advisors, feasibility consultants and other
consultants.
“Interest Payment Date” means each July 1 and January 1, commencing January 1, 2022,
the dates upon which interest on the Series 2021 Bonds becomes due and payable.
“Master Indenture” means the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2017, by
and between the City and the Trustee, as the same may be amended, supplemented or otherwise
modified from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof.
“Paying Agent” means, for purposes of this Third Supplemental Indenture and the
Series 2021 Bonds, the Trustee, or any other institution appointed by the City.
“Record Date” means for a January 1 Interest Payment Date the preceding December 15
and for a July 1 Interest Payment Date the preceding June 15.
“Registrar” means for purposes of this Third Supplemental Indenture and the Series 2021
Bonds, the Trustee, or any other institution appointed by the City.
“Series 2021A Bonds” means $[PARA] aggregate principal amount of Bonds issued
under the Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture and designated as “Salt Lake
City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT).”
“Series 2021A Construction Fund” means the Construction Fund of such designation
established pursuant to Section 4.01(d) hereof and into which money is to be deposited to pay
Costs of the Series 2021A Projects.
3
4842-0126-6915.1
“Series 2021A Costs of Issuance Account” means the Account of such designation
established in the Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund pursuant to Section 4.01(c) hereof and into
which money is to be deposited to pay Costs of Issuance of the Series 2021A Bonds.
“Series 2021A Debt Service Fund” means the Debt Service Fund of such designation
established pursuant to Section 4.01(a) hereof and into which money is to be deposited to pay
debt service on the Series 2021A Bonds.
“Series 2021A Projects” means, collectively, any or all of those capital projects listed in
Exhibit C-1 attached hereto which are to be financed with a portion of the proceeds of the Series
2021A Bonds.
“Series 2021A Term Bonds” means, collectively, the Series 2021A Bonds maturing on
July 1, 20[] and July 1, 20[].
“Series 2021B Bonds” means $[PARB] aggregate principal amount of Bonds issued
under the Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture and designated as “Salt Lake
City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT).”
“Series 2021B Construction Fund” means the Construction Fund of such designation
established pursuant to Section 4.01(e) hereof and into which money is to be deposited to pay
Costs of the Series 2021B Projects.
“Series 2021B Costs of Issuance Account” means the Account of such designation
established in the Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund pursuant to Section 4.01(c) hereof and into
which money is to be deposited to pay Costs of Issuance of the Series 2021B Bonds.
“Series 2021B Debt Service Fund” means the Debt Service Fund of such designation
established pursuant to Section 4.01(b) hereof and into which money is to be deposited to pay
debt service on the Series 2021B Bonds.
“Series 2021B Projects” means, collectively, any or all of those capital projects listed in
Exhibit C-2 attached hereto which are to be financed with a portion of the proceeds of the Series
2021B Bonds.
“Series 2021B Term Bonds” means, collectively, the Series 2021B Bonds maturing on
July 1, 20[] and July 1, 20[].
“Series 2021 Bonds” means, collectively, the Series 2021A Bonds and the Series 2021B
Bonds.
“Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund” means the Fund of such designation established
pursuant to Section 4.01(c) hereof and into which money is to be deposited to pay Costs of
Issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds.
“Series 2021 Rebate Fund” means the Fund of such designation that may be established
from time to time pursuant to Section 5.01 hereof and the provisions of the Tax Certificate.
4
4842-0126-6915.1
“Series 2021 Term Bonds” means, collectively, the Series 2021A Term Bonds and the
Series 2021B Term Bonds.
“Tax Certificate” means the Tax Compliance Certificate, dated the date of issuance of the
Series 2021 Bonds, as amended from time to time, entered into by the City and executed with
respect to the Series 2021 Bonds.
“Third Supplemental Indenture” means this Third Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated as
of [] 1, 2021, by and between the City and the Trustee and which, among other things, sets forth
the terms of the Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 1.02. Article and Section References. Except as otherwise indicated,
references to Articles and Sections are to Articles and Sections of this Third Supplemental
Indenture.
ARTICLE II
THE SERIES 2021 BONDS
Section 2.01. Designation of the Series 2021 Bonds; Principal Amount. The Bonds
authorized to be issued under the Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture shall
be designated as (a) “Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)”,
which shall be issued in the original principal amount of $[PARA], and (b) “Salt Lake City,
Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT)”, which shall be issued in the original
principal amount of $[PARB].
Section 2.02. Series 2021 Bonds Under the Master Indenture; Security; Parity. The
Series 2021 Bonds are issued under and subject to the terms of the Master Indenture, shall be
Bonds as defined pursuant to the Master Indenture and are secured by and payable, on parity
with all Outstanding Bonds, from Net Revenues and other security provided in the Granting
Clauses of the Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture and in accordance with
the terms of the Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture. In order to secure the
payment of the Series 2021 Bonds, the City hereby pledges, assigns and grants to the Trustee
with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds all of the liens, rights, interests and privileges set forth in
the Granting Clauses of, and elsewhere in, the Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental
Indenture.
Section 2.03. General Terms of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds shall,
upon initial issuance, be dated [], 2021. Each Series 2021 Bond shall bear interest from the
Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication thereof unless such date of
authentication is an Interest Payment Date, in which event such Series 2021 Bond shall bear
interest from such date of authentication, or unless such date of authentication is after a Record
Date and before the next succeeding Interest Payment Date, in which event such Series 2021
Bond shall bear interest from such succeeding Interest Payment Date, or unless such date of
authentication is on or before December 15, 2021, in which, event such Series 2021 Bond shall
bear interest from [], 2021. If interest on the Series 2021 Bonds shall be in default, Series 2021
Bonds issued in exchange for Series 2021 Bonds surrendered for transfer or exchange shall bear
5
4842-0126-6915.1
interest from the Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid in full on the Series 2021
Bonds surrendered.
The Series 2021 Bonds shall be initially issued as Book-Entry Bonds as provided in
Section 2.06 of the Master Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be issued in Authorized
Denominations.
Interest on the Series 2021 Bonds shall be paid on each Interest Payment Date. Interest
on the Series 2021 Bonds shall be calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days and twelve
30-day months.
The Series 2021A Bonds shall be issued in the original principal amount of $[PARA] and
shall mature on the dates and in the principal amounts and bear interest at the interest rates as set
forth in the following schedule:
Maturity Date
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
The Series 2021B Bonds shall be issued in the original principal amount of $[PARB] and
shall mature on the dates and in the principal amounts and bear interest at the interest rates as set
forth in the following schedule:
6
4842-0126-6915.1
Maturity Date
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
Payment of the principal of the Series 2021 Bonds shall be made upon surrender of the
Series 2021 Bonds to the Trustee or its agent; provided that with respect to the Series 2021
Bonds which are Book-Entry Bonds, the payment of the principal shall be made as provided in
Section 2.06 of the Master Indenture and the Representation Letter. Payment of interest on
Series 2021 Bonds which are not Book-Entry Bonds shall be paid by check or draft of the
Trustee mailed on the Interest Payment Date by first-class mail to the person who is the Holder
thereof on the Record Date, and such payment shall be mailed to such Holder at his address as it
appears on the registration books of the Registrar. The payment of interest on Book-Entry Bonds
shall be made as provided in Section 2.06 of the Master Indenture and the Representation Letter.
With respect to all Series 2021 Bonds, interest due and payable on any Interest Payment Date
shall be paid to the person who is the Holder as of the Record Date. The Series 2021 Bonds shall
be substantially in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto.
If the principal of a Series 2021 Bond becomes due and payable, but shall not have been
paid as a result of a default hereunder, and no provision is made for its payment, then such Series
2021 Bond shall bear interest at the same rate after such default as on the day before the default
occurred.
Section 2.04. Exchange of Series 2021 Bonds. Series 2021 Bonds which are delivered
to the Registrar for exchange may be exchanged for an equal total principal amount of Series
2021 Bonds of the same Series, interest rate and maturity date.
The Registrar will not, however, be required to transfer or exchange any such Series 2021
Bond during the period established by the Registrar for selection of Series 2021 Bonds for
redemption or any Series 2021 Bond which has been selected for redemption.
7
4842-0126-6915.1
ARTICLE III
REDEMPTION OF THE SERIES 2021 BONDS
Section 3.01. Notices to Holders. If the City wishes that any Series 2021 Bonds be
redeemed pursuant to any optional redemption provision in this Third Supplemental Indenture,
the City will notify the Trustee of the applicable provision, the redemption date, the applicable
Series, the maturity date, the interest rate, the CUSIP number and the principal amount of the
applicable Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed and other necessary particulars. The City will give
notice to the Trustee at least thirty-five (35) days before the redemption date, provided that the
Trustee may, at its option, waive such notice or accept notice at a later date. The Trustee shall
give notice of redemption, in the name of the City, to Holders affected by redemption at least
thirty (30) days but not more than sixty (60) days before each redemption date, send such notice
of redemption by first-class mail (or with respect to Series 2021 Bonds held by DTC, either via
electronic means or by an express delivery service for delivery on the next following Business
Day) to each Holder of a Series 2021 Bond to be redeemed; each such notice shall be sent to the
Holder’s registered address.
Each notice of redemption shall specify the date of issue, the applicable Series, the
maturity date, the interest rate and the CUSIP number of the applicable Series 2021 Bonds to be
redeemed, if less than all Series 2021 Bonds of a Series, maturity date and interest rate are called
for redemption, the numbers assigned to such Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed, the principal
amount to be redeemed, the date fixed for redemption, the redemption price, the place or places
of payment, the Trustee’s name, that payment will be made upon presentation and surrender of
the applicable Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed, that interest, if any, accrued to the date fixed
for redemption and not paid will be paid as specified in said notice, and that on and after said
date interest thereon will cease to accrue.
The City may provide that, if at the time of mailing of notice of an optional redemption
there shall not have been deposited with the Trustee moneys and/or securities sufficient to
redeem all the applicable Series 2021 Bonds called for redemption, such notice may state that it
is conditional, that is, subject to the deposit of the redemption moneys with the Trustee not later
than one (1) Business Day prior to the scheduled redemption date, and such notice shall be of no
effect unless such moneys are so deposited. In the event sufficient moneys and/or securities are
not on deposit one (1) Business Day prior to the scheduled redemption date, then the redemption
shall be canceled and on such cancellation date notice shall be mailed (or otherwise provided) to
the Holders of such Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed in the manner provided in this Section.
Failure to give any required notice of redemption as to any particular Series 2021 Bonds
will not affect the validity of the call for redemption of any Series 2021 Bonds in respect of
which no failure occurs. Any notice sent as provided herein will be conclusively presumed to
have been given whether or not actually received by the addressee. When notice of redemption
is given, Series 2021 Bonds called for redemption become due and payable on the date fixed for
redemption at the applicable redemption price. In the event that funds are deposited with the
Trustee sufficient for redemption, interest on the Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed will cease to
accrue on and after the date fixed for redemption.
8
4842-0126-6915.1
If any Series 2021 Bonds at the time of redemption, are not Book-Entry Bonds, then, at
the time of the mailing required by the first paragraph of this Section, such redemption notice
shall be given by (i) registered or certified mail, postage prepaid; (ii) telephonically confirmed
facsimile transmission; or (iii) overnight delivery service, to:
The Depository Trust Company
55 Water Street, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10041-0099
Attention: Call Notification
Facsimile: (212) 855-7232
Failure to give the notice described in the immediately preceding paragraph or any defect
therein shall not in any manner affect the redemption of any Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 3.02. Redemption Dates. The date fixed for redemption for Series 2021 Bonds
to be optionally redeemed in accordance with Section 3.03 hereof will be a date designated by
the City in the notice delivered pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof. The date fixed for mandatory
sinking fund redemptions of the Series 2021 Term Bonds will be as set forth in Section 3.04
hereof.
Section 3.03. Optional Redemption of the Series 2021 Bonds.
(a)The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on or before July 1, 20[] are not
subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on
or after July 1, 20[] are redeemable at the option of the City on or after July 1, 20[], in
whole or in part at any time, from any moneys that may be provided for such purpose, at
a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Series 2021A Bonds to
be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium.
(b)The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on or before July 1, 20[] are not
subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on or
after July 1, 20[] are redeemable at the option of the City on or after July 1, 20[], in
whole or in part at any time, from any moneys that may be provided for such purpose and
at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of such Series 2021B Bonds
to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium.
Section 3.04. Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption of the Series 2021 Term Bonds.
(a)The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on July 1, 20[] are subject to
mandatory sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100%
of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for
redemption, without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following
principal amounts:
9
4842-0126-6915.1
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*Final Maturity Date
(b)The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on July 1, 20[] are subject to
mandatory sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100%
of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for
redemption, without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following
principal amounts:
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*Final Maturity Date
(c)The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on July 1, 20[] are subject to
mandatory sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100%
of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for
redemption, without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following
principal amounts:
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*Final Maturity Date
10
4842-0126-6915.1
(d)The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on July 1, 20[] are subject to
mandatory sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100%
of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for
redemption, without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following
principal amounts:
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*Final Maturity Date
(f) Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.06 of the Master Indenture, on
or before the forty-fifth (45th) day prior to any mandatory sinking fund redemption date,
the Trustee shall proceed to select for redemption (by lot in such manner as the Trustee
may determine), from each applicable Series 2021 Term Bonds, an aggregate principal
amount of such applicable Series 2021 Term Bonds equal to the amount for such year as
set forth in the appropriate table above and shall call such Series 2021 Term Bonds or
portions thereof (in Authorized Denominations) for redemption and give notice of such
call.
(g) At the option of the City, to be exercised by delivery of a written
certificate to the Trustee on or before the sixtieth (60th) day next preceding any
mandatory sinking fund redemption date, it may (i) deliver to the Trustee for cancellation
Series 2021 Term Bonds or portions thereof (in Authorized Denominations) purchased in
the open market or otherwise acquired by the City or (ii) specify a principal amount of
such Series 2021 Term Bonds or portions thereof (in Authorized Denominations) which
prior to said date have been optionally redeemed and previously cancelled by the Trustee
at the request of the City and not theretofore applied as a credit against any mandatory
sinking fund redemption requirement. Each such Series 2021 Term Bond or portion
thereof so purchased, acquired or optionally redeemed and delivered to the Trustee for
cancellation shall be credited by the Trustee at 100% of the principal amount thereof
against the obligation of the City to pay the principal of such Series 2021 Term Bond on
such mandatory sinking fund redemption date. In the event the City redeems any of the
Series 2021 Term Bonds pursuant to Section 3.03 hereof or purchases or acquires any of
the Series 2021 Term Bonds as described in this paragraph (g), the City will provide the
Trustee with revised mandatory sinking fund schedules, if applicable.
Section 3.05. Payment of Series 2021 Bonds Called for Redemption. Upon surrender
to the Trustee or the Trustee’s agent, the Series 2021 Bonds called for redemption shall be paid
at the redemption price stated in the notice, plus, when applicable, interest accrued to the date
fixed for redemption.
11
4842-0126-6915.1
Section 3.06. Selection of Series 2021 Bonds for Redemption; Series 2021 Bonds
Redeemed in Part. The Series 2021 Bonds are subject to redemption in such order of maturity
date within each applicable Series (except mandatory sinking fund payments on the Series 2021
Term Bonds) as the City may direct and by lot, selected in such manner as the Trustee (or DTC,
as long as DTC is the securities depository for the Series 2021 Bonds) shall deem appropriate,
within a maturity date and interest rate.
Upon surrender of a Series 2021 Bond to be redeemed in part only, the Trustee will
authenticate for the Holder a new Series 2021 Bond of the same Series, maturity date and interest
rate equal in principal amount to the unredeemed portion of the Series 2021 Bond surrendered.
Section 3.07. Effect of Redemption Call. On the date so designated for redemption,
notice having been given in the manner and under the conditions provided herein and sufficient
moneys for payment of the redemption price being held in trust by the Trustee to pay the
redemption price, interest on such Series 2021 Bonds shall cease to accrue from and after such
redemption date, such Series 2021 Bonds shall cease to be entitled to any lien, benefit or security
under the Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture and the Holders of such Series
2021 Bonds shall have no rights in respect thereof except to receive payment of the redemption
price.
Series 2021 Bonds which have been duly called for redemption under the provisions of
this Article III and for the payment of the redemption price of which moneys shall be held in
trust for the Holders of the Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed, all as provided in this Third
Supplemental Indenture, shall not be deemed to be Outstanding under the provisions of the
Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture.
ARTICLE IV
ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS AND APPLICATION THEREOF
Section 4.01. Establishment of Funds and Accounts. The following funds and
accounts are hereby established:
(a)Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service
Fund (the “Series 2021A Debt Service Fund”) and therein an Interest Account, a
Principal Account and a Redemption Account, to be held by the Trustee;
(b)Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B Debt Service
Fund (the “Series 2021B Debt Service Fund”) and therein an Interest Account, a
Principal Account and a Redemption Account, to be held by the Trustee;
(c)Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021 Costs of
Issuance Fund (the “Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund”) and therein (i) the Salt Lake
City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Costs of Issuance Account (the “Series
2021A Costs of Issuance Account”), and (ii) the Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue
Bonds, Series 2021B Costs of Issuance Account (the “Series 2021B Costs of Issuance
Account”), to be held by the City;
12
4842-0126-6915.1
(d)Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Construction
Fund (the “Series 2021A Construction Fund”), to be held by the City; and
(e)Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B Construction
Fund (the “Series 2021B Construction Fund”), to be held by the City.
Section 4.02. Application of Series 2021A Bond Proceeds. The proceeds of the sale of
the Series 2021A Bonds, in the amount of $[] (which sum represents the par amount of the
Series 2021A Bonds of $[PARA].00, plus an original issue premium in the amount of $[] and
less an underwriters’ discount in the amount of $[]), received by the Trustee ($[] was received
by the Trustee) and the City ($[] was received by the City) shall be deposited by the Trustee and
the City as follows:
(a)$[] of the amount received by the Trustee, representing Capitalized
Interest on the Series 2021A Bonds, shall be deposited by the Trustee into the Interest
Account of the Series 2021A Debt Service Fund to be used to pay the interest due and
payable on the Series 2021A Bonds on the following dates and in the following amounts:
Interest Payment
Date
Amount to be Used to
Pay Interest
All remaining amounts on
deposit in Interest Account
(b)$[] of the amount received by the Trustee shall be deposited by the
Trustee into the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund;
(c)$[] of the amount received by the City shall be deposited by the City into
the Series 2021A Costs of Issuance Account to be used to pay the Costs of Issuance of
the Series 2021A Bonds; and
(d)$[] of the amount received by the City shall be deposited by the City into
the Series 2021A Construction Fund to be used to pay the Costs of the Series 2021A
Projects.
Section 4.03. Application of Series 2021B Bond Proceeds. The proceeds of the sale of
the Series 2021B Bonds, in the amount of $[] (which sum represents the par amount of the
Series 2021B Bonds of $[PARB].00, plus an original issue premium in the amount of $[], and
less an underwriters’ discount in the amount of $[]), received by the Trustee ($[] was received
by the Trustee) and the City ($[] was received by the City) shall be deposited by the Trustee and
the City as follows:
13
4842-0126-6915.1
(a)$[] of the amount received by the Trustee, representing Capitalized
Interest on the Series 2021B Bonds, shall be deposited by the Trustee into the Interest
Account of the Series 2021B Debt Service Fund to be used to pay the interest due and
payable on the Series 2021B Bonds on the following dates and in the following amounts:
Interest Payment
Date
Amount to be Used to
Pay Interest
All remaining amounts on
deposit in Interest Account
(b)$[] of the amount received by the Trustee shall be deposited by the
Trustee into the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund;
(c)$[] of the amount received by the City shall be deposited by the City into
the Series 2021B Costs of Issuance Account to be used to pay the Costs of Issuance of
the Series 2021B Bonds; and
(d)$[] of the amount received by the City shall be deposited by the City into
the Series 2021B Construction Fund to be used to pay the Costs of the Series 2021B
Projects.
Section 4.04. Series 2021A Debt Service Fund. The Trustee shall make deposits into
the Series 2021A Debt Service Fund as follows:
(a)Interest Account. The Trustee shall deposit into the Interest Account the
amount as provided in Section 4.02(a) hereof and shall, thereafter, deposit into the
Interest Account the amounts received from the City, as provided in the Master
Indenture, to be used to pay interest on the Series 2021A Bonds. The Trustee shall also
deposit into the Interest Account any other amounts deposited with the Trustee for
deposit in the Interest Account or transferred from other Funds and Accounts for deposit
therein. All amounts held at any time in the Interest Account shall be held on a priority
basis for the ratable security and payment of interest due on the Series 2021A Bonds in
accordance with their terms.
Earnings on amounts representing Capitalized Interest on deposit in the Interest
Account shall be retained in the Interest Account until the Series 2021A Projects are
completed. On the completion date of the Series 2021A Projects, any amounts
representing Capitalized Interest, and any earnings thereon, remaining on deposit in the
Interest Account shall be transferred to the Series 2021A Construction Fund.
Earnings on all other amounts in the Interest Account (other than earnings on
amounts representing Capitalized Interest) shall be withdrawn and paid to the City on the
Business Day following an Interest Payment Date for deposit into the Revenue Account
14
4842-0126-6915.1
unless an Event of Default exists under the Master Indenture, in which event the earnings
shall be retained in the Interest Account.
(b)Principal Account. The Trustee shall deposit into the Principal Account
the amounts received from the City, as provided in the Master Indenture, to be used to
pay the principal of the Series 2021A Bonds whether at maturity or by mandatory sinking
fund redemption as provided in Section 3.04 hereof. The Trustee shall also deposit into
the Principal Account any other amounts deposited with the Trustee for deposit into the
Principal Account or transferred from other Funds and Accounts for deposit therein. On
or about each July 15, earnings on amounts in the Principal Account shall be withdrawn
by the Trustee and paid to the City for deposit into the Revenue Account unless an Event
of Default exists under the Master Indenture, in which event the earnings shall be
retained in the Principal Account.
(c)Redemption Account. The Trustee shall deposit into the Redemption
Account amounts received from the City as provided in the Master Indenture to be used
to pay the redemption price of Series 2021A Bonds being redeemed as provided in
Section 3.03 hereof. The Trustee shall also deposit into the Redemption Account any
other amounts deposited with the Trustee for deposit into the Redemption Account or
transferred from other Funds and Accounts for deposit therein. Earnings on the
Redemption Account shall be withdrawn and paid to the City on the Business Day
following a redemption date for deposit into the Revenue Account unless an Event of
Default exists under the Master Indenture, in which event the earnings shall be retained in
the Redemption Account.
The Series 2021A Debt Service Fund shall be invested and reinvested by the Trustee as
directed by an Authorized City Representative in Permitted Investments.
Section 4.05. Series 2021A Construction Fund.
(a)There shall be deposited into the Series 2021A Construction Fund the
amounts as provided in Section 4.02(d) hereof, any amounts transferred from the Interest
Account of the Series 2021A Debt Service Fund representing Capitalized Interest and
earnings thereon as described in Section 4.04(a) hereof, and any earnings from the Series
2021A Costs of Issuance Account as described in Section 4.08(d) hereof.
(b)The City shall apply amounts on deposit in the Series 2021A Construction
Fund to pay the Costs of the Series 2021A Projects and will expend amounts on deposit
in the Series 2021A Construction Fund only in accordance with and subject to the
limitations set forth in the Tax Certificate. Amounts on deposit in the Series 2021A
Construction Fund shall not be used to pay Costs of Issuance. The City shall maintain
records of all expenditures made from the Series 2021A Construction Fund, which
records shall include (i) the name of each entity to which payment was made, (ii) the
applicable amount paid to such entity, and (iii) the applicable Series 2021A Projects for
which such payment relates.
15
4842-0126-6915.1
(c)Moneys held in the Series 2021A Construction Fund shall be invested and
reinvested in Permitted Investments as directed by an Authorized City Representative.
Earnings on the Series 2021A Construction Fund shall be retained in the Series 2021A
Construction Fund.
(d)The completion of the Series 2021A Projects shall be evidenced by the
filing with the Trustee of a certificate of an Authorized City Representative stating either
(i) the date of completion of the Series 2021A Projects and the amount, if any, required in
the opinion of such Authorized City Representative for the payment of any remaining
part of the Costs of the Series 2021A Projects or (ii) that all amounts in the Series 2021A
Construction Fund have been disbursed or expenses in respect thereof have been
incurred. Any amount remaining in the Series 2021A Construction Fund following the
delivery of such certificate, except for amounts required for the payment of any
remaining part of the Costs of the Series 2021A Projects, or upon the determination of the
City not to proceed with all or a portion of the Series 2021A Projects, may, at the
determination of the City, be applied to any other lawful purpose. As a condition to the
disbursement of funds for a purpose other than the financing of the Series 2021A
Projects, an opinion of Bond Counsel shall be delivered to the City and the Trustee that
the purpose for which such funds are to be used is a lawful purpose for which such
proceeds may be used under the Act and that such use shall not result in the inclusion of
interest on any Series 2021A Bonds in gross income of the recipient thereof for federal
income tax purposes.
Section 4.06. Series 2021B Debt Service Fund. The Trustee shall make deposits into
the Series 2021B Debt Service Fund as follows:
(a)Interest Account. The Trustee shall deposit into the Interest Account the
amount as provided in Section 4.03(a) hereof and shall, thereafter, deposit into the
Interest Account the amounts received from the City, as provided in the Master
Indenture, to be used to pay interest on the Series 2021B Bonds. The Trustee shall also
deposit into the Interest Account any other amounts deposited with the Trustee for
deposit in the Interest Account or transferred from other Funds and Accounts for deposit
therein. All amounts held at any time in the Interest Account shall be held on a priority
basis for the ratable security and payment of interest due on the Series 2021B Bonds in
accordance with their terms.
Earnings on amounts representing Capitalized Interest on deposit in the Interest
Account shall be retained in the Interest Account until the Series 2021B Projects are
completed. On the completion date of the Series 2021B Projects, any amounts
representing Capitalized Interest, and any earnings thereon, remaining on deposit in the
Interest Account shall be transferred to the Series 2021B Construction Fund.
Earnings on all other amounts in the Interest Account (other than earnings on
amounts representing Capitalized Interest) shall be withdrawn and paid to the City on the
Business Day following an Interest Payment Date for deposit into the Revenue Account
unless an Event of Default exists under the Master Indenture, in which event the earnings
shall be retained in the Interest Account.
16
4842-0126-6915.1
(b)Principal Account. The Trustee shall deposit into the Principal Account
the amounts received from the City, as provided in the Master Indenture, to be used to
pay the principal of the Series 2021B Bonds whether at maturity or by mandatory sinking
fund redemption as provided in Section 3.04 hereof. The Trustee shall also deposit into
the Principal Account any other amounts deposited with the Trustee for deposit into the
Principal Account or transferred from other Funds and Accounts for deposit therein. On
or about each July 15, earnings on amounts in the Principal Account shall be withdrawn
by the Trustee and paid to the City for deposit into the Revenue Account unless an Event
of Default exists under the Master Indenture, in which event the earnings shall be
retained in the Principal Account.
(c)Redemption Account. The Trustee shall deposit into the Redemption
Account amounts received from the City as provided in the Master Indenture to be used
to pay the redemption price of Series 2021B Bonds being redeemed as provided in
Section 3.03 hereof. The Trustee shall also deposit into the Redemption Account any
other amounts deposited with the Trustee for deposit into the Redemption Account or
transferred from other Funds and Accounts for deposit therein. Earnings on the
Redemption Account shall be withdrawn and paid to the City on the Business Day
following a redemption date for deposit into the Revenue Account unless an Event of
Default exists under the Master Indenture, in which event the earnings shall be retained in
the Redemption Account.
The Series 2021B Debt Service Fund shall be invested and reinvested by the Trustee
directed by an Authorized City Representative in Permitted Investments.
Section 4.07. Series 2021B Construction Fund.
(a)There shall be deposited into the Series 2021B Construction Fund the
amounts as provided in Section 4.03(d) hereof, any amounts transferred from the Interest
Account of the Series 2021B Debt Service Fund representing Capitalized Interest and
earnings thereon as described in Section 4.06(a) hereof, and any earnings from the Series
2021B Costs of Issuance Account as described in Section 4.08(e) hereof.
(b)The City shall apply amounts on deposit in the Series 2021B Construction
Fund to pay the Costs of the Series 2021B Projects and will expend amounts on deposit
in the Series 2021B Construction Fund only in accordance with and subject to the
limitations set forth in the Tax Certificate. Amounts on deposit in the Series 2021B
Construction Fund shall not be used to pay Costs of Issuance. The City shall maintain
records of all expenditures made from the Series 2021B Construction Fund, which
records shall include (i) the name of each entity to which payment was made, (ii) the
applicable amount paid to such entity, and (iii) the applicable Series 2021B Projects for
which such payment relates.
(c)Moneys held in the Series 2021B Construction Fund shall be invested and
reinvested in Permitted Investments as directed by an Authorized City Representative.
Earnings on the Series 2021B Construction Fund shall be retained in the Series 2021B
Construction Fund.
17
4842-0126-6915.1
(d)The completion of the Series 2021B Projects shall be evidenced by the
filing with the Trustee of a certificate of an Authorized City Representative stating either
(i) the date of completion of the Series 2021B Projects and the amount, if any, required in
the opinion of such Authorized City Representative for the payment of any remaining
part of the Costs of the Series 2021B Projects or (ii) that all amounts in the Series 2021B
Construction Fund have been disbursed or expenses in respect thereof have been
incurred. Any amount remaining in the Series 2021B Construction Fund following the
delivery of such certificate, except for amounts required for the payment of any
remaining part of the Costs of the Series 2021B Projects, or upon the determination of the
City not to proceed with all or a portion of the Series 2021B Projects, may, at the
determination of the City, be applied to any other lawful purpose. As a condition to the
disbursement of funds for a purpose other than the financing of the Series 2021B
Projects, an opinion of Bond Counsel shall be delivered to the City and the Trustee that
the purpose for which such funds are to be used is a lawful purpose for which such
proceeds may be used under the Act and that such use shall not result in the inclusion of
interest on any Series 2021B Bonds in gross income of the recipient thereof for federal
income tax purposes.
Section 4.08. Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund.
(a)There shall be deposited into the respective Accounts within the Series
2021 Costs of Issuance Fund the amounts as provided in Sections 4.02(c) and 4.03(c)
hereof.
(b)The City shall apply amounts on deposit in the Series 2021 Costs of
Issuance Fund to pay Costs of Issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and will expend
amounts on deposit in the Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund only in accordance with
and subject to the limitations set forth in the Tax Certificate. The City shall maintain
records of all expenditures made from the Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund, which
records shall include (i) the name of each entity to which payment was made, (ii) the
applicable amount paid to such entity, (iii) the Account in the Series 2021 Costs of
Issuance Fund from which such payment was made, and (iv) a description of the Costs of
Issuance represented by such payment.
(c)Moneys held in the Series 2021 Costs of Issuance Fund shall be invested
and reinvested in Permitted Investments as directed by an Authorized City
Representative.
(d)Earnings on the Series 2021A Costs of Issuance Account shall be
deposited into the Series 2021A Construction Fund. Any amounts remaining in the
Series 2021A Costs of Issuance Account on [], 2022 shall be transferred to the Series
2021A Construction Fund and the Series 2021A Costs of Issuance Account shall be
closed.
(e)Earnings on the Series 2021B Costs of Issuance Account shall be
deposited into the Series 2021B Construction Fund. Any amounts remaining in the
Series 2021B Costs of Issuance Account on [], 2022 shall be transferred to the Series
18
4842-0126-6915.1
2021B Construction Fund and the Series 2021B Costs of Issuance Account shall be
closed.
Section 4.09. Common Debt Service Reserve Fund. The City hereby elects to have
the Series 2021 Bonds participate in the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund established
pursuant to the Master Indenture. As provided in Sections 4.02(b) and 4.03(b) hereto, at the time
of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, a portion of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds shall be
deposited into the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund so that such amount on deposit in the
Common Debt Service Reserve Fund will be equal to the Reserve Requirement for the Common
Debt Service Reserve Fund. At the time of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Reserve
Requirement for the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund shall be $[].
Section 4.10. Sources of Payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds
shall be secured by and payable, on parity with all Outstanding Bonds, from the Net Revenues
and other security provided in the Granting Clauses of the Master Indenture and this Third
Supplemental Indenture and in accordance with the terms of the Master Indenture and this Third
Supplemental Indenture. The City may, but is not obligated to, provide for the payment of the
principal of and interest on the Series 2021 Bonds from any other source or from any other funds
of the Department.
Section 4.11. Perfection of Security Interest.
(a)The Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture create a valid
and binding pledge and assignment of and security interest in all of the Net Revenues
pledged under the Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental Indenture in favor of the
Trustee as security for payment of the Series 2021 Bonds, enforceable by the Trustee in
accordance with the terms thereof.
(b)Under the laws of the State, such pledge and assignment and security
interest is automatically perfected by Section 11-14-501, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended, and is and shall have priority as against all parties having claims of any kind in
tort, contract, or otherwise hereafter imposed on the Net Revenues.
ARTICLE V
TAX COVENANTS
Section 5.01. Series 2021 Rebate Fund. The City hereby agrees that it will execute the
Tax Certificate and will, pursuant to the provisions of the Tax Certificate, cause the Series 2021
Rebate Fund to be established at such times, if any, as provided for in the Tax Certificate, which
fund will be funded if so required under the Tax Certificate and amounts in such Series 2021
Rebate Fund shall be held and disbursed in accordance with the Tax Certificate.
Section 5.02. Preservation of Tax Exemption.
(a)The City shall comply with the covenants and agreements set forth in the
Tax Certificate.
19
4842-0126-6915.1
(b)The City shall not use or permit the use of any proceeds of Series 2021
Bonds or any other funds of the City held by the Trustee under the Master Indenture and
this Third Supplemental Indenture, directly or indirectly, to acquire any securities or
obligations, and shall not use or permit the use of any amounts received by the City or the
Trustee with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds in any manner, and shall not take or permit
to be taken any other action or actions, which would cause any Series 2021 Bond to be
“federally guaranteed” within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Code or an “arbitrage
bond” within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations
promulgated from time to time thereunder and under Section 103(c) of the Code. The
City shall observe and not violate the requirements of Section 148 of the Code and any
such applicable regulations. In the event the City is of the opinion that it is necessary to
restrict or limit the yield on the investment of money held by the Trustee, or to use such
money in certain manners, in order to avoid the Series 2021 Bonds being considered
“arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the regulations
thereunder as such may be applicable to the Series 2021 Bonds at such time, the City
shall issue to the Trustee a certificate to such effect together with appropriate instructions,
in which event the Trustee shall take such action as it is directed to take to use such
money in accordance with such certificate and instructions, irrespective of whether the
Trustee shares such opinion.
(c)The City shall at all times do and perform all acts and things permitted by
law and this Third Supplemental Indenture which are necessary or desirable in order to
assure that interest paid on the Series 2021 Bonds will not be included in gross income
for federal income tax purposes and shall take no action that would result in such interest
being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes (other than interest paid
to holders of the Series 2021A Bonds that are a “substantial user” of the facilities
financed or refinanced with the Series 2021A Bonds or a “related person” within the
meaning of Section 147(a) of the Code) and shall take no action that would result in such
interest being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes (other than
interest paid to holders of the Series 2021A Bonds that are a “substantial user” of the
facilities financed or refinanced with the Series 2021A Bonds or a “related person”
within the meaning of Section 147(a) of the Code).
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 6.01. Parties in Interest. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein,
nothing in this Third Supplemental Indenture expressed or implied is intended or shall be
construed to confer upon any person, firm or corporation other than the City, the Trustee, the
Paying Agent and the Holders of the Series 2021 Bonds any right, remedy or claim under or by
reason of this Third Supplemental Indenture or any covenant, condition or stipulation hereof, and
all covenants, stipulations, promises and agreements in this Third Supplemental Indenture
contained by and on behalf of the City shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City, the
Trustee and the Holders of the Series 2021 Bonds.
20
4842-0126-6915.1
Section 6.02. Continuing Disclosure. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will
comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Third Supplemental Indenture, failure of the City to
comply with its obligations set forth in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement shall not constitute
an Event of Default (as specified in Article VIII of the Master Indenture); provided, however,
that any participating underwriter for the Series 2021 Bonds or any Holder or beneficial owner of
the Series 2021 Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate to compel
performance by the City of its obligations under this Section, including seeking mandate or
specific performance by court order.
Section 6.03. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Third
Supplemental Indenture, or of any Series 2021 Bonds issued hereunder shall, for any reason, be
held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of
this Third Supplemental Indenture or of the Series 2021 Bonds, and this Third Supplemental
Indenture and any Series 2021 Bonds issued hereunder shall be construed and enforced as if such
illegal or invalid provisions had not been contained herein or therein.
Section 6.04. No Personal Liability of City Members and Officials; Limited
Liability of City to Bondholders. No covenant or agreement contained in the Series 2021
Bonds or in this Third Supplemental Indenture shall be deemed to be the covenant or agreement
of any present or future Mayor, Council member, official, officer, agent or employee of the City,
the Department of Airports or the Airport System, in their individual capacity, and neither the
members of the Council, the officers and employees of the City, nor any person executing the
Series 2021 Bonds shall be liable personally on the Series 2021 Bonds or be subject to any
personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof.
Section 6.05. Execution of Instruments; Proof of Ownership. Any request, direction,
consent or other instrument in writing required or permitted by this Third Supplemental
Indenture to be signed or executed by the Holders of the Series 2021 Bonds or on their behalf by
an attorney-in-fact may be in any number of concurrent instruments of similar tenor and may be
signed or executed by such Holders in person or by an agent or attorney-in-fact appointed by an
instrument in writing or as provided in the Series 2021 Bonds. Proof of the execution of any
such instrument and of the ownership of Series 2021 Bonds shall be sufficient for any purpose of
this Third Supplemental Indenture and shall be conclusive in favor of the Trustee with regard to
any action taken by it under such instrument if made in the following manner:
(a)The fact and date of the execution by any person of any such instrument
may be proved by the certificate of any officer in any jurisdiction who, by the laws
thereof, has power to take acknowledgments within such jurisdiction, to the effect that
the person signing such instrument acknowledged before him the execution thereof, or by
an affidavit of a witness to such execution.
(b)The ownership of Series 2021 Bonds shall be proved by the registration
books kept under the provisions of Section 2.04 of the Master Indenture.
Nothing contained in this Section 6.05 shall be construed as limiting the Trustee to such
proof. The Trustee may accept any other evidence of matters herein stated which it may deem
21
4842-0126-6915.1
sufficient. Any request, consent of, or assignment by any Holder of the Series 2021 Bonds shall
bind every future Holder of the same Series 2021 Bonds or any Series 2021 Bonds issued in lieu
thereof in respect of anything done by the Trustee or the City in pursuance of such request or
consent.
Section 6.06. System of Registration. The Master Indenture and this Third
Supplemental Indenture shall constitute a system of registration within the meaning and for all
purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15, Utah Code Annotated
1953, as amended.
Section 6.07. Plan of Financing. The Master Indenture and this Third Supplemental
Indenture shall constitute a plan of financing within the meaning and for all purposes of the Act.
Section 6.08. Governing Law. The laws of the State shall govern the construction and
enforcement of this Third Supplemental Indenture and of all of the Series 2021 Bonds issued
hereunder.
Section 6.09. Notices. Except as otherwise provided in this Third Supplemental
Indenture, all notices, certificates, requests, requisitions or other communications by the City, the
Trustee, the Paying Agent or the Registrar pursuant to this Third Supplemental Indenture shall be
in writing and shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by registered
mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: if to the City, to the Salt Lake City Department of
Airports, Attention: Chief Financial Officer, by delivery or by mail, P.O. Box 145550, Salt Lake
City, Utah, 84114-5550, with a copy to the City Attorney at the same address; if to the Trustee,
the Paying Agent and the Registrar to Wilmington Trust, National Association 650 Town Center
Drive, Suite 600, Costa Mesa, California 92626, Attention: Corporate Trust Department. Any of
the foregoing may, by notice given hereunder to each of the others, designate any further or
different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates, requests or other communications
shall be sent hereunder.
Section 6.10. Holidays. If the date for making any payment or the last date for
performance of any act or the exercising of any right, as provided in this Third Supplemental
Indenture, shall not be a Business Day, such payment may, unless otherwise provided in this
Third Supplemental Indenture, be made or act performed or right exercised on the next
succeeding Business Day with the same force and effect as if done on the nominal date provided
in this Indenture; provided that no interest shall accrue between the scheduled date of payment
and the actual date of payment.
Section 6.11. Counterparts. This Third Supplemental Indenture may be signed in
several counterparts. Each will be an original, but all of them together constitute the same
instrument.
Pursuant to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Title 46, Chapter 4 of the Utah
Code Annotated 1953, as amended, the City and the Trustee hereby agree and consent to the use
of electronic signatures and electronic records in connection with the Series 2021 Bonds;
provided, however, that such consent and agreement only permits the use of, but does not
22
4842-0126-6915.1
require, electronic signatures or electronic records, including on documents delivered in
counterparts.
Section 6.12. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for City Officers and
Employees and Former City Officers and Employees. The Trustee represents that it has not:
(a) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or
employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (b) retained any person to solicit or secure the
Trustee’s appointment under this Third Supplemental Indenture upon an agreement or
understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide
employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business;
(c) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City’s conflict of interest
ordinance, Chapter 2.44 of the City Code; or (d) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that
it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to
breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City’s conflict of interest ordinance,
Chapter 2.44 of the City Code.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows]
S-1
4842-0126-6915.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Third Supplemental Trust
Indenture to be duly executed, all as of the date first above written.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By
Mayor
Attest:
By
City Recorder
[SEAL]
Approved as to form:
By
Senior City Attorney
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee
By
Authorized Representative
[Signature page to Third Supplemental Trust Indenture]
4842-0126-6915.1
EXHIBIT A
FORM OF SERIES 2021 BOND
UNLESS THIS BOND IS PRESENTED BY AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF
DTC (AS DEFINED IN THE HEREINAFTER DEFINED INDENTURE) TO THE TRUSTEE
(AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED) FOR REGISTRATION OF, TRANSFER, EXCHANGE, OR
PAYMENT, AND ANY SERIES 2021[A/B] BOND ISSUED IS REGISTERED IN THE
NAME OF CEDE & CO. OR IN SUCH OTHER NAME AS IS REQUESTED BY AN
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF DTC (AND ANY PAYMENT IS MADE TO CEDE
& CO. OR TO SUCH OTHER ENTITY AS IS REQUESTED BY AN AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF
FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL INASMUCH AS
THE REGISTERED OWNER HEREOF, CEDE & CO., HAS AN INTEREST HEREIN.
REGISTERED REGISTERED
No. R-___ Principal Amount: $___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF UTAH
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
AIRPORT REVENUE BOND
SERIES 2021[A/B]
[(AMT)/(Non-AMT)]
Interest Rate Maturity Date Original Dated Date CUSIP
____% July 1, 20__ [], 2021 795576___
Registered Owner:
Principal Amount:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), a
duly organized and existing municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah
(the “State”), acknowledges itself indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay, in the
manner and from the source hereinafter provided, to the Registered Owner identified above, or
registered assigns, on the Maturity Date identified above, unless this Bond shall have been called
for redemption and payment of the redemption price shall have been duly made or provided for,
upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal amount identified above, and to pay, in the
manner and from the source hereinafter provided, to the Registered Owner hereof interest on the
balance of said principal amount from time to time remaining unpaid from the Interest Payment
Date next preceding the date of registration and authentication of this Bond, unless this Bond is
registered and authenticated as of an Interest Payment Date, in which event this Bond shall bear
interest from such Interest Payment Date, or unless this Bond is registered and authenticated
A-2
4842-0126-6915.1
prior to the first Interest Payment Date, in which event this Bond shall bear interest from the
Original Dated Date specified above, or unless, as shown by the records of the hereinafter
referred to Trustee, interest on the hereinafter referred to Series 2021[A/B] Bonds shall be in
default, in which event this Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid
in full, at the rate per annum specified above (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days
comprised of twelve 30-day months), payable in each year on January 1 and July 1, beginning
January 1, 2022, until payment in full of such principal amount, except as the provisions
hereinafter set forth with respect to redemption prior to maturity may become applicable hereto.
This Bond, as to principal and redemption price when due, will be payable at the principal
corporate trust operations office of Wilmington Trust, National Association, as paying agent of
the City, or its successor as such paying agent, in any coin or currency of the United States of
America which at the time of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and private
debts; provided, however, that payment of the interest hereon shall be made to the Registered
Owner hereof and shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the person who is the Registered
Owner as of the applicable Record Date at his address as it appears on the registration books of
the Trustee or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such registered owner to the
Trustee prior to the Record Date. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, if this Bond is a
Book-Entry Bond, as defined in the hereinafter defined Master Indenture, principal, redemption
price and interest will be paid as provided in Section 2.06 of the Master Indenture. The Record
Date for a January 1 payment is the preceding December 15, and the Record Date for a July 1
payment is the preceding June 15. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the hereinafter defined Indenture.
THIS BOND IS A LIMITED OBLIGATION OF THE CITY, PAYABLE SOLELY
FROM AND SECURED BY A PLEDGE OF NET REVENUES DERIVED BY THE CITY
FROM THE OPERATIONS OF THE AIRPORT SYSTEM AND CERTAIN FUNDS AND
ACCOUNTS. NONE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE AIRPORT SYSTEM ARE SUBJECT
TO ANY MORTGAGE OR OTHER LIEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS OF THE
BONDS, AND NEITHER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF
THE CITY, THE STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR AGENCY OF THE
STATE IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY,
OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS.
This Bond and the issue of Bonds of which it is a part are issued in conformity with and
after full compliance with the Constitution of the State of Utah and pursuant to the provisions of
the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended (the “Act”), and all other laws applicable thereto.
This Bond is a limited obligation of the City and is one of the Airport Revenue Bonds of
the City (the “Bonds”) issued under and by virtue of the Act and under and pursuant to a Master
Trust Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2017 (the “Master Indenture”), by between the City and
Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee (said trustee and any successor thereto under
the Master Indenture being herein referred to as the “Trustee”), and as supplemented by a Third
Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated as of [] 1, 2021 (the “Third Supplemental Indenture,” and
together with the Master Indenture, the “Indenture”), between the City and the Trustee, for the
purpose of financing costs of certain capital improvements to the Salt Lake City International
A-3
4842-0126-6915.1
Airport, funding a debt service reserve fund and paying all expenses incident thereto and to the
issuance of the Series 2021[A/B] Bonds described below.
As provided in the Master Indenture, Bonds may be issued from time to time in one or
more series in various principal amounts, may mature at different times, may bear interest at
different rates, and may otherwise vary as provided in the Master Indenture, and the aggregate
principal amount of Bonds which may be issued is not limited. All Bonds issued and to be
issued under the Master Indenture are and will be equally and ratably secured by the pledge and
covenants made therein, except as otherwise expressly provided or permitted in or pursuant to
the Master Indenture.
This Bond is one of a Series of Bonds designated as “Airport Revenue Bonds, Series
2021[A/B] [(AMT)/(Non-AMT)]” (the “Series 2021[A/B] Bonds”), issued in the aggregate
principal amount of $[[PARA]/[PARB]], dated as of the Original Dated Date identified above,
and duly issued under and by virtue of the Act and under and pursuant to the Indenture. Copies
of the Indenture are on file at the office of the City Recorder in Salt Lake City, Utah, and at the
principal corporate trust office of the Trustee, in Costa Mesa, California, and reference to the
Indenture and the Act is made for a description of the pledge and covenants securing the Series
2021[A/B] Bonds, the nature, manner and extent of enforcement of such pledge and covenants,
the terms and conditions upon which the Series 2021[A/B] Bonds are issued and additional
Bonds may be issued thereunder, and a statement of the rights, duties, immunities and
obligations of the City and of the Trustee. Such pledge and other obligations of the City under
the Indenture may be discharged at or prior to the maturity or redemption of the Series
2021[A/B] Bonds upon the making of provision for the payment thereof on the terms and
conditions set forth in the Indenture.
Simultaneously with the issuance of the Series 2021[A/B] Bonds, the City is issuing
$[[PARA]/[PARB]] of its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021[A/B] [(AMT)/(Non-AMT)] (the
“Series 2021[A/B] Bonds”) under the Indenture. Additionally, the City has previously issued
$826,210,000 of its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A (AMT) (the “Series 2017A Bonds”),
$173,790,000 of its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017B (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2017B
Bonds,” and together with the Series 2017A Bonds, the “Series 2017 Bonds”), $753,855,000 of
its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A (AMT) (the “Series 2018A Bonds”), and $96,695,000
of its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2018B (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2018B Bonds,” and
together with the Series 2018A Bonds, the “Series 2018 Bonds”) under the Master Indenture.
The Series 2021[A/B] Bonds, the Series 2021[A/B] Bonds, the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series
2018 Bonds are equally and ratably secured under the Master Indenture. The Master Indenture
also provides for the incurrence of additional debt, including the issuance of additional bonds, to
be secured under the Master Indenture equally and ratably with the Series 2021[A/B] Bonds, the
Series 2021[A/B] Bonds, the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018 Bonds.
The Series 2021[A/B] Bonds maturing on or before July 1, 20[] are not subject to
optional redemption prior to maturity. The Series 2021[A/B] Bonds maturing on or after July 1,
20[] are redeemable at the option of the City on or after July 1, 20[], in whole or in part at any
time, from any moneys that may be provided for such purpose and at a redemption price equal to
100% of the principal amount of the Series 2021[A/B] Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued
interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium.
A-4
4842-0126-6915.1
The Series 2021[A/B] Bonds with a stated Maturity Date of July 1, 20[] will be subject
to mandatory sinking fund redemption on July 1, 20[] and each July 1, thereafter, to and
including July 1, 20[] in accordance with the terms of a mandatory sinking fund redemption
schedule set forth in the Third Supplemental Indenture.
The Series 2021[A/B] Bonds are available in Authorized Denominations of $5,000 of
original principal amount and integral multiples thereof. A holder may transfer or exchange
Series 2021[A/B] Bonds in accordance with the Indenture. The Trustee may require a holder,
among other things, to furnish appropriate endorsements and transfer documents and to pay any
taxes and fees required by law or permitted by the Master Indenture.
The Registered Owner of this Bond shall be treated as the owner of it for all purposes.
If money for the payment of principal or interest remains unclaimed for two years, the
Trustee will pay the money to or for the account of the City. After that, holders entitled to the
money must look only to the City and not to the Trustee for payment.
If the City at any time deposits with the Trustee money or Government Obligations as
described in the Master Indenture sufficient to pay at maturity principal of and interest on the
Outstanding Series 2021[A/B] Bonds, and if the City also pays all other sums then payable by
the City under the Master Indenture, the Master Indenture will be discharged. After discharge,
Bondholders must look only to the deposited money and securities for payment. If the City at
any time deposits with the Trustee money or Government Obligations as described in the Master
Indenture sufficient to pay at maturity, principal of and interest on all or any portion of the
Outstanding Series 2021[A/B] Bonds, such Series 2021[A/B] Bonds, with respect to which the
deposit was made, shall no longer be deemed to be Outstanding and shall no longer be secured
by the Master Indenture except to the extent of the funds set aside therefor.
The Master Indenture, the Third Supplemental Indenture and the Series 2021[A/B] Bonds
may be amended or supplemented, and any past default or compliance with any provision may
be waived, as provided in the Master Indenture. Any consent given by the owner of this Bond
shall bind any subsequent owner of this Bond or any Bond delivered in substitution for this
Bond.
The Master Indenture provides that the occurrences of certain events constitute Events of
Default. If an Event of Default occurs and is continuing, the Trustee may exercise the remedies
set forth in the Master Indenture and the Third Supplemental Indenture. Under no circumstances
does an Event of Default grant any right to accelerate payment of this Bond. An Event of
Default and its consequences may be waived as provided in the Master Indenture and the Third
Supplemental Indenture. Bondholders may not enforce the Master Indenture or this Bond except
as provided in the Master Indenture and the Third Supplemental Indenture. The Trustee may
refuse to enforce the Master Indenture or this Bond unless it receives indemnity satisfactory to it.
Subject to certain limitations, holders of a majority of the principal amount of the Series
2021[A/B] Bonds (determined in accordance with the terms of the Master Indenture and the
Third Supplemental Indenture) may direct the Trustee in its exercise of any trust or power.
A-5
4842-0126-6915.1
No member, director, officer or employee of the City shall have any personal liability for
any obligations of the City under this Bond, the Master Indenture or the Third Supplemental
Indenture or for any claim based on such obligations or their creation or be subject to any
personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. Each Bondholder, by
accepting this Bond, waives and releases all such liability. The waiver and release are part of the
consideration for the issuance of this Bond.
It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by the
Constitution or statutes of the State of Utah or by the Act or the Indenture to exist, to have
happened or to have been performed precedent to or in the issuance of this Bond exist, have
happened and have been performed and that the issue of Bonds, together with all other
indebtedness of the City, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by said Constitution and
statutes.
This Bond shall not be valid until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been
signed by the Trustee.
A-6
4842-0126-6915.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, has caused this Bond to be
signed in its name and on its behalf by the signature of its Mayor, and its corporate seal to be
impressed or imprinted hereon, and attested and countersigned by the signature of its City
Recorder, all as of the Original Dated Date specified above.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By
Mayor
Attest and Countersign:
By
City Recorder
[SEAL]
A-7
4842-0126-6915.1
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within mentioned Indenture and is one of
the Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021[A/B][(AMT/Non-AMT)], of Salt Lake City, Utah.
Date of registration and authentication: _____________
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee
By
Authorized Representative
A-8
4842-0126-6915.1
FORM OF ASSIGNMENT
I or we assign and transfer to
Insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
[ ]
[ ]
(Print or type name, address and zip code of assignee) this Bond and irrevocably appoint
agent to transfer this Bond on the books of the City. The agent may
substitute another to act for him.
Dated:
Signed
(Sign exactly as name appears on the face of this Bond)
Signature guaranteed:
(NOTE: Signature must be guaranteed by an
Eligible Guarantor Institution.)
4842-0126-6915.1
EXHIBIT B
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULES
$[PARA]
Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds
Series 2021A
(AMT)
Date Principal Interest Total
B-2
4842-0126-6915.1
Date Principal Interest Total
B-3
4842-0126-6915.1
$[PARB]
Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds
Series 2021B
(Non-AMT)
Date Principal Interest Total
B-4
4842-0126-6915.1
Date Principal Interest Total
4842-0126-6915.1
EXHIBIT C-1
SERIES 2021A PROJECTS
4842-0126-6915.1
EXHIBIT C-2
SERIES 2021B PROJECTS
4842-9446-9092
EXHIBIT C
[ATTACH FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT]
Draft
i
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED ________ __, 2021
NEW ISSUE-BOOK-ENTRY ONLY Ratings: See “RATINGS” herein.
In the opinion of Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel to the City, under existing laws, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions and
assuming the accuracy of certain representations and continuing compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Series 2021 Bonds is
excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, except for interest on any Series 2021A Bond for any period during which such
Series 2021A Bond is held by a “substantial user” of the facilities financed or refinanced by the Series 2021A Bonds, or a “related person”
within the meaning of Section 147(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Bond Counsel is further of the opinion that (a)interest
on the Series 2021A Bonds constitutes an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals,
and (b) interest on the Series 2021B Bonds is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. Bond Counsel
is further of the opinion that, under the existing laws of the State of Utah, as presently enacted and construed, interest on the Series 2021
Bonds is exempt from State of Utah individual income taxes. See “TAX MATTERS” herein.
$____________*
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$___________* Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)
$__________* Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Dated: Date of Delivery Due: July 1, as shown on the inside cover page hereof
Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”) is issuing its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT) (the “Series 2021A Bonds”) and its Airport
Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2021B Bonds” and, with the Series 2021A Bonds, the “Series 2021 Bonds”) to finance
and refinance portions of the Terminal Redevelopment Program and the North Concourse Program, as described herein, and related costs of
the City’s Department of Airports (the “Department”) at Salt Lake City International Airport (the “Airport”). The Series 2021 Bonds will be
issued pursuant to a Master Trust Indenture (the “Master Indenture”) and a Third Supplemental Trust Indenture (the “Third Supplemental
Indenture,” and, with the Master Indenture, the “Indenture”), each by and between the City and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as
trustee (the “Trustee”). The Series 2021 Bonds are limited obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by a pledge of (a) Net
Revenues, (b) certain funds and accounts held by the Trustee under the Indenture, and (c) other amounts payable under the Indenture, all as
defined herein. The Series 2021 Bonds will be secured by a pledge of Net Revenues on parity with the City’s Airport Revenue Bonds Series
2017A, Series 2017B, Series 2018A and Series 2018B, which as of July 2, 2021 were outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of
$1,849,410,000. None of the properties of the Airport System, as defined herein, are subject to any mortgage or other lien for the benefit of
the owners of the Series 2021 Bonds, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State of Utah (the “State”) or
any political subdivision or agency of the State is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on the Series 2021 Bonds.
The Series 2021 Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as
registered owner and nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”). Purchasers will acquire beneficial
ownership interests in the Series 2021 Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or integral multiples thereof and will not receive physical delivery
of bond certificates. So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Series 2021 Bonds, principal of, premium if any, and interest on
the Series 2021 Bonds will be payable by the Trustee to Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC. See “APPENDIX E – Book-Entry Only System”
herein.
The Series 2021 Bonds will bear interest from their date of original delivery, payable each January 1 and July 1, commencing on January
1, 2022.
The Series 2021 Bonds are subject to optional and mandatory redemption prior to maturity as described herein.
See the inside cover page hereof for maturities, principal amounts, interest rates, yields and prices of the Series 2021 Bonds.
This cover page contains information for quick reference only. It is not a summary of this issue. Investors must read this entire Official
Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an informed investment decision.
The Series 2021 Bonds are offered when, as and if issued by the City and received by the Underwriters, subject to the receipt of an
unqualified approving opinion as to validity of Kutak Rock LLP, Denver, Colorado, Bond Counsel to the City, and certain other conditions.
Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the City by the City Attorney, Katherine N. Lewis, and Disclosure Counsel to the City, Kaplan
Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, and for the Underwriters by their counsel, Gilmore & Bell, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah. PFM
Financial Advisors LLC, San Francisco, California, serves as Municipal Advisor to the City. Delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds to DTC or
its custodial agent is expected in New York, New York on or about July __, 2021.
Citigroup Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
____________________
______ __, 2021
*Preliminary, subject to change
This Preliminary Official Statement and the information contained herein are subject to completion or amendment. These securities may not be sold, nor may offers to buy them be accepted, prior to the time the Official Statement is delivered in final form.
Under
no circumstances shall this Preliminary Official Statement constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy
nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration
or qualification under other securities laws of any such jurisdiction.
Draft
ii
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$____________*
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)
Due
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate Yield Price CUSIP†
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
$____________ ____% Term Bonds due July 1, 20__; Yield ____%; Price _______ CUSIP† 795576___
$___________ ____% Term Bonds due July 1, 20__; Yield ____%; Price________ CUSIP† 795576___
$____________*
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
Due
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate Yield Price CUSIP†
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
795576
$____________ ____% Term Bonds due July 1, 20__; Yield ____%; Price _______ CUSIP† 795576___
$___________ ____% Term Bonds due July 1, 20__; Yield ____%; Price________ CUSIP† 795576___
† Copyright, American Bankers Association. CUSIP data herein are provided by CUSIP Global Services, managed on behalf of
the American Bankers Association by S&P Global Market Intelligence. The CUSIP numbers listed above are being provided solely
for the convenience of Bondholders only at the time of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and neither the City nor the Underwriters
make any representation with respect to such numbers or undertake any responsibility for their accuracy now or at any time in the
future.
* Preliminary, subject to change
Draft
iii
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Draft
iv
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
CITY COUNCIL
Amy Fowler .............................................................................................................................................. Council Chair
James Rogers .................................................................................................................................... Council Vice Chair
Ana Valdemoros ................................................................................................................................... Council Member
Dan Dugan ............................................................................................................................................ Council Member
Darin Mano ........................................................................................................................................... Council Member
Chris Wharton ...................................................................................................................................... Council Member
One vacant position
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Erin J. Mendenhall ................................................................................................................................................ Mayor
Rachel Otto ................................................................................................................................................ Chief of Staff
Katherine N. Lewis .................................................................................................................................... City Attorney
Cindy Lou Trishman ................................................................................................................................. City Recorder
Marina Scott ............................................................................................................................................. City Treasurer
AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD
Steve Price .............................................................................................................................................................. Chair
Theresa Foxley ...............................................................................................................................................Vice Chair
Roger Boyer ....................................................................................................................................................... Member
Arlyn Bradshaw ................................................................................................................................................. Member
Dirk Burton ........................................................................................................................................................ Member
Tye Hoffman ..................................................................................................................................................... Member
Karen Mayne ..................................................................................................................................................... Member
Cynthia D. Miller ............................................................................................................................................... Member
Larry Pinnock .................................................................................................................................................... Member
James Rogers ..................................................................................................................................................... Member
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Bill Wyatt .......................................................................................................................................... Executive Director
Treber Anderson .......................................................................................................................... Director of Operations
Shane Andreasen ........................................................................ Director of Administration and Commercial Services
Brian Butler ................................................................................................................................ Chief Financial Officer
Edwin M. Cherry ................................................................................................... Director of Information Technology
Eddie R. Clayson ...................................................................................................................... Director of Maintenance
Brady Fredrickson ........................................................................................... Director of Planning and Environmental
Medardo Gomez ............................................................ Director of Operational Readiness, Activation, and Transition
Peter L. Higgins ......................................................................................................................... Chief Operating Officer
Kevin F. Robins ......................................................................................................................... Director of Engineering
Nancy Volmer ............................................................................................ Director of Communication and Marketing
BOND COUNSEL
Kutak Rock LLP
Denver, Colorado
DISCLOSURE COUNSEL
Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
MUNICIPAL ADVISOR
PFM Financial Advisors LLC
San Francisco, California
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
Eide Bailly LLP
Salt Lake City, Utah
AIRPORT CONSULTANT
Landrum & Brown, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio
TRUSTEE
Wilmington Trust, National Association
Los Angeles, California
Draft
v
The information contained in this Official Statement has been furnished by the City, DTC and other sources
that are believed to be reliable. No dealer, broker, salesperson or any other person has been authorized by the City or
the Underwriters to give any information or to make any representations other than those contained in this Official
Statement in connection with the offering contained herein, and, if given or made, such information or representations
must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the City or the Underwriters.
This Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there
be any sale of the Series 2021 Bonds by any person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make
such offer, solicitation or sale. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice,
and neither delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made thereafter shall under any circumstances create any
implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the City or in any other information contained herein, since
the date of this Official Statement.
The Underwriters have provided the following sentence for inclusion in this Official Statement. The
Underwriters have reviewed the information in this Official Statement in accordance with, and as part of, their
responsibilities to investors under the federal securities laws as applied to the facts and circumstances of this
transaction, but the Underwriters do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information.
The Series 2021 Bonds have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in reliance
upon exemptions contained in such act. Any registration or qualification of the Series 2021 Bonds in accordance with
applicable provisions of the securities laws of the states in which the Series 2021 Bonds have been registered or
qualified and the exemption from registration or qualification in other states cannot be regarded as a recommendation
thereof.
THE SERIES 2021 BONDS HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ANY STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION, NOR
HAS THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ANY STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION
PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT. ANY
REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
This Official Statement contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities
laws in the sections hereof entitled “THE NEW SLC,” “THE AIRPORT,” “REPORT OF THE AIRPORT
CONSULTANT” and APPENDIX B. These forward-looking statements include, among others, statements
concerning expectations, beliefs, opinions, future plans and strategies, anticipated events or trends and similar
expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. The forward-looking statements in this Official Statement
are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or
implied by such statements.
This Official Statement contains projections and estimates that are based on current expectations and
assumptions. In light of the important factors that may materially affect the financial condition of the City and the
aviation industry generally and other economic and financial matters, the inclusion in this Official Statement of such
projections and estimates should not be regarded as a representation by the City or the Underwriters that such
projections and estimates will occur. Such projections and estimates are not intended as representations of fact or
guarantees of results.
The City and the Department each maintain a website. However, the information presented on those websites
is not a part of this Official Statement and should not be relied upon in making an investment decision with respect to
the Series 2021 Bonds.
Draft
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
General .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Salt Lake City .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Salt Lake City Department of Airports ........................................................................................................... 1
Salt Lake City International Airport ................................................................................................................ 1
COVID-19 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
The New SLC .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Plan of Finance ................................................................................................................................................ 2
The Series 2021 Bonds .................................................................................................................................... 3
Security for the Bonds ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Forward-Looking Statements .......................................................................................................................... 3
Additional Information .................................................................................................................................... 3
THE SERIES 2021 BONDS ........................................................................................................................................ 4
General Provisions .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Redemption of the Series 2021 Bonds ............................................................................................................ 5
Book-Entry Only System ................................................................................................................................ 7
ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS .................................................................................................. 8
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................................... 9
IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT ................................................................................ 10
COVID-19 Outbreak ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Impact of COVID-19 on the Airport ............................................................................................................. 11
Impact of COVID-19 on Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) ....................................................................... 12
THE NEW SLC ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Summary of the New SLC ............................................................................................................................ 13
Elements of the New SLC ............................................................................................................................. 17
Project Management of the New SLC ........................................................................................................... 20
Other Capital Projects ................................................................................................................................... 22
Funding Sources for the New SLC ................................................................................................................ 23
SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS ....................................................................................................... 25
Pledge of Net Revenues ................................................................................................................................ 25
Flow of Funds................................................................................................................................................ 26
Rate Covenant ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Common Debt Service Reserve Fund ........................................................................................................... 31
Additional Bonds ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Use of PFCs to Pay Debt Service .................................................................................................................. 33
Permitted Investments ................................................................................................................................... 34
Events of Default and Remedies; No Acceleration ....................................................................................... 34
Subordinate Obligations (Subordinate Revolving Obligations) .................................................................... 34
Other Covenants of the City .......................................................................................................................... 35
THE AIRPORT ......................................................................................................................................................... 35
Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
The Airport’s Air Service Area ..................................................................................................................... 36
The City 38
Airport Management ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Airport Facilities ........................................................................................................................................... 42
Aviation Activity at the Airport .................................................................................................................... 45
Airline Use Agreement .................................................................................................................................. 52
Airport Financial Operations ......................................................................................................................... 54
Personnel Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 62
Retirement and Other Post-Employment Benefits ........................................................................................ 63
Draft
vii
Risk Management .......................................................................................................................................... 63
Debt Management Policy .............................................................................................................................. 64
Investment Policy .......................................................................................................................................... 64
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE FACTORS .................................................................... 66
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS ................................................................................ 66
SOCIAL FACTORS .................................................................................................................................................. 66
GOVERNANCE FACTORS .................................................................................................................................... 66
REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT ..................................................................................................... 67
General ........................................................................................................................................................ 67
Projection of Debt Service Coverage and Cost Per Enplanement ................................................................. 67
INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 69
COVID-19 ..................................................................................................................................................... 69
Delta’s Presence at the Airport ...................................................................................................................... 69
Project Costs and Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 69
Financial Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 70
Seismic Risk and Other Force Majeure Events ............................................................................................. 70
General Economic Considerations ................................................................................................................ 70
Financial Condition of the Airline Industry .................................................................................................. 71
Airline Consolidation .................................................................................................................................... 71
Effect of Bankruptcy of Air Carriers and Other Tenants............................................................................... 71
Cost of Aviation Fuel .................................................................................................................................... 72
Structural Changes in the Travel Market ....................................................................................................... 72
Technological Innovations in Ground Transportation ................................................................................... 73
Aviation Security, Health and Safety Concerns ............................................................................................ 73
Travel Substitutes .......................................................................................................................................... 74
Information Concerning the Airlines ............................................................................................................. 74
FAA Reauthorization and Federal Funding................................................................................................... 74
Federal Law Affecting Rates and Charges .................................................................................................... 74
PFC Revenues and Other Sources of Funding .............................................................................................. 75
Cybersecurity ................................................................................................................................................ 76
Environmental Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 76
Forward-Looking Statements ........................................................................................................................ 77
TAX MATTERS ........................................................................................................................................................ 77
General ........................................................................................................................................................ 77
Tax Treatment of Original Issue Premium .................................................................................................... 78
Backup Withholding ..................................................................................................................................... 79
Changes in Federal and State Tax Law ......................................................................................................... 79
RATINGS ................................................................................................................................................................... 80
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 80
NO DEFAULTED BONDS ....................................................................................................................................... 80
LEGAL MATTERS .................................................................................................................................................. 80
Litigation ....................................................................................................................................................... 80
Approval of Legal Proceedings ..................................................................................................................... 81
Draft
viii
UNDERWRITING .................................................................................................................................................... 81
MUNICIPAL ADVISOR .......................................................................................................................................... 82
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE ................................................................................................................................ 82
MISCELLANEOUS .................................................................................................................................................. 83
APPENDIX A COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT .......................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT.......................................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE ........................................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D FORM OF AIRLINE USE AGREEMENT ................................................................................ D-1
APPENDIX E BOOK-ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM ................................................................................................. E-1
APPENDIX F FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT .......................................................... 1
APPENDIX G FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL ............................................................................. F-1
*Preliminary, subject to change 1
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
of
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Relating to its
$______________* Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)
$_____________* Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
INTRODUCTION
General
This Official Statement of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”) sets forth certain information concerning the
City, its Department of Airports (the “Department”), the Salt Lake City International Airport (the “Airport”) and the
City’s $__________* Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT) (the “Series 2021A Bonds”) and its $_________*
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2021B Bonds” and, with the Series 2021A Bonds, the
“Series 2021 Bonds”).
Salt Lake City
The City, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah (the “State”), has a Council-
Mayor form of government. The City Council consists of seven members, who are elected by voters within seven
geographic districts of approximately equal population. The Mayor is elected at large by the voters of the City and is
charged with the executive and administrative duties of the government. The Mayor appoints and the City Council
approves the appointment of the Executive Director of the Department. See “THE AIRPORT – The City” herein.
The Airport is owned by the City. In addition to the Airport, the City owns South Valley Regional Airport
(“South Valley” or “U42”) and Tooele Valley Airport (“Tooele” or “TVY”) (collectively with the Airport, the “Airport
System”), which are all operated and managed by the Department. The Mayor of the City and the City Council oversee
the Department’s affairs. An eleven-member advisory board (the “Airport Advisory Board”) of citizen volunteers
advises the Mayor.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
The day-to-day operations of the Airport System are managed by the Executive Director of the Department,
who reports directly to the Mayor. The Executive Director leads the management staff of the Department and the
Department’s Division Directors oversee each of the primary operating and administrative divisions of the Department
and report to the Executive Director.
Salt Lake City International Airport
The Airport is located on approximately 9,400 acres about five miles west of the City’s downtown. The
airfield at the Airport contains four runways, three of which are used for airline traffic and the fourth of which is used
for general aviation traffic. A new terminal facility was placed into service at the Airport on September 15, 2020, and
it replaced the prior terminal complex in its entirety. The new terminal facility consists of three levels and includes a
federal inspection services area, passenger circulation areas, a centralized security screening checkpoint, a ticketing
area for departing passengers, a conference center and administrative offices for the Department and other tenants at
the Airport. The Airport also currently contains a new five-level parking structure for short-term parking along with
surface parking for longer-term parking and employees. The Airport is classified by the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”) as a Large Hub facility based upon its share of nationwide enplaned passengers. The FAA
classifies Large Hub airports as those serving at least 1% of annual U.S. passenger enplanements. See “THE
AIRPORT – Airport Management” and “ – Airport Facilities” herein. The Airport is also a principal hub for Delta
Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”). In the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020 (“FY 2020”), Delta and its affiliates carried
Draft
2
approximately 73% of the passengers enplaned at the Airport. See “THE AIRPORT – Aviation Activity at the
Airport.”
COVID-19
The worldwide outbreak of a highly contagious, upper respiratory tract illness caused by a novel strain of
coronavirus (together with variants thereof, “COVID-19”) has caused significant disruption to domestic and
international air travel, including passenger operations, and has had significant negative and adverse effects on the
economies of the nation and the world. The information in this Official Statement that describes revenues, financial
affairs, operations and general economic conditions of the City and the Department for Fiscal Year 2020 reflects only
four months of COVID-19 impacts. Subsequent data through March 31, 2021 is included in this Official Statement
where available. All of this information should be considered in light of the negative and adverse impacts from
COVID-19 subsequent to the dates of such data. The effects of COVID-19 and actions taken at the state and national
levels to halt its spread have had, and are expected to continue to have, a significant adverse effect on the revenues,
financial condition and operations of the Department. COVID-19 developments, and associated governmental and
regulatory responses, are rapidly changing and cannot be predicted with any assurance. For a more detailed discussion
of the current and projected impacts of COVID-19 on the Department’s revenues, financial condition and operations,
see “IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT” and APPENDIX B –Report of the Airport
Consultant.
The New SLC
The “New SLC”, formerly known as the Airport Redevelopment Program, is a comprehensive and integrated
series of projects that will result in the replacement of substantially all of the Airport’s landside and terminal complex
facilities and the demolition of a number of existing facilities. The New SLC consists of the Terminal Redevelopment
Program (“TRP”) and the North Concourse Program (“NCP”). The TRP is a $2.72 billion capital improvement
program that consists of the following project elements: (1) the South Economy parking lot, (2) the Rental Car Quick
Turn Around and three Rental Car Remote Service Site facilities, (3) the Central Utility Plant, (4) a new Terminal
Facility, (5) the Gateway Center, (6) Concourse A West, including 25 gates, (7) the Parking Garage, (8) a new terminal
roadway system to serve the new landside facilities, (9) Concourse A East, including 22 gates, and (10) related
infrastructure improvements, including apron reconfiguration, information technology, utilities and landscaping. By
September 15, 2020 the major elements of the TRP, including the new Terminal Facility, Concourse A West, Central
Utility Plant, Parking Garage, Gateway Center, roadways, and airfield paving were placed in service. The NCP is a
separate, but programmatically integrated $1.73 billion set of projects consisting of a concourse (the “Concourse B”)
planned to contain a total of 31 domestic gates and will be constructed in two phases. Concourse B is located parallel
to Concourse A and is connected to it, currently, by a temporary mid-concourse passenger tunnel. Concourse B West
was placed in service on October 27, 2020, on schedule, with 21 gates. Concourse B East and the final central
passenger tunnel remain to be constructed. Not all elements of the New SLC have been bid and are subject to a
construction contract and, accordingly, the project budget remains subject to change. See “THE NEW SLC” herein.
Plan of Finance
The Series 2021 Bonds are being issued to finance a portion of the design and construction of the New SLC,
make a deposit to the Common Reserve Fund (as defined herein), repay the outstanding Subordinate Revolving
Obligations (as defined below), fund a portion of the interest accruing on the Series 2021 Bonds, and pay the costs of
issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds. As described under “THE NEW SLC” and “APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE
AIRPORT CONSULTANT – CIP Plan of Finance,” the City has funded to date and expects to continue to fund the
design and construction of the New SLC from a variety of sources, including Department funds, proceeds of airport
revenue bonds, drawings on a revolving line of credit (as described below), passenger facility charges (“PFCs”),
customer facility charges (“CFCs”) and federal grants. In addition to the Series 2021 Bonds, the City previously
issued its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A (AMT) (the “Series 2017A Bonds”), Airport Revenue Bonds, Series
2017B (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2017B Bonds” and, with the 2017A Bonds, the “Series 2017 Bonds”), Airport
Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A (AMT) (the “Series 2018A Bonds”) and Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2018B (Non-
AMT) (the “Series 2018B Bonds” and, with the 2018A Bonds, the “Series 2018 Bonds”). As of July 2, 2021, the
Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018 Bonds were outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $1,849,410,000.
The City currently expects that it will issue airport revenue bonds under the Master Indenture, in addition to the Series
2021 Bonds, to fund a total of approximately $_____________ million of construction costs of elements of the New
Draft
3
SLC. Given the complexity and timing of the New SLC, the final plan of finance remains subject to change. See
“THE NEW SLC” and “APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT – CIP Plan of Finance.”
Additionally, pursuant to the Master Subordinate Trust Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2021 (the “Master
Subordinate Indenture”), by and between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as trustee (the
“Subordinate Trustee”), the First Supplemental Subordinate Trust Indenture, dated as of Mach 1, 2021 (the “First
Supplemental Subordinate Indenture,” and with the Master Subordinate Indenture, the “Subordinate Indenture”), by
and between the City and the Subordinate Trustee, and the Credit Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2021 (the
“Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement”), by and between the City and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association (the “Subordinate Revolving Obligations Bank”), the City is authorized to issue and have
outstanding, from time to time, up to $300,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Salt Lake City, Utah
Subordinate Airport Revenue Short-Term Revolving Obligations (collectively, the “Subordinate Revolving
Obligations”). As of July 1, 2021, the City had $[____] aggregate principal amount of Subordinate Revolving
Obligations outstanding. All Subordinate Revolving Obligations issued by the City are purchased by the Subordinate
Revolving Obligations Bank in accordance with the terms of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit
Agreement. On or about the date of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the City expects to repay all of the outstanding
Subordinate Revolving Obligations with a portion of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds. The City expects to issue
additional Subordinate Revolving Obligations, from time to time, to finance, on an interim basis, construction costs
of elements of the New SLC. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS -- Subordinate Obligations
(Subordinate Revolving Obligations).”
The Series 2021 Bonds
The Series 2021 Bonds are being issued pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture dated as of February 1, 2017
(the “Master Indenture”) by and between the City and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee (the
“Trustee”), the Third Supplemental Trust Indenture to be dated as of August 1, 2021 (the “Third Supplemental
Indenture” and, collectively with the Master Indenture, and all supplements thereto, the “Indenture”) by and between
the City and the Trustee, and the Act, as defined in the Master Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds have been approved
by a resolution of the City Council adopted on [June 1], 2021. The Series 2021 Bonds are subject to optional and
mandatory redemption prior to maturity as provided herein. See “THE SERIES 2021 BONDS” herein.
Security for the Bonds
The Series 2021 Bonds, the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018 Bonds and any additional airport revenue
bonds issued pursuant to the Master Indenture (collectively, the “Bonds”) will be limited obligations of the City
payable solely from and secured by a pledge of (1) Net Revenues, (2) certain funds and accounts held by the Trustee
under the Indenture, and (3) other amounts payable under the Indenture. None of the properties of the Airport System
are subject to any mortgage or other lien for the benefit of the owners of the Series 2021 Bonds or any other Bonds,
and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State or any political subdivision or agency
of the State is pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2021 Bonds or
any other Bonds. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS.”
Forward-Looking Statements
This Official Statement contains projections and estimates that are based on current expectations. In light of
the important factors that may materially affect the financial condition of the Department and the aviation industry
generally and other economic and financial matters, the inclusion in this Official Statement of such projections and
estimates should not be regarded as a representation by the City that such projections and estimates will occur. Such
projections and estimates are not intended as representations of fact or guarantees of results. The Department
disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement
contained herein to reflect any change in the Department’s expectations with regard thereto or any change in events,
conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.
Additional Information
This Official Statement includes a description of the City, the Department and the Department’s facilities
and certain financial and operational factors relating to the Department, and a description of the Series 2021 Bonds
and the security therefor. Except where noted, all information presented in this Official Statement has been provided
Draft
4
by the City. The following appendices are included as part of this Official Statement: APPENDIX A –
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEARS
ENDED JUNE 30, 2020 AND JUNE 30, 2019; APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT dated
________, 2021; APPENDIX C – FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE; APPENDIX D – FORM OF AIRLINE USE
AGREEMENT; APPENDIX E – BOOK-ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM; APPENDIX F – FORM OF CONTINUING
DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT; and APPENDIX G – FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL. APPENDIX B
has been prepared by Landrum & Brown, Inc. (“Landrum” or the “Airport Consultant”), Airport Consultant to the
City. APPENDICES C and G have been prepared by Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel to the City. APPENDIX F has
been prepared by Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, Disclosure Counsel to the City. The information included in
APPENDIX E has been obtained from The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”).
Certain defined terms that are capitalized but not defined herein are defined in the Master Indenture. See
“APPENDIX C – FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE - ARTICLE I – DEFINITIONS; INTERPRETATION.” All
references in this Official Statement to the Master Indenture, the Third Supplemental Indenture, the Series 2021 Bonds,
the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, the Airline Use Agreement and all other agreements, statutes and instruments
are qualified by reference to the complete document. Copies of the Third Supplemental Indenture are available for
examination at the offices of the Department and the Trustee.
The Department’s principal office is located at 3920 West Terminal Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122. The
Department’s telephone number is (801) 575-2400. Copies of certain documents, including the Department’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”) for FY 2020, are available electronically on the Department’s
website at: http://www.slcairport.com/about-the-airport/financial-information. However, no information on the
Department’s or the City’s website is part of or incorporated into this Official Statement, except to the extent such
information is expressly disclosed herein.
The Department’s CAFR for fiscal year 2019 (“FY 2019”) has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement
for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”) and the Department
has submitted the CAFR for FY 2020 to the GFOA. The Department’s CAFR has been awarded the Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the GFOA for more than ten consecutive years.
THE SERIES 2021 BONDS
General Provisions
The Series 2021 Bonds will bear interest at the rates and mature on the dates set forth on the inside front
cover page of this Official Statement. Interest will be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve
30-day months. The Series 2021 Bonds will be dated their initial date of delivery, and will bear interest from that date
payable semi-annually on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing January 1, 2022 (each an “Interest Payment
Date”). Interest due and payable on the Series 2021 Bonds on any Interest Payment Date will be paid to the person
who is the registered owner as of the Record Date (DTC, so long as the book-entry system with DTC is in effect).
Each Series 2021 Bond will bear interest from the Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication
thereof unless such date of authentication is an Interest Payment Date, in which event such Series 2021 Bond will bear
interest from such date of authentication, or unless such date of authentication is after a Record Date and before the
next succeeding Interest Payment Date, in which event such Series 2021 Bond will bear interest from such succeeding
Interest Payment Date, or unless such date of authentication is on or before December 15, 2021, in which event such
Series 2021 Bond will bear interest from its date of delivery. If interest on the Series 2021 Bonds is in default, Series
2021 Bonds issued in exchange for Series 2021 Bonds surrendered for transfer or exchange will bear interest from the
last Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid in full on the Series 2021 Bonds surrendered.
The Series 2021 Bonds will be issued in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof. The Series
2021 Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as registered
owner and nominee of DTC. DTC will act as securities depository for the Series 2021 Bonds. Individual purchases
may be made in book-entry form only. Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their interest in the Series
2021 Bonds purchased. So long as Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, is the registered owner of the Series 2021 Bonds,
references herein to the Bondholders or registered owners means Cede & Co. and does not mean the Beneficial Owners
of the Series 2021 Bonds.
Draft
5
So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Series 2021 Bonds, the principal of and interest on the
Series 2021 Bonds will be payable by wire transfer by the Trustee to Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC, which is
required, in turn, to remit such amounts to the DTC participants for subsequent disbursement to the Beneficial Owners.
See “APPENDIX E — BOOK-ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM.”
Redemption of the Series 2021 Bonds
Optional Redemption
The Series 2021 Bonds maturing on or before July 1, 20__ are not subject to optional redemption prior to
maturity. The Series 2021 Bonds maturing on or after July 1, 20__ are redeemable on or after _____ 1, 20__ at the
option of the City, in whole or in part at any time, from any moneys that may be provided for such purpose and at a
redemption price equal to ___% of the principal amount of the Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest
to the date fixed for redemption, without premium.
Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption
The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on July 1, 20__, are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in part,
by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date
fixed for redemption, without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following principal amounts:
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*
*Final Maturity Date
The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on July 1, 20__ (together with the Series 2021A Bonds maturing on July
1, 20__, the “Series 2021A Term Bonds”), are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a
redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for
redemption, without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following principal amounts:
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*
*Final Maturity Date
The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on July 1, 20__ are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in part,
by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date
fixed for redemption, without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following principal amounts:
Draft
6
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*
*Final Maturity Date
The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on July 1, 20__ (together with the Series 2021B Bonds maturing on July
1, 20__, the “Series 2021B Term Bonds”) are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a
redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for
redemption, without premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following principal amounts:
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*
*Final Maturity Date
At the option of the City, to be exercised by delivery of a written certificate to the Trustee on or before the
60th day next preceding any mandatory sinking fund redemption date for the Series 2021A Term Bonds or the Series
2021B Term Bonds (collectively, the “Series 2021 Term Bonds”), the City may (a) deliver to the Trustee, for
cancellation, Series 2021 Term Bonds or portions thereof (in Authorized Denominations) purchased in the open
market or otherwise acquired by the City or (b) specify a principal amount of such Series 2021 Term Bonds or portions
thereof (in Authorized Denominations), which prior to said date have been optionally redeemed and previously
cancelled by the Trustee at the request of the City and not theretofore applied as a credit against any mandatory sinking
fund redemption requirement. Each such Series 2021 Term Bond or portion thereof so purchased, acquired or
optionally redeemed and delivered to the Trustee for cancellation will be credited by the Trustee, at 100% of the
principal amount thereof, against the obligation of the City to pay the principal of such applicable Series 2021 Term
Bond on such mandatory sinking fund redemption date.
Notices of Redemption to Bondholders; Conditional Notice of Optional Redemption
The Trustee will give notice of redemption, in the name of the City, to Bondholders affected by redemption
(DTC, so long as the book-entry system with DTC is in effect) at least 30 days but not more than 60 days before each
redemption date. The Trustee will send such notice of redemption by first class mail (or with respect to Series 2021
Bonds held by DTC, either via electronic means or by an express delivery service for delivery on the next following
Business Day) to each registered owner of a Series 2021 Bond to be redeemed; each such notice will be sent to the
owner’s registered address. The City will also post, or cause to be posted, such notice of redemption on the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) website.
Each notice of redemption will specify the date of issue, the applicable Series, the maturity date, the interest
rate and the CUSIP number of the applicable Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed, if less than all Series 2021 Bonds of
a Series, maturity date and interest rate are called for redemption, the numbers assigned to the Series 2021 Bonds to
be redeemed, the principal amount to be redeemed, the date fixed for redemption, the redemption price, the place or
places of payment, the Trustee’s name, that payment will be made upon presentation and surrender of the applicable
Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed, that interest, if any, accrued to the date fixed for redemption and not paid will be
paid as specified in said notice, and that on and after said date interest thereon will cease to accrue.
The City may provide that, if at the time of mailing of notice of an optional redemption there has not been
deposited with the Trustee moneys and/or securities sufficient to redeem all the applicable Series 2021 Bonds called
for redemption, such notice may state that it is conditional, that is, subject to the deposit of the redemption moneys
Draft
7
with the Trustee not later than one Business Day prior to the scheduled redemption date, and such notice will be of no
effect unless such moneys are so deposited. In the event sufficient moneys are not on deposit one Business Day prior
to the scheduled redemption date, then the redemption will be canceled and on such cancellation date notice will be
mailed to the Holders of such Series 2021 Bonds.
Failure to give any required notice of redemption as to any particular Series 2021 Bonds will not affect the
validity of the call for redemption of any Series 2021 Bonds in respect of which no failure occurs. Any notice sent as
provided in the Indenture will be conclusively presumed to have been given whether or not actually received by the
addressee. When notice of redemption is given, Series 2021 Bonds called for redemption become due and payable on
the date fixed for redemption at the applicable redemption price. In the event that funds are deposited with the Trustee
sufficient for redemption, interest on the Series 2021 Bonds to be redeemed will cease to accrue on and after the date
fixed for redemption.
Effect of Redemption
On the date so designated for redemption, notice having been given in the manner and under the conditions
provided in the Indenture and as described above and sufficient moneys for payment of the redemption price being
held in trust to pay the redemption price, interest on such applicable Series 2021 Bonds will cease to accrue from and
after such redemption date, such Series 2021 Bonds will cease to be entitled to any lien, benefit or security under the
Indenture and the owners of such Series 2021 Bonds will have no rights in respect thereof except to receive payment
of the redemption price. Series 2021 Bonds which have been duly called for redemption and for the payment of the
redemption price of which moneys will be held in trust for the holders of the respective Series 2021 Bonds to be
redeemed, all as provided in the Indenture, will not be deemed to be Outstanding under the provisions of the Indenture.
Selection of Series 2021 Bonds for Redemption; Series 2021 Bonds Redeemed in Part
Redemption of the Series 2021 Bonds will only be in Authorized Denominations. The Series 2021 Bonds
are subject to redemption in such order of maturity and interest rate within a Series (except mandatory sinking fund
payments on the Series 2021 Term Bonds) as the City may direct and by lot within such maturity and interest rate of
such Series selected in such manner as the Trustee (or DTC, as long as DTC is the securities depository for the Series
2021 Bonds) deems appropriate.
Except as otherwise provided under the procedures of DTC, on or before the 45th day prior to any mandatory
sinking fund redemption date, the Trustee will proceed to select for redemption (by lot in such manner as the Trustee
may determine) from the Series 2021 Term Bonds an aggregate principal amount of such Series 2021 Term Bonds
equal to the amount for such year as set forth in the applicable table under “Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption”
above and will call such Series 2021 Term Bonds or portions thereof (in Authorized Denominations) for redemption
and give notice of such call.
Book-Entry Only System
DTC will act as securities depository for the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds will be issued as
fully registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC’s partnership nominee) or such other name as
may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully-registered bond certificate will be issued for
each maturity of each Series of the Series 2021 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of such maturity, and will be
deposited with DTC. For more information regarding DTC and its procedures, see “APPENDIX E – BOOK-ENTRY
ONLY SYSTEM.”
Draft
8
ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
The estimated sources and uses of funds in connection with the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds are
summarized below (rounded to the nearest dollar):*
Series 2021A
Bonds
Series 2021B
Bonds Total
Sources of Funds
Principal amount
Plus/minus Original Issue
Premium/Discount
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
Deposit to Construction Fund
Capitalized Interest1
Repayment of Subordinate
Revolving Obligations
Deposit to Common Reserve Fund
Costs of Issuance2
Total Uses of Funds
________________________________
*Amounts may not add due to rounding.
1 Interest capitalized on specific components of the New SLC to the earlier of the date such components are expected to be placed
in service or July 1, 2024. See also footnote 2 to the schedule under the heading “DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE” herein.
2 Includes underwriters’ discount, trustee fees, legal fees, financial advisor and consultant fees, rating agency fees, printing
expenses and other miscellaneous fees and expenses.
Draft
9
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
Upon issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Series 2017 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds and the Series 2021
Bonds will be the only outstanding Bonds of the City payable from the Net Revenues of the Airport System. (Subject
to the final pricing of the Series 2021 Bonds, the City currently expects to issue a total of approximately $___ million
of additional Bonds to fund additional project costs for the New SLC through FY 2025). The following schedule sets
forth the debt service for the Bonds:
Series 2021A Bonds Series 2021B Bonds
Period
Ending¹Principal Interest²Principal Interest²
Aggregate
Debt Service
on Series 2017
Bonds and
Series 2018
Bonds3
Aggregate Debt
Service on Bonds
7/1/2022 113,065,500
7/1/2023 115,703,250
7/1/2024 106,523,250
7/1/2025 120,987,250
7/1/2026 123,148,000
7/1/2027 130,592,500
7/1/2028 133,217,250
7/1/2029 133,215,250
7/1/2030 133,220,750
7/1/2031 133,212,250
7/1/2032 133,229,000
7/1/2033 133,223,000
7/1/2034 133,213,250
7/1/2035 133,217,500
7/1/2036 133,222,250
7/1/2037 133,224,250
7/1/2038 133,215,000
7/1/2039 133,206,000
7/1/2040 133,217,750
7/1/2041 133,214,250
7/1/2042 133,210,750
7/1/2043 133,216,250
7/1/2044 133,213,750
7/1/2045 133,216,500
7/1/2046 133,219,000
7/1/2047 133,217,750
7/1/2048 59,558,750
7/1/2049
7/1/2050
7/1/2051
Total
___________
1 Pursuant to the provisions of the Master Indenture, the City is required to make monthly deposits to the applicable Debt Service Funds for the Bonds so
that sufficient amounts are on deposit in such funds 15 days prior to each applicable principal payment date (July 1) and interest payment date (January 1 and
July 1) for the Outstanding Bonds. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS” and “APPENDIX C —FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE.”
2 A portion of the interest due on the Series 2021 Bonds during the periods ending July 1, 2022 through, and including, July 1, 2024 will be paid with a
portion of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds. Interest is capitalized on specific components of the New SLC to the earlier of the date such component is
expected to be placed in service or July 1, 2024.
3 A portion of the interest due on the Series 2018A Bonds during the periods ending July 1, 2022 through, and including, July 1, 2023 will be paid with a
portion of the proceeds of the Series 2018A Bonds.
Draft
10
IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT
The following information regarding recent developments in finances and operations of the Department
supplements information set forth elsewhere in this offering document describing Revenues and information contained
under the heading “THE AIRPORT,” certain of which historical information predates the COVID-19 pandemic or
was prepared before the outbreak of COVID-19 and should be considered in light of possible negative and adverse
impacts of COVID-19. The data for FY 2020 contains information that pre-dates the outbreak of COVID-19 in the
United States. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on passenger traffic, airline operations and related effects on
revenues began to be experienced at the Airport in March of 2020.
This section contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such statements may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other
factors which may cause the actual results, performance and achievements to be different from future results,
performance and achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned
that the actual results could differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements.
COVID-19 Outbreak
The outbreak of COVID-19, a respiratory disease caused by a new strain of coronavirus, has had significant
adverse health and financial impacts throughout the world and the State of Utah and has caused significant disruptions
to domestic and international air travel, including both passenger and cargo operations. Many states and local
governments in the United States, including the State, initially issued “stay at home” or “shelter in place” orders,
which severely restricted movement and limited businesses and activities to essential functions. While some of these
orders have been lifted, there remain restrictions in place throughout the country to varying levels of degree and the
current resurgence of the virus may cause further restrictions to be imposed. Additionally, a number of nations have
actually or effectively closed their borders by restricting entry and exit to only essential travel and/or requiring
travelers to self-isolate for 14 days, further depressing demand for passenger air travel.
The approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug administration of three vaccines for COVID-19 are expected to
result in some relief from the pandemic, but there are many uncertainties regarding such vaccines, including the
number of people who will choose not to be vaccinated, and how effective the vaccines will be in eliminating the
further spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the spread of variants thereof, and the length of time that the
vaccines will remain effective.
Airports in the United States, including the Airport, have been significantly affected by the reductions in
passenger volumes and flights, as well as by the broader economic shutdown resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak.
The outbreak has adversely affected domestic and international travel and travel-related industries. Airlines, including
those operating at the Airport, have reported unprecedented reductions in passenger volumes, causing the cancellation
of numerous flights and a dramatic reduction in network capacity, including suspension of service on certain routes,
including some to and from the Airport.
The safety and health of passengers and employees is the Department’s top priority, and the Department has
been working in coordination with its airline partners, building cleaning contractors, local public health and emergency
response organizations, and other stakeholders to keep travel safe and to comply with guidelines issued by the Centers
for Disease Control (the “CDC”).
The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and its dynamic nature leads to uncertainties, including relating to the
severity of the disease; the duration of the pandemic; the efficacy and availability of vaccines against the COVID -19
virus; actions that may be taken by governmental authorities to contain the outbreak or to treat its impact; the impact
of the pandemic and any travel restrictions on the demand for air travel, including at the Airport, or on Airport revenues
and expenses; the impact of the outbreak on the local or global economies or on the airlines and concessionaires
serving the Airport, or on the airline or travel industry generally. Due to the evolving nature of the COVID-19
pandemic and the response of governments, businesses and individuals to the COVID-19 pandemic, Airport
Draft
11
management cannot predict, among other things: (i) the duration or extent of the COVID-19 outbreak or another
outbreak or pandemic; (ii) the scope or duration of restrictions or warnings related to air travel, gatherings or any other
activities, and the duration or extent to which airlines will reduce services at the Airport, or whether airlines will cease
operations at the Airport or shut down in response to such restrictions or warnings; (iii) what effect any COVID-19 or
other outbreak or pandemic-related restrictions or warnings may have on air travel and the resulting impact on Airport
revenues and expenses; (iv) whether and to what extent the COVID-19 or another outbreak or pandemic may disrupt
the local, State, national or global economies, manufacturing or supply chain, or whether any such disruption may
adversely impact Airport-related construction, the cost, sources of funds, schedule or implementation of the Airport’s
capital program, or other Airport operations; (v) the extent to which the COVID-19 outbreak or another outbreak or
pandemic, or the resultant disruption to the local, State, national or global economies, may result in changes in demand
for air travel, or may have an impact on the airlines or concessionaires serving the Airport, or the airline and travel
industry, generally, including resulting in the bankruptcy or cessation of operations of airlines or Airport tenants; (vi)
whether or to what extent the Authority may provide deferrals, forbearances, adjustments or other changes to the
Authority’s arrangements with its tenants and Airport concessionaires; or (vii) the extent to which any of the foregoing
will have a material adverse effect on the finances and operations of the Airport.
The information included in this Official Statement includes audited data for FY 2020, which reflects
approximately four months of impact from the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as unaudited data for the first nine months
of FY 2021 (through March 2021). Due to the evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the full impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on the Airport cannot be fully quantified at this time.
Impact of COVID-19 on the Airport
The outbreak of COVID-19 and related restrictions have had an adverse effect on airlines serving the Airport,
retail concessionaires at the Airport and Airport Revenues as more fully discussed herein. Historical patterns of
passenger and cargo traffic at the Airport were drastically disrupted by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in
early 2020 and the Airport has witnessed a sharp contraction in activity since March 2020. For example, in May 2020,
the Airport’s average daily flights were approximately 149 per day, down from 341 per day in May 2019.
During the first eight months of FY 2020 (the City’s fiscal year ends June 30), prior to the COVID-19
outbreak, the Airport continued to experience strong business activity. Airport Revenues, enplaned passengers, landed
weights and PFCs collected increased each fiscal year from 2016 through 2019, but Revenues were 7% less in FY
2020 than FY 2019 and enplaned passengers were reduced by 22.9% during the same period.
Since the COVID-19 outbreak, however, the Airport has seen steep declines in many financial and operating
metrics, although many of these same metrics have shown improvement since spring 2020. April 2020 represented
the low point in terms of enplaned passengers, which totaled 87,557 or 8.1% of April 2019 enplanements. Scheduled
seat capacity was reduced starting in April 2020, although actual passenger traffic was reduced starting mid-March
2020. Decreases in passenger numbers started in mid-March 2020, and by March 2021 had recovered to 62.4% of
those recorded in March 2019. Unlike many U.S. airports, domestic service at the Airport has begun to rebound and
did not dip as substantially as at other airports during the same period. In particular, Delta has increased seat capacity
at the Airport in April and May 2021 compared to the same months in 2019, before the impacts of the pandemic. See
APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT.
For FY 2020, service as measured by average daily departing seats was 12.7% lower than in FY 2019, while
average daily enplaned passenger numbers were 22.7% lower. The average load factor (enplaned passengers divided
by departing seats) was 70.6% in FY 2020 versus 87.8% in FY 2019. For the first nine months of FY 2021 (through
March 2021), service as measured by average daily departing seats was 20.7% lower than for the first nine months of
FY 2020, while average daily enplaned passenger numbers were 49.4% lower. The average load factor was 53% for
the first nie months of FY 2021 versus 82% for the same period in FY 2020. Network decisions made by each airline
regarding their rate of reduction in flight operations can impact the significance of this load factor during the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Enplaned passengers at the Airport totaled 10,095,732 passengers for FY 2020, a 22.9% decrease from the
13,090,133 enplaned passengers who used the Airport in the prior year. For the first nine months of FY 2021 (through
March 2021), the Airport experienced passenger declines of approximately 49.6% when compared to the same nine
month period in FY 2020.
Draft
12
The declines in passenger traffic also reduces demand for commercial parking as well as retail and services
provided by Airport concessionaires, including but not limited to restaurants, retail and rental car services, and ground
transportation services, such as those provided by taxis and transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft.
Airport parking revenues decreased from approximately $35.4 million in FY 2019 to $28.0 million in FY 2020
primarily due to decreased activity as a result of the pandemic. For the first nine months of FY 2021, the Airport
experienced a decrease in parking revenues (the Airport’s largest source of non-aeronautical income) of approximately
$17.5 million, or 54%, when compared to the same period in FY 2020.
Impact of COVID-19 on Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)
PFCs collected, including investment income, during FY 2020 were $40,607,278, which was $9,113,261 less
than FY 2019 collections of $49,720,539. In developing the FY 2021 PFC projection, the Airport has assumed a 47%
reduction in enplanements and PFCs compared to FY 2019, which results in an expected decrease in PFC collections
to $22.1 million. The reduction in PFC collections is essentially a timing event, since the Department’s authority to
collect PFCs is not determined by time but by the approved amount.
Department’s Response to COVID-19
The Department responded to the effects of COVID-19 by cutting operating costs, providing financial relief
to tenants, and providing financial assistance to both airline and concessions tenants for the build out of new space in
the Terminal and Concourses A and B. The Department also undertook enhanced cleaning efforts, added touchless
fixtures to all restrooms, installed plexiglass shields in key locations, required face coverings be worn by Airport
workers and anyone entering the terminal, among other proactive measures. The Department promptly instituted a
hiring and travel freeze, including postponing hiring of 30 authorized full time equivalent (“FTE”) employees, and
substantially reduced all discretionary spending. In addition, the Department has been awarded $105.6 million in
federal grant funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) of March 27,
2020 and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (“CRRSA”) signed into law on
December 27, 2020. The Department expects to receive additional federal grant funds under the American Rescue
Plan (“ARP”) Act signed into law on March 11, 2021.
The Department has been awarded approximately $82.5 million of grant funding under the CARES Act, of
which $3.9 million was applied to O&M expenditures in FY 2020. The Department expects to apply an additional
$66 million of CARES Act funds in FY 2021 and $12.6 million in FY 2022, all of which is expected to offset O&M
expenses including payroll, utilities and other costs in order to stabilize rates and charges for the airlines. No debt
service is expected to be paid with CARES Act or CRRSA grant funds. The Department also expects to apply all
$23.1 million of its CRRSA grant funds to O&M expenses in order to reduce rates and charges in FY 2022, except
for the $2.75 million allocated to concessions relief, which will be applied to reduce on-Airport concession rents. The
Department is reviewing how best to apply its ARP Act grant funds, once the amounts and terms and conditions of
such grants are announced by the FAA, but it expects that ARP Act grants will also be applied to reduce O&M
expenses and stabilize rates and charges.
The New SLC Project Management Team recognized at the start of the pandemic that to complete the New
SLC safely and on time, measures needed to be quickly put in place to ensure the health of the trade workers onsite.
Written COVID-19 plans were published by both construction managers at risk (“CMAR”) in early March 2020 and
processes were immediately put in place that included temperature checks at all points of entry to the construction
sites, mandatory mask requirements, additional hand washing/sanitizing/boot washing stations, additional building
cleaning and sanitizing, reporting requirements, daily electronic educational newsletters and jobsite signage. The
measures put in place and reinforced on a daily basis allowed the New SLC project to remain open, to receive high
marks on three different County Health Department inspections, to peak at 1950 trade workers and remain on schedule
for the phase 1 openings of the New SLC.
In addition, the Department acted promptly following the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic to
provide financial relief to the airlines and other tenants operating at the Airport. Landing fees and terminal rentals for
April through June 2020 were deferred to July and August. All deferred amounts have been repaid in full. The
Department also provided financial assistance to the airlines operating at the Airport to finance the buildout of new
Draft
13
airline space in the Terminal and Concourses. The amount of such assistance must be repaid, with interest, within the
term of the applicable airline’s AUA.
In-Terminal concessionaires operating at the Airport before the opening of the new Terminal and Concourses
were provided with a deferral of minimum annual guaranteed (“MAG”) rent from April through September of 2020
and only percentage rent was charged during that period. Deferred MAG was recalculated and abated in accordance
with the agreements between the City and the concessionaires that provided a reduction in MAG proportional to the
reductions in enplaned passengers, resulting in no additional MAG being due. In addition, the Department allowed
concessions to temporarily close, reduce hours and reduce menus without penalty. For concessions in the new
Terminal and Concourses, the Department deferred the commencement dates for MAG until the earlier of (x) July1,
2023 and (y) the date the Airport achieves 90% of 2019 enplaned passengers for three consecutive months (the “Catch-
up Date”) and has allowed them to open on a staggered schedule and provided those willing to open on time interest-
bearing financing with a term of five years commencing January 1, 2021 to finance the buildout of new space.
Similarly, rental car concessionaires were granted a deferral of MAG and paid only percentage rent from April through
September 2020. In addition, the terms of such agreements have been extended to run from the Catch-up Date for the
originally negotiated term of years. The MAG true-up was recalculated and abated in accordance with the agreements
between the rental car companies and the City, resulting in no additional MAG being due. The City also provided
overflow parking at the Airport to the rental car companies from April through September at no cost and provided
interest-bearing financing with a term of five years finance the buildout of new space. The loans for tenant buildouts
totaled approximately $41.3 million, less than the $70 million made available, and were used only for capital
expenditures at the Airport.
THE NEW SLC
Summary of the New SLC
The New SLC is a comprehensive and integrated series of projects that is replacing substantially all of the
Airport’s landside and terminal complex facilities. Following the recession of 2008-2010, the Department, in
consultation with Delta, undertook a comprehensive study of the Airport’s facilities to determine the improvements
necessary to extend the useful lives of these facilities for an additional 30 years. The cost and utility of making
extensive renovations to the previous facilities was compared by the Department to the cost of replacing these facilities
with new and more efficient ones. The Department and the air carriers operating at the Airport, including Delta,
concluded that replacement of the majority of the landside and terminal complex facilities at the Airport would be the
better approach.
Accordingly, the Department and the signatory air carriers operating at the Airport (the “Signatory Airlines”)
negotiated the Airline Use Agreement (the “AUA”) that became effective July 1, 2014 for a ten (10) year term and that
includes approval of the TRP, and provides a process for the Signatory Airlines to approve additional capital projects,
including the NCP. The Signatory Airlines unanimously approved undertaking the NCP in April 2016. On March
16, 2021, in accordance with the provisions of the AUA, Delta approved on behalf of all Signatory Airlines a revised
project budget for the New SLC of $4.45 billion. The cost increases in the New SLC budget since 2018 are primarily
related to changes to the original design requested by Delta and certain other Signatory Airlines and to increased
construction costs in the Salt Lake City area. In addition, the Signatory Airlines have elected to have the City finance
construction of certain tenant finishes, for which such Signatory Airlines will reimburse the City over the remaining
term of the airline’s AUA. See “THE AIRPORT –The Airline Use Agreement.” The current budget for the NCP
portion of the New SLC is an estimated $1.73 billion, although the eastern portion of the NCP, including portions of
the central tunnel, has not yet been bid. Thus, this estimate remains subject to change. Although formal airline
approval of the increased project budget for the NCP is not required under the AUA, Delta has approved the current
budget for the full New SLC program.
The New SLC is composed of two primary components; the TRP is an estimated $2.72 billion capital
improvement program, including soft costs, to build new facilities to replace aged facilities, mitigate seismic risks,
accommodate current operations and prepare for future growth. The NCP is an estimated $1.73 billion set of projects
that are programmatically integrated with the TRP consisting of Concourse B (formerly known as the North
Concourse) consisting of 31 gates parallel to Concourse A (formerly known as the South Concourse) to be constructed
in two phases, a tunnel connecting to the new main terminal facility and related apron and fuel hydrant facilities. The
first phase of the New SLC is substantially complete and is in service. The TRP consists of the following project
elements: (1) South Economy parking lot, (2) Rental Car Quick Turn Around (“QTA”) and three Rental Car Remote
Draft
14
Service Site (“RSS”) facilities, (3) the Central Utility Plant (“CUP”), (4) a new Terminal Facility, (5) the Gateway
Center, (6) Concourse A West, with 25 gates, (7) the Parking Garage, (8) the Terminal Roadway System, (9)
Concourse A East, with 22 gates (collectively with the Concourse A West, “Concourse A”), and (10) related
infrastructure improvements, including apron reconfiguration, information technology, utilities and landscaping. As
of November 1, 2020, all of the elements of the New SLC other than Concourse A East, Concourse B East and the
central connecting tunnel have been placed in service. Demolition of the former terminal and concourses has been
completed, and construction of Concourse A East, the central connecting passenger tunnel and associated apron and
infrastructure improvements has commenced. As several construction contracts remain to be bid, primarily relating
to Concourse B East, the budget for the New SLC remains subject to change.
In addition to right-sizing the Airport’s facilities to accommodate current and future demand, the New SLC
is expected to meet current requirements for seismic resiliency, solve certain operational problems resulting from the
prior facility layout, improve customer service and maintain the Airport’s competitive cost structure. A category 5.7
earthquake struck the Salt Lake City area in March 2020. None of the elements of the New SLC sustained any
significant damage. The City achieved Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) gold certification
for the new terminal facilities, and the City anticipates achieving LEED gold certification and not less than silver
certification for the entire New SLC, as required by City ordinance.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related downturn in passengers using the Airport, the
Department, in consultation with the Signatory Airlines, modified the phasing schedule for the remainder of the
construction of the New SLC. The modified phasing schedule provided the Department with greater flexibility to
respond to the potential impacts of the pandemic and the related reductions in and recovery of air passenger traffic at
the Airport . Rather than completing Concourses A and B in several phases while maintaining elements of the previous
concourses in service, in the spring of 2020, the Department determined to demolish all of the remaining terminal
elements and construct Concourse A East in a single phase. This will result in the completion of Concourse A East
two years ahead of schedule. At the time the New SLC was rephased, the Department was not able to determine
whether the additional gates in Concourse B East would be necessary to accommodate future demand and,
accordingly, that portion of the NCP was placed on hold. As air traffic at the Airport began to rebound rapidly during
the summer of 2020, and after consultation with the Signatory Airlines, the Department determined that the original
NCP program with a total of 31 gates in Concourse B was necessary to provide facilities for the projected airline
demand. The Department expects to bid out the construction contracts for Concourse B East and portions of the
central connecting passenger tunnel in early FY 2022 and commence construction in April 2022. In order to
accommodate operational demands while Concourses A and B East are completed, the Department has developed
twenty (20) temporary hardstand positions to the north and east of Concourse B, plus an additional four (4) remain
overnight (or “RON”) positions for aircraft that could be used as hardstand positions. A “hardstand” position is not
connected to a concourse directly, and is served by buses from facilities at the tip of Concourse B.
Set forth below is a photograph showing the completed portions of the New SLC and the areas that remain
under construction.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
Draft
15
[Insert image of Future Development SLC]
Draft
16
As a result of the decision to temporarily use hardstands and demolish the remaining concourses of the old
terminal, the Airport is currently gate-constrained. Delta currently operates from 15 of the 20 hardstand positions,
while use of the other five hardstand positions is assigned by the Department. As of the date hereof, there are 66 gate
positions at the Airport, 20 of which are hardstands. In May 2023, the first 4 gates in Concourse A East are expected
to open and will be leased to Delta. In November 2023, the remaining 18 gates on Concourse A East are expected to
open and the five gates in Concourse B previously used by Delta will be retrofitted for use by other carriers. By
February 2024, Delta is expected to lease and use all of the gates in Concourse A, the majority of the gates in
Concourse B to be leased to the other carriers are projected to be in service and all but a few hardstands will be
demolished to make way for construction of the remainder of Concourse B East. In October 2024, the first four gates
in Concourse B East are expected to be opened and occupied by Delta, the new central connecting tunnel is expected
to open and all of the gates to be leased to other carriers are expected to be turned over to their tenant Airlines. The
final four gates of Concourse B East are expected to be placed in service and used by Delta, and the remaining
hardstands demolished, by October 2025.
The gates used by the Signatory Airlines other than Delta, three of which are not leased to airlines but used
on a per operation basis by multiple airlines (“Common Use”), and others which are preferentially leased, are operating
at capacity. A preferential use lease gives the tenant air carrier the right to occupy and use the gate facilities for its
scheduled operations, but allows the Department to require the carrier leasing such space to accommodate operations
by other air carriers when the gate is not in use. Carriers are sharing gates in order to accommodate existing operations
and, during peak periods, the Department has used its rights under the preferential use leases with Delta and other
carriers to accommodate operations of other airlines. Upon completion of the New SLC, the Airport will have 78
gates, 31 of which will be in Concourse B and the remaining 47 in Concourse A, and all of which will include jet
bridges and be sized to accommodate, at a minimum, Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 aircraft, as well as smaller regional
jets. This configuration will provide greater flexibility, efficiency and passenger convenience. In addition, at least six
gates will have the capacity to accommodate the largest aircraft currently in service. The new, larger gates are
designed to accommodate more than double the 11 million passengers the previous facilities were designed to serve.
Further, when complete, the New SLC will eliminate the ground loading of passengers entirely, as all gates will include
jet bridges. The Department believes that the number and configuration of the gates at the Airport following
completion of the New SLC will support projected operational requirements for the [next ___ years/foreseeable
future].
The following table shows the major elements of the New SLC and the expected costs, whether a Component
Guaranteed Maximum Price contract (“CGMP”) for such project element has been executed, project status, the actual
or expected date on which construction of such element will commence and the actual or expected date of beneficial
occupancy (“DBO”) for each project element.
Draft
17
Elements of the New SLC
Project Element
Actual /
Expected
Cost
($000’s)†
Executed
CGMP as of
3/31/21?
Project Status
Actual/Expected
Commencement of
Construction
Actual/
Expected DBO
TRP
South Economy Parking Lot $ 14,344 Yes In Service July 2014 October 2014
Rental Car Facilities: QTA & RSS 95,457 Yes In Service November 2014 January 2016
Central Utility Plant 59,535 Yes In Service January 2017 September 2020
Terminal Facility 787,979 Yes In Service October 2016 September 2020
Gateway Center 126,153 Yes In Service October 2016 September 2020
Concourse A West 422,742 Yes In Service October 2016 September 2020
Parking Garage 241,872 Yes In Service October 2016 September 2020
Terminal Roadway System 110,343 Yes In Service January 2017 September 2020
Miscellaneous Landside/Parking Lot
Improvements
9,143 Yes In Service Phased September 2020
TRP Baggage Handling System 127,717 Yes In Service (89%),
Under Const. (11%)
October 2016 September
2020/Q4 2023
Concourse A East 389,078 Yes Under Const.January 2021 Q4 2023
Terminal Apron, Taxilanes and Fuel
Hydrant System*
277,360 Partial In Service/Under
Const.
Phased Q4 2024
Subtotal TRP (incl. Owner reserve of
$57,378)$2,719,101
100%
executed
NCP
Concourse B West $398,450 Yes In Service June 2018 October 2020
Mid Concourse Tunnel 22,534 Yes In Service Phased October 2020
Concourse B East 412,272 No In Design April 2022 Q2 2022/Q4 2024
NCP Baggage Handling System
70,820
Yes In Service/Under
procurement
June 2018 October 2020/Q4
2024
Central Tunnel
147,562
Partial Under Const. (64%)/to
be Bid (36%)
January 2021/April
2022
Q4 2024
Apron*
355,471
Partial In Svc. (37%)/Under
Const. (17%)/to be Bid
(46%)
June 2018 Q3 2025
Hydrant Fueling System*
53,175
Partial Under Const. (36%)/In
Design (64%)
Phased Q4 2024
Concourse A Modifications 89,363 Yes Under Const.January 2021 Q4 2023
Temporary hardstands and related costs
104,742
Partial In Svc. (43%)/Under
Const.(57%)
January 2021 October 2020/Q4
2023
BHS Cold Bag Storage 35,862 No Planning Q3 2022 Q4 2023
Subtotal NCP (including Owner reserve
of $42,622)$1,732,873
79.1%
executed
TOTAL New SLC $4,451,974
84.8%
executed
* Portions of the terminal apron and fuel system to be bid and constructed annually; segments expected to be completed to support opening of
related concourse facilities.
† Includes allocable portion of soft costs.
Elements of the New SLC
The New SLC will result in the replacement of essentially all of the landside and terminal complex facilities
at the Airport with new, more efficient, safe and passenger-focused facilities. A brief summary of the major elements
of the New SLC is set forth below:
Draft
18
Terminal
The new Terminal facility was placed into service on September 15, 2020. The new Terminal facility is
contiguous to Concourse A and connected to the new parking garage via the new Gateway Center, and includes
approximately 912,000 square feet (“sf”) of space on three levels. Level 1 of the Terminal contains a federal inspection
services area (“FIS”), international baggage claim and recheck area, tenant administrative offices, a centralized
security checkpoint for dedicated employee access, ground transportation counters, and also serves commercial curbs
and other ground transportation functions. Level 2 provides passenger circulation areas and connects landside and
airside components of the facility. Public areas prior to the security checkpoint provide for baggage claim and airline
baggage service offices, an expansive meeter-greeter area, food and beverage retail concessions, and a centralized
security screening checkpoint. Areas beyond security screening include the terminal plaza area consisting of 79,000
sf of concessions, seating and circulation space and transition to the airside concourses. Level 3 contains the ticketing
area for departing passengers, a conference center and administrative offices for the Department and other tenants at
the Airport, and a 30,000 sf Delta Sky Club. Departing passengers being dropped off at the Airport arrive on the Level
3 curb. The Airport is served by the TRAX light rail system, owned and operated by the Utah Transit Authority
(“UTA”), which connects the Airport with downtown Salt Lake City. The Terminal was designed to accommodate
relocation of the terminus of the TRAX light rail station at the Airport from its previous location, which was
demolished to accommodate the TRP, to the first level of the Terminal. The TRAX extension is being financed and
built by UTA.
Gateway Center
The Gateway Center, which also opened on September 15, 2020, is an elevated building adjacent to the north
side of the Parking Garage consisting of approximately 126,000 sf of building space that connects the Parking Garage
to the new Terminal facility. The Gateway Center houses a variety of functions, including both ticket counters and
kiosks for remote passenger airline check-in and baggage drop services, rental car counters and check-in facilities,
and rental car support offices. The Gateway Center provides a high level of customer service by seamlessly connecting
passengers using the new parking garage (including those renting or returning rental cars) with the departures level of
the Airport without a level change. Departing passengers are also able to obtain boarding passes at kiosks and check
baggage in the Gateway Center adjacent to the garage, and arriving passengers are able to proceed directly to their
automobiles or complete their rental car transaction and proceed directly to their rental car. The Gateway Center is
connected to the Terminal via two pedestrian bridges and connected to the parking garage via two vestibules. Based
on data collected by the Department, the Gateway Center was designed to serve most of the Airport’s origination and
destination (“O&D”) passengers.
Concourse A West
The initial portion of Concourse A to be constructed was Concourse A West, which provides a total of 25
gates, six of which accommodate international arrivals and was placed into service on September 15, 2020. This
facility houses approximately 459,000 sf of building space on three levels. Level 1 (ground level) contains non-public
areas that accommodate airline operations offices and support areas, outbound and transfer baggage facilities, storage
facilities and mechanical-electrical-plumbing (“MEP”) facilities. Level 2 consists of the primary passenger circulation
level and serves enplaning and deplaning passengers. Passenger amenities on Level 2 include moving sidewalks and
a wide variety of food, beverage and retail concessions. International gates connect to a sterile corridor that routes
international passengers to the FIS facilities in Level 1 of the Terminal. Level 3 contains communications rooms and
other non-public space.
Concourse A East
Draft
19
Concourse A East is the remaining portion of Concourse A and is under construction following completion of
demolition of the remaining original terminal facilities. Concourse A East currently is planned to be fully completed
in the first quarter of CY 2024. This facility will also have three levels and is expected to comprise approximately
376,000 sf of space. Level 1 of Concourse A East will contain non-public areas similar to Concourse A West. Level
2 of the facility will serve enplaning and deplaning passengers, and will include passenger amenities similar to
Concourse A West. Concourse A East is expected to accommodate 22 domestic aircraft gate positions. Level 3
contains the Delta Sky Club and will contain non-public areas similar to Concourse A West.
Rental Car Facilities
The rental car service facilities were placed in service in March 2016. These facilities consist of a QTA
facility for fueling and washing cars and three facilities for performing light vehicle maintenance. The QTA is a two-
level building of approximately 468,000 sf with 14 wash and service bays on the first floor and vehicle storage and
parking on the second floor. The RSS facility consists of three single-story service buildings containing a total of
approximately 34,000 sf of building space located south of the QTA. These buildings provide back-of-house
maintenance areas for the rental car providers and contain office, support and storage space. The QTA and RSS are
currently in use by the rental car companies operating at the Airport.
Parking Garage and South Economy Parking Lot
The new parking structure was placed into service on September 15, 2020. The new parking garage is a five-
level concrete structure with a footprint of approximately 365,000 sf and a total gross square footage of approximately
1.42 million sf. Levels 2 through 5 of the Parking Garage provide 3,469 public parking spaces, doubling the number
of structured parking spaces previously located at the Airport. The first floor is dedicated to rental car operations and
contains approximately 1,200 ready/return parking spaces. Upper floors are served via two helical ramps.
In addition to the new Parking Garage, the Airport also has a substantial amount of surface parking available
for Airport patrons, including a new surface parking area located east of the new parking structure (“Lot E”) within
walking distance of the Terminal. The surface lot includes 384 parking spaces. The South Economy Parking Lot
opened in July 2014 and consists of approximately 2,900 additional parking spaces replacing the economy parking
that was displaced by the construction of the new rental car facilities. The South Economy Parking Lot is integrated
with the remainder of the Economy Parking Lot.
The Department now has a total of 14,401 parking spaces (excluding rental car spaces) located on the Airport,
an increase of over 2,500 spaces compared to 2014. This increase is primarily because of the increased number of
spaces in the new parking structure. The Department has retained its variety of parking products, ranging from
premium, reserved spaces closest to the new Terminal facility to economy spaces in remote lots and including a variety
of intermediate options, including covered and structured parking and hourly or daily rates.
Central Utility Plant
The Central Utility Plant, a 52,000 sf building, houses all main boilers and chillers as well as electrical
systems to service the terminal complex, consisting of the new Terminal, Gateway Center, Concourses A and B,
Parking Garage, roadways and rental car facilities, and other applicable Airport systems connected to this facility,
including pumping systems, electrical equipment, distribution equipment and emergency generators. The CUP is a
stand-alone building located west of the QTA Facility. The CUP was turned over to the Department on May 1, 2020
for testing and is in service and provides heating, cooling and electrical service to the Airport.
Terminal Roadway System
This project element of the New SLC includes all roadways, bridges and signage to service the new terminal
complex and support areas. The departing passenger roadway is an elevated bridge system with vehicle access to the
Level 3 terminal curb-front. Other elements of this component include the arriving passenger roadways which access
the Terminal at Level 1, commercial vehicle roads, rental car user and service roads, and access to and from the
parking facilities. The new permanent roadways became operational in September 2020.
Supporting Elements
Draft
20
The New SLC includes substantial supporting elements, such as apron site-work and paving, demolition and
landscaping, and extensive information technology infrastructure. The apron site-work includes all airfield site
demolition, utility relocation and apron paving required to enable the redevelopment of the terminal complex,
including Concourses A and B. Included in this project element are hydrant fueling and utilities including power,
water and sewer. Also included will be landside landscaping work such as entry and exit landscaping and planting of
undeveloped areas. In addition, as described above, the Department has constructed 20 hardstand positions and four
remain overnight positions adjacent to Concourse B to accommodate aircraft until the eastern portions of Concourses
A and B are completed.
Following the opening of the new Terminal and other elements of the TRP in September 2020, the
Department commenced demolition of the original terminal buildings, the original parking garage, connectors and
pedestrian bridges. This demolition work was originally phased to occur over a period from 2021 through 2024.
However, as a result of the program rephasing that occurred in 2020, demolition will no longer be phased and has
essentially been completed.
Information technology (“IT”) components are an integral element of the New SLC and will be incorporated
throughout the facilities and project site. Elements in this scope of work include IT infrastructure, IT systems
including building systems, parking revenue control and related vehicle control systems, and operating systems. Other
associated systems being added or updated as part of the New SLC include baggage informational display systems
(“BIDS”), flight information display systems (“FIDS”), gate information display systems (“GIDS”), lobby information
display systems and ramp information display systems.
North Concourse Program
The NCP is an estimated $1.73 billion project planned to consist of approximately 607,000 sf of building
space on two main levels, plus a third level for club space and non-public support areas similar to Concourse B, apron
site work and paving, hydrant fueling, plus a new central passenger tunnel connecting Concourse B to Concourse A.
Level 1 of Concourse B will contain non-public areas substantially similar to Concourse A, although during use of the
hardstands, a portion of Level 1 is being converted to be used as temporary holdrooms, while Level 2 will serve
enplaning and deplaning passengers, and will include passenger amenities similar to Concourse A. The first phase,
Concourse B West, was placed in service in October 2020. This initial phase begins at the west end of Concourse B
and includes 21 aircraft gate positions which comprise approximately 361,000 sf of space. The existing west mid-
concourse tunnel was extended from Concourse A West to Concourse B and temporarily provides pedestrian access
to Concourse B.
The second phase of Concourse B, Concourse B East, is planned to add an additional ten aircraft gate
positions and will complete the currently planned construction with a total of 31 gates. The design of Concourse B
East is expected to permit the future development addition of 15 more gates at the eastern end of the facility, if and
when demand warrants. A central passenger tunnel connecting Concourse B to Concourse A, including moving
sidewalks, also will be constructed during this phase. This final phase of Concourse B currently is planned to be
operational in the fourth quarter of CY 2025. Once it is completed, all airlines operating at the Airport are expected
to operate from Concourse B, including use of some gates by Delta, and Delta is expected to occupy all of Concourse
A. At completion of the New SLC, all carriers at the Airport are expected to operate from substantially similar, new
and efficient terminal facilities.
Project Management of the New SLC
Controls
The Department has established a sophisticated, multi-layered project management team for the New SLC.
R.W. Block Consulting, Inc. (“R.W. Block”) prepared the Plan of Execution that includes a plan for program
management and delivery that encompasses the entire New SLC. Under the Plan of Execution, the program
management team is competitively procured through pre-qualifying a limited number of firms and then undertaking
separate procurements by soliciting responses from the pre-qualified firms for each of the key roles identified in the
plan. The Plan of Execution also envisions contracting with a flexible team of experts to manage the specific elements
of the New SLC so that, for example, when the rental car facilities were completed and the project management roles
for that project element were no longer required, the contracts for such services were terminated. The external project
management team is overseen and complemented by Department staff.
Draft
21
The Department has established two committees consisting of Department Directors to oversee all capital
projects at the Airport, including the New SLC. The Financial Oversight Committee (“FOC”) is chaired by the Airport
Chief Financial Officer and includes the Director of Engineering and Chief Operating Officer as the other members.
Before any construction contract for a project at the Airport may proceed, the FOC must authorize the funding for that
project, including the source of funds. Before work may commence on any project, the Construction Committee
(“CC”) must authorize the execution of the construction contract, including each of the Component Guaranteed
Maximum Price (“CGMP”) contracts for the New SLC. The CC is chaired by the Director of Engineering and also
includes the other members of the FOC and the Directors of Maintenance, Planning and Capital Programs, and
Administration and Commercial Services. The FOC and CC each meet bi-monthly in scheduled sessions and minutes
are taken and published. This formal review process entails a rigorous and comprehensive examination of all capital
projects undertaken by the Department, and helps identify and address differences between estimated and actual
construction costs at an early stage in the approval process
The Program Director for the New SLC, Making Projects Work, Inc., is a separate company specializing in
airport project management that reports directly to the Department’s Executive Director and serves as the owner’s
authorized representative under the CMAR Contracts described below. R.W. Block remains engaged as an
independent consultant overseeing financial and program controls and R.W. Block also reports directly to the
Executive Director. Ten separate firms, including Making Projects Work, Inc. and R.W. Block, have been prequalified
to participate in competitive processes for selection of key project management staff. To date, this process has resulted
in selection of an external program management team of that peaked at 59 persons from the ten different pre-qualified
firms and, as of May 1, 2021, consists of 41 full time on-site staff. The program management team is being reduced
as elements of the New SLC are completed.
The interests of the Signatory Airlines are represented by an Airline Technical Representative (“ATR”),
whose rights and responsibilities are set forth in the AUA and who is resident in the City for the duration of the New
SLC project. The ATR was formerly a Delta employee and is now employed by the project management team. The
ATR must be included in development of contract documents for the New SLC, discussions relating to cost controls
and design changes. See “THE AIRPORT – Airline Use Agreement - New SLC” below.
The Department entered into Construction Manager at Risk (“CMAR”) Contracts with two joint ventures,
one with Holder-Big-D Construction, a joint venture (“HDJV”), for the TRP and the other with Austin Commercial
and Okland Construction Company joint venture (“AOJV”) for the initial phase of the NCP, to help manage its risk
for cost increases and project delays. As a result of the rephasing of the New SLC and postponement of the second
phase of the NCP, the CMAR Contract with AOJV was terminated for convenience and AOJV’s work under its
CMAR Contract has been completed and AOJV has de-mobilized. The Department determined to undertake the
second phase of the NCP in the fall of 2020, following termination of the AOJV CMAR Contract. As a result, HDJV
is expected to add the second phase of the NCP and portions of the central passenger tunnel to its existing CMAR
Contract.
The CMAR separately bids separate CGMP Contracts for specified elements of the New SLC. The New SLC
has been broken down into CGMP contracts between the Department, on behalf of the City, and the joint venture
undertaking that element of the New SLC. Each CGMP is designed and bid separately and is subject to review and
approval by the Department prior to execution. There are eleven CGMPs for the TRP and eight for the NCP. Each
CGMP constitutes an amendment to the applicable CMAR Contract that provides that the CMAR will construct the
elements of the New SLC described in the scope of the applicable CGMP for a guaranteed maximum price, within the
schedule set forth in the CGMP and in accordance with the applicable CMAR Contract. The Department pays only
the costs incurred under the CGMP, up to the guaranteed maximum price. Absent scope changes, should the costs
exceed the guaranteed maximum price, the CMAR is liable for the excess costs, with no reimbursement from the
Department, absent certain specified conditions. This structure provides the Department with a reasonable degree of
certainty regarding the cost of the project and limits cost overruns without Department approval. The timing,
completion date and guaranteed maximum price for the work elements under each CGMP may only be changed by a
CGMP amendment, which requires the approval of the Department. The CMAR Contracts also require the CMAR to
provide specified pre-construction and general conditions services during its term. There are two CGMPs for the New
SLC that remain to be bid, which generally are for construction of Concourse B East, the central node of the central
passenger tunnel and related apron and hydrant fuel system work. These CGMPs are expected to be bid and under
contract by the end of CY 2021. The CGMP for Concourse A East has been executed, while the related apron and
hydrant fuel system work is being undertaken in phases concurrently with other elements of the New SLC. As of
Draft
22
March 31, 2021, more than 100% of the TRP and 79.1% of the NCP by project cost is subject to an executed CGMP
and over $3.69 billion had been expended on New SLC project costs.
Design
HOK (formerly Helmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc.) is the lead design firm for the New SLC. HOK leads a
team of 14 architect and engineering subconsulting firms that provide all of the planning, engineering and design
services for the New SLC.
Construction
HDJV, comprised of Holder Construction Company and Big-D Construction, was selected through a
competitive process to undertake construction services for the TRP pursuant to a CMAR Contract. The HDJV CMAR
Contract has an initial term of five years commencing October 25, 2013, and may be extended at the Department’s
sole option for up to five additional one-year terms. The Department has exercised extension options and extended
the term of the HDJV CMAR Contract through October 24, 20__. In addition, the contract with HDJV can be
terminated at various points in the program and a new CMAR selected, at the option of the Department.
Before the Department enters into a CGMP with a CMAR, the FOC must approve the guaranteed maximum
price and the CC must approve the scope of the work of the CGMP and recommend to the Executive Director that the
CGMP be approved and executed. The CMAR Contracts provide for a formal dispute resolution process that must be
undertaken in the event of a disagreement between the Department and the Joint Venture before any legal action may
be commenced. In the CMAR Contracts, the Joint Ventures have each acknowledged that they are not entitled to
receive any work under the applicable Contract, and have waived all claims for anticipated profits and other claims
associated with the Department’s decision not to proceed with the New SLC, any CGMP or any portion thereof. All
subcontracts must be competitively awarded and the subcontracts are held by HDJV (or were held by AOJV), and
expressly provide that the Department has no contractual relationship with the subcontractors. The Joint Venture
may bid upon and receive up to 20% of the contracts under each CGMP, only if it submits the lowest bid in a
competitively bid process and receive the approval of the Department, but the remaining portions of each CGMP must
be undertaken by unrelated parties to the Joint Venture.
Each CGMP is for a fixed price under which the Joint Venture bears most risks of cost increases. As of
March 31, 2021, each of the executed CGMPs is on or slightly below its fixed amount. However, the CMAR Contracts
provide for time extensions under certain limited circumstances. These include changes requested by the Department
after the CGMP is executed, concealed conditions that were not foreseeable, delays caused by the Department, weather
conditions outside of the ten year mean, or force majeure events and remediation of hazardous materials. Delays
because of labor disputes may not result in an extension of time. If a Joint Venture suffers a delay because of one of
these permissible events, the CMAR Contract includes a process for determining the period of an extension, which
cannot exceed one day for each day of delay and requires the Joint Venture to mitigate delays to the extent possible.
In no event are damages permitted beyond the extension of time, such as loss of profits; indirect, incidental,
consequential or special damages; or acceleration costs not approved by the Department, permitted.
Other Capital Projects
Other capital projects currently anticipated by the Department to be undertaken or completed during the
period that the various elements of the New SLC will be under construction consist primarily of on-going capital
improvements to existing landside and airside facilities. Preliminary cost estimates for the other capital projects during
the period from FY 2021 through FY 2028 total approximately $308 million. These projects primarily are expected
to maintain the Airport’s airside and landside infrastructure in good repair over the period of construction of the New
SLC, as well as provide for improvements to the facilities at the Auxiliary Airports. Projects expected to be undertaken
in FY 2022 include: landside lighting wiring replacement, East Side development, plus substantial work on the airside
of the Airport, including new North Cargo apron development, pump house renovation and a new pump station and
diversion valve for the North Cargo deicing pad, pavement rehabilitation to Taxiways P, N, H3 and Q and
reconstruction of Taxiway F as well as improvements at Tooele and South Valley including a new access road and
apron for the Bureau of Land Management. The Department may defer or elect not to undertake a portion of the
capital projects included in other capital projects during the projection period, depending on circumstances such as
aviation demand levels and availability of project funding.
Draft
23
Funding Sources for the New SLC
Overview
The New SLC is expected to be funded from a variety of sources, including Department funds, proceeds of
the Series 2017 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, the Series 2021 Bonds and additional Bonds, proceeds of Subordinate
Revolving Obligations, passenger facility charges (“PFCs”), customer facility charges (“CFCs”), and FAA Airport
Improvement Program (“AIP”) and Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) Other Transaction Agreement
(“OTA”) grant funds. In addition to the Series 2017 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, and the Series 2021 Bonds, the
City expects to issue additional Bonds to fund a total of approximately $___ million of project costs for the New SLC.
The Department expects to issue Subordinate Revolving Obligations, from time to time, to finance costs of the New
SLC on an interim basis and then repay the Subordinate Revolving Obligations from various sources of funds,
including proceeds of Bonds and other available funds. The Department has applied PFCs to pay-as-you-go projects
in prior years, but is now applying most PFCs collected to pay debt service on outstanding Bonds. CFCs being
collected are applied to reimburse the Department for the costs, including imputed interest, of eligible facilities serving
the rental car companies that are now in service and that were funded with Department funds.
The table below describes the various projected sources of funds that are expected to be used to fund the New
SLC as well as the other capital projects (“Other CIP”). This mix of funding sources is expected to maintain the
Airport’s cost per enplaned passenger at a rate below its peer airports. As described above, the New SLC project
budget remains subject to change. In the AUA, the City has agreed not to recover the portions of the New SLC funded
with Department funds, and none of the project costs funded with AIP grants, PFCs or CFCs are included in the airline
rate base and recovered through airline rates and charges.
EXPECTED SOURCES OF FUNDS
FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS (to be refined)
(Dollars in 000s)
Dept.
Funds
PAYGO
PFCs
PAYGO
CFCs
TSA /
AIP
Grants
Series
2017
Bonds*††
Series
2018
Bonds*††
Series
2021
Bonds†
Additional
Bonds Total**
TRP $275,231 $285,878 $200,231 $69,685 $771,632 $395,262 $2,719,101
NCP $307,852 ----$113,942 $154,108 $376,202 $1,732,873
Total New
SLC
-- -- $ $4,451,974
Other CIP $ -- -- $7,697 --- --- $308,000
TOTAL**: $879,464 $285,878 $200,231 $191,324 $925,740 $771,463 $4,759,974
*Includes interest earnings
**Totals may not add due to rounding.
†Proceeds will be used to repay all outstanding loans under the Line of Credit
††Construction proceeds have been expended
Department Funds
The Airport derives revenues from a wide variety of non-aeronautical sources, including parking, rental car
fees, concessions fees and ground transportation fees. Beginning in 1997, the City began reserving excess non-airline
revenues in anticipation of undertaking the New SLC and other capital projects, and as of March 31, 2021, the City
maintained a balance of approximately $88 million in the Surplus Fund available for future development of the Airport
System. The Department has been expending such retained amounts since commencing the New SLC program in
2014. As discussed below, the Department expects to use the Line of Credit to provide additional liquidity through
the final phases of the New SLC. The Department regularly applies its internally generated funds for project costs
and the Department expects to continue reimbursing itself from CFCs and AIP and OTA grant funds during the
construction of the New SLC. See “APPENDIX B - REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT – CIP Plan of
Finance.”
Draft
24
Airport Revenue Bonds
The City expects to fund approximately $____ billion of the costs of the New SLC from proceeds of Bonds,
including the Series 2021 Bonds and additional Bonds to be issued in the future. Portions of the debt service payable
on the Bonds are expected to be paid with PFCs. See “APPENDIX B - REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT
– CIP Plan of Finance.”
Subordinate Revolving Obligations
The City expects to issue, from time to time, Subordinate Revolving Obligations to provide interim financing
for certain costs of the New SLC program and expects to use proceeds of additional Bonds, including the Series 2021
Bonds, as well as other available funds to repay the Subordinate Revolving Obligations. The Subordinate Revolving
Obligations provide the Department with rapid access to capital, provide greater funding certainty and additional
financial flexibility. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS – Subordinate Revolving Obligations.”
PFCs
As of March 31, 2021, the City has received approval from the FAA to impose and use $2.65 billion of PFCs
for projects at the Airport including the TRP, and the City expects to fund approximately $285.9 million of the costs
of the TRP with PAYGO PFCs, out of a total of $1.38 billion of PFCs approved for the TRP. In addition, to the extent
authorized by the FAA, the City expects to apply additional PFCs to pay principal of and interest on a portion of the
Bonds, including a portion of the Series 2021 Bonds. The City is authorized to collect a PFC of $4.50 from eligible
passengers enplaning at the Airport, of which $0.11 is retained by the collecting air carriers as a handling fee. Federal
law restricts the use of PFCs to certain kinds of projects and, accordingly, based on current FAA approvals, PFCs may
only be used for certain elements of the TRP, including portions of Concourse A, airside project elements, roadways
and portions of the CUP. As of the date hereof, the City has not sought and does not expect to seek approval from the
FAA to apply PFCs to the costs of the NCP. See “INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS – PFC Revenues and Other
Funding Sources.” As a result of the reduction in enplaned passengers at the Airport due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the amount of PFC revenue received in FY 2020 was reduced to $39.95 million and the Department expects the
amount of PFCs received in FY 2021 to be approximately $22.13 million. See “IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
ON THE AIRPORT – Impact of COVID-19 on PFCs.” PFCs are excluded from the Net Revenues securing the Bonds
pledged under the Master Indenture, but the City may, by execution of a Supplemental Indenture or a certificate of
designation, pledge or otherwise commit PFCs to secure payment of specified Bonds. See “SECURITY FOR THE
SERIES 2021 BONDS-Use of PFCs to Pay Debt Service.”
As of June 30, 2020, the Department had collected approximately $637.3 million and expended
approximately $643.3 million of its total approved PFC collections on approved projects, including $285.9 million of
pay-as-you-go PFCs for elements of the TRP. The Department expects to expend the majority of PFCs currently on
hand plus a portion of PFCs collected in future years to payment of principal of and interest on Bonds issued to fund
PFC-eligible TRP elements. See “APPENDIX B –REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT – CIP Plan of
Finance.”
CFCs
The City requires rental car companies to collect a CFC of $5 per transaction day, limited to 12 days per
contract, from persons renting automobiles at the Airport. The City expects to apply a total of approximately $200.0
million of CFCs to pay certain costs of the TRP, either directly or to reimburse the City for eligible costs previously
funded with Department funds. As of June 30, 2020, approximately $181.4 million of CFCs have been expended for
CFC eligible projects, although the Department expects to reimburse itself in the future for a portion of such costs as
additional CFCs are collected. CFCs are excluded from Net Revenues and the Department does not expect to issue
any CFC revenue bonds. Although federal law does not restrict the use of CFCs, a City ordinance limits the use of
CFCs only to financing capital improvements at the Airport that support rental car services, including a pro rata share
of joint use infrastructure such as roadways, the portions of the Parking Garage needed for ready/return facilities,
funding debt service associated with rental car facilities or funding the City’s costs for such other rental car related
purposes as the City may determine. The City currently does not expect to apply proceeds of Bonds to finance rental
car facilities or, accordingly, to pay debt service on Bonds with CFCs. The Department expects to apply CFCs to the
costs of the recently completed Parking Facility that will serve rental car companies, and elements of the roadway
Draft
25
system serving the rental car facilities. See “APPENDIX B - REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT – CIP
Plan of Finance.”
AIP and TSA Grants
The Department expects to apply $188.8 million of AIP grant funds to fund eligible costs of the New SLC.
In addition, the TSA provides certain grant funds through OTAs for in-line baggage screening systems, and the
Department anticipates receiving $15.98 million from the TSA for that element of the TRP. See “APPENDIX B -
REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT – CIP Plan of Finance.” The Department has not and does not expect
to apply proceeds of CARES Act, CRSSA or ARP Act grants for costs of the New SLC. See “IMPACT OF COVID-
19 PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT”.
The City receives grants annually from the FAA pursuant to the AIP and also receives OTA funding from
the TSA from time to time. The AIP grants generally fall into two categories: (i) entitlement grants, which are awarded
based upon the number of passengers enplaned at the Airport as well as entitlement grants based on air cargo
throughout at the Airport, and (ii) discretionary grants, which are awarded at the discretion of the FAA based upon
specified criteria, including a cost-benefit analysis. Similar to many federal grant-in-aid programs, AIP grants are
reimbursement grants. Accordingly, the Department must expend its own cash to fund an authorized project and then
submit invoices to the FAA for reimbursement of such costs pursuant to the terms of the grant. Thus, while grants
may be awarded in one fiscal year, grant funds may be received over a period of several subsequent fiscal years. For
a description of the AIP program, see “INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS – FAA Reauthorization and Federal
Funding.”
The Department will continue its practice of fully utilizing the AIP entitlement grants that are awarded to it
to maintain and improve the Airport System, and of aggressively seeking FAA discretionary grants for AIP-eligible
projects. Based on communications with the FAA, the Department currently expects $150,000 in annual AIP
entitlement grants for each of the Auxiliary Airports. For fiscal years 2016-2020, the Department was awarded $182
million in FAA AIP grants for projects including conducting an airport master plan study, and runway, runway
lighting, taxiway and apron pavement rehabilitation work. The Department received $27.2 million in AIP grant funds
in FY 2020. However, there can be no assurance that additional grants from the FAA or TSA will be available in the
future. See “INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS – FAA Reauthorization and Federal Funding.”
SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS
Pledge of Net Revenues
The Series 2021 Bonds are limited obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by a pledge of
Net Revenues, certain funds and accounts held by the Trustee under the Indenture, and other amounts payable under
the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds will be secured by a pledge of Net Revenues on parity with the Series 2017
Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, and any additional Bonds issued in the future.
“Net Revenues” are defined in the Master Indenture to mean, for any given period, the Revenues for such
period, less the Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System for such period.
“Revenues” are defined in the Master Indenture to include, among other things, except to the extent
specifically excluded therefrom, all income, receipts, earnings and revenues received by the City from the operation
and ownership of the Airport System for a given period, as determined in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, as modified from time to time, including, but not limited to, (1) rates, tolls, fees, rentals, charges
and other payments made to or owed to the City for the use or availability of the Airport System, (2) amounts received
or owed from the sale or provision of supplies, materials, goods and services provided by or made available by the
City, including rental or business interruption insurance proceeds, received by, held by, accrued to or entitled to be
received by the City or any successor thereto from the possession, management, charge, superintendence and control
of the Airport System and its related facilities or activities and undertakings related thereto or from any other facilities
wherever located with respect to which the City receives payments which are attributable to the Airport System or
activities or undertakings related thereto and (3) Other Pledged Revenues. See “APPENDIX C — FORM OF
MASTER INDENTURE — ARTICLE I — DEFINITIONS; INTERPRETATION” for a more complete definition of
Revenues. CFCs and Capitalized Interest, among other things, are specifically excluded from Revenues unless
otherwise designated as Other Pledged Revenues pursuant to a certificate of the City or in a Supplemental Indenture.
Draft
26
PFCs, among other things are specifically excluded from Revenues, but may be applied to pay principal of and interest
on Bonds as described below. The City has not designated or pledged pursuant to a certificate or a Supplemental
Indenture any PFCs to the payment of Bonds. However, see “— Use of PFCs to Pay Debt Service” below for a
discussion of the City’s expectation to use PFCs to pay a portion of the debt service on the Series 2017 Bonds, the
Series 2018 Bonds and the Series 2021 Bonds. Additionally, a portion of the interest on the Series 2018A Bonds is
payable from Capitalized Interest through July 1, 2023 and a portion of the interest on the Series 2021 Bonds will be
payable from Capitalized Interest through July 1, 20[24].
“Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System” are defined in the Master Indenture to mean,
for any given period, the total operation and maintenance expenses of the Airport System as determined in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles as in effect from time to time; including any costs of Credit Facilities
and Liquidity Facilities; but excluding depreciation expense and any operation and maintenance expenses of the
Airport System payable from moneys other than Revenues, including, but not limited to, any non-cash items that are
required to be treated as operation and maintenance expenses of the Airport System in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.
The Department operates the Airport and the Auxiliary Airports as the Airport System. The Master Indenture
includes the operation and maintenance costs and revenues of the Auxiliary Airports within the definitions of
“Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System” and “Revenues.” None of the properties of the Airport
System are subject to any mortgage or other lien for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds, and neither the full faith
and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State or any political subdivision or agency of the State is pledged to
the payment of the principal of or interest on the Bonds.
Flow of Funds
The City has created and holds and maintains a special fund designated as the Revenue Fund into which all
Revenues and other moneys and funds not included in Revenues are deposited. Pursuant to the Master Indenture and
the Master Subordinate Indenture, the City has agreed to continue to hold and maintain the Revenue Fund.
Additionally, pursuant to the Master Indenture and the Master Subordinate Indenture, the City has covenanted and
agreed to establish, hold and maintain the Revenue Account within the Revenue Fund. As long as there are any
Outstanding Bonds or Outstanding Subordinate Obligations, all Revenues will be deposited in the Revenue Account
and will be set aside for the payment of the following amounts or deposited or transferred to the following funds,
accounts and subaccounts in the following order of priority:
First: to the Operation and Maintenance Subaccount. On or prior to the third Business Day of each month,
the City shall deposit Revenues to the Operation and Maintenance Subaccount in an amount equal
to one-twelfth of the estimated Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System for the
then current Fiscal Year as set forth in the budget of the City for such Fiscal Year as finally approved
by the City. In the event that the balance in the Operation and Maintenance Subaccount at any time
is insufficient to make any required payments therefrom due and payable between the third Business
Day of the then current month and the second Business Day of the immediately succeeding month,
additional Revenues at least sufficient to make such payments shall immediately be deposited in the
Operation and Maintenance Subaccount from the Revenue Account.
Second: to the Debt Service Funds. Except as otherwise provided in a Supplemental Indenture, on or prior
to the third Business Day of each month, a sufficient amount of Revenues shall be transferred by
the City, without priority and on an equal basis, except as to timing of payment, to the Trustee for
deposit to the Debt Service Funds in the amounts, at the times and in the manner provided in the
Master Indenture to provide for the payment of principal and interest to become due on the
Outstanding Bonds. In addition to the deposit of Revenues to the Debt Service Funds, the City shall
transfer any applicable Pledged Passenger Facility Charges and/or Passenger Facility Charges
Available for Debt Service to the Trustee for deposit to the applicable Debt Service Fund in
accordance with the provisions of the applicable Supplemental Indenture and/or a certificate of the
City as provided in the Master Indenture. Except as otherwise provided in a Supplemental
Indenture, the amount of Revenues, Pledged Passenger Facility Charges, if any, and Passenger
Facility Charges Available for Debt Service deposited each month shall equal one sixth of the full
amount required to pay the interest on the Outstanding Bonds next coming due and one twelfth of
the principal amount and/or sinking fund installment of the Outstanding Bonds next coming due.
Draft
27
Third: to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund and Series Debt Service Reserve Funds. On or prior to
the third Business Day of each month, a sufficient amount of Revenues shall be transferred by the
City, without priority and on an equal basis, to the Trustee for deposit to the Common Debt Service
Reserve Fund at the times and in the amounts provided in the Master Indenture, and to any Series
Debt Service Reserve Fund at the times and in the amounts set forth in the Supplemental Indenture
pursuant to which such Series Debt Service Reserve Fund is created. See “— Common Debt Service
Reserve Fund” below.
Fourth: to the Subordinate Obligation Debt Service Funds. Except as otherwise provided in a
Supplemental Subordinate Indenture, on or prior to the third Business Day of each month, a
sufficient amount of Revenues shall be transferred by the City, without priority and on an equal
basis, except as to timing of payment, to the Subordinate Trustee for deposit to the Subordinate
Obligation Debt Service Funds in the amounts, at the times and in the manner provided in the Master
Subordinate Indenture to provide for the payment of principal and interest to become due on the
outstanding Subordinate Obligations. In addition to the deposit of Revenues to the Subordinate
Obligation Debt Service Funds, the City shall transfer any applicable Pledged Passenger Facility
Charges and/or Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service to the Subordinate Trustee
for deposit to the applicable Subordinate Obligation Debt Service Fund in accordance with the
provisions of the applicable Supplemental Subordinate Indenture and/or a certificate of the City as
provided in the Master Subordinate Indenture. Except as otherwise provided in a Supplemental
Subordinate Indenture, the amount of Revenues, Pledged Passenger Facility Charges, if any, and
Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service deposited each month shall equal one sixth
of the full amount required to pay the interest on the outstanding Subordinate Obligations next
coming due and one twelfth of the principal amount and/or sinking fund installment of the
outstanding Subordinate Obligations next coming due.
Fifth: to the Subordinate Obligation Debt Service Reserve Funds. On or prior to the third Business Day of
each month, a sufficient amount of Revenues shall be transferred by the City, without priority and
on an equal basis, to the Subordinate Trustee for deposit to any debt service reserve fund established
by or for the benefit of the City in connection with any Subordinate Obligations, provided, however,
no Revenues shall be transferred by the City to the Subordinate Obligation Trustee for deposit to
any debt service reserve fund established by or for the benefit of the City in connection with any
Subordinate Obligations if amounts (including any Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety Policy) in the
Common Debt Service Reserve Fund are not sufficient to meet the Reserve Requirement or amounts
(including any Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety Policy) in any Series Debt Service Reserve Fund
are not sufficient to meet the applicable Reserve Requirement for such Series Debt Service Reserve
Fund. No Subordinate Obligation Debt Service Reserve Fund has been, or will be, established for
the Subordinate Revolving Obligations.
Sixth: to the Operation and Maintenance Reserve Subaccount. On or prior to the third Business Day of
each month, sufficient Revenues shall be deposited to the Operation and Maintenance Reserve
Subaccount to fund any deficiency in the Operation and Maintenance Reserve Subaccount in
accordance with the Master Indenture and the Master Subordinate Indenture.
Seventh: to the Renewal and Replacement Subaccount. On or prior to the third Business Day of each
month, sufficient Revenues shall be deposited to the Renewal and Replacement Subaccount to fund
any deficiency in the Renewal and Replacement Subaccount in accordance with the Master
Indenture and the Master Subordinate Indenture.
Eighth: to the Rolling Coverage Account. On or prior to the third Business Day of each month, at the
discretion of the City, Revenues may be deposited to the Rolling Coverage Account in an amount
determined by the City to fund the Rolling Coverage Account in accordance with the Master
Indenture and the Master Subordinate Indenture.
Ninth: to the Surplus Fund. At the discretion of the City, all or a portion of the remaining Revenues may
be deposited to the Surplus Fund to be used for any lawful Airport System purpose.
Draft
28
Pursuant to the Master Indenture and the Master Subordinate Indenture, the City has created, within the Revenue
Fund, separate funds, accounts or subaccounts for the deposit of CFCs and PFCs that have not been designated as
Revenues. See “—Use of PFCs to Pay Debt Service” below for a discussion of the City’s expectation to use PFCs to pay
a portion of the debt service on Bonds, including the Series 2021 Bonds.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
Draft
29
The following chart provides a graphic presentation of the flow of funds under the Master Indenture and the
Master Subordinate Indenture upon the receipt of Revenues.
Flow of Funds Pursuant to Master Indenture
*Maintained within the Revenue Account of the Department.
**Held and maintained by the Trustee.
***Held and maintained by the Subordinate Trustee.
(1) Revenues do not include PFC revenues.
REVENUES1
REVENUE ACCOUNT
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SUBACCOUNT *
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS **
COMMON DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND AND SERIES DEBT
SERVICE RESERVE FUNDS **
SUBORDINATE OBLIGATION DEBT SERVICE FUND(S)***
SUBORDINATE OBLIGATION DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUNDS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESERVE SUBACCOUNT *
RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT SUBACCOUNT *
ROLLING COVERAGE ACCOUNT *
SURPLUS FUND
Passenger Facility Charges
Available for Debt Service
and Pledged Passenger
Facility Charges
Any Lawful Purpose of
the Department
Draft
30
Rate Covenant
The City has covenanted in the Master Indenture that, while any of the Bonds (including the Series 2021
Bonds) remain Outstanding, it will establish, fix, prescribe and collect rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges in
connection with the Airport System and for services rendered in connection therewith, so that:
(a) Revenues in each Fiscal Year will be at least equal to the following amounts:
(i) Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System due and payable during such
Fiscal Year;
(ii) the Annual Debt Service on any Outstanding Bonds required to be funded by the City in
such Fiscal Year as required by the Master Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture with respect to the
Outstanding Bonds;
(iii) the required deposits to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund or any Series Debt
Service Reserve Fund which may be established by a Supplemental Indenture;
(iv) the reimbursement owed to any Credit Provider or Liquidity Provider as required by a
Supplemental Indenture;
(v) the interest on and principal of any indebtedness of the City issued on behalf of the
Department required to be funded during such Fiscal Year, other than for Outstanding Bonds, but including
Subordinate Obligations; and
(vi) funding of any debt service reserve funds created with respect to any indebtedness of the
City issued on behalf of the Department, other than Outstanding Bonds, but including Subordinate
Obligations.
(b) During each Fiscal Year the Net Revenues, together with any Transfer, will be equal to at least
125% of Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds for such Fiscal Year. For purposes of this paragraph (b), the
amount of any Transfer taken into account cannot exceed 25% of Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds in
such Fiscal Year.
“Transfer” is defined in the Master Indenture to mean (a) the amount on deposit, if any, on the last Business
Day of the applicable Fiscal Year in the Rolling Coverage Account plus (b) any amounts withdrawn from the Rolling
Coverage Account during such Fiscal Year to pay Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System, to
make any required payments or deposits to pay or secure the payment of principal of and/or interest on the Bonds and
Subordinate Obligations, if any, or to pay the cost of any additions, improvements, repairs, renewals or replacements
to the Airport System, less (c) any amounts deposited in the Rolling Coverage Account from Revenues during such
Fiscal Year.
For purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds will be reduced
by the amount of principal and/or interest paid with Capitalized Interest, Passenger Facility Charges Available for
Debt Service and/or Pledged Passenger Facility Charges. See “APPENDIX C – FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE
– ARTICLE IV - REVENUES; FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS – Section 4.15 - Passenger Facility Charges Available
for Debt Service.”
The Department has applied $3.9 million of CARES Act grant funds to O&M expenses in FY 2020 and
expects to apply an additional $66.0 million of CARES Act funds to O&M expenses in FY 2021. The Department
expects to apply the remaining CARES Act funds ($12.6 million) and its $20.7 million of CRRSA grant funds in FY
2022 to O&M expenses and similarly, to apply any ARP Act grants to O&M Expenses in FY 2023 and 2024, although
the FAA has not yet announced the amount of ARP Act grants that will be allocated to the Airport. Although these
grant funds are not Revenues under the Master Indenture, by applying them to O&M expenses, the Department is
better able to meet both prongs of the Rate Covenant, since the grant funds applied reduce the amount of Revenues
required to pay O&M expenses, thus increasing Net Revenues. In addition, use of these grant funds in this manner
reduces the rates and charges that must be charged to the Signatory Airlines and other tenants, thus helping to stabilize
rates at a more manageable level.
Draft
31
The AUA also provides for extraordinary coverage protection if the Department expects to fail to meet the
rate covenant under the Master Indenture. Under the AUA, if in any Fiscal Year the amount of Revenues less
Operating Expenses is projected to be less than the sum of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest due in that
Fiscal Year on the Bonds and Subordinate Obligations then Outstanding, plus 25% of such Debt Service on Bonds
and the amount required under the agreement providing for the issuance of such Subordinate Obligations, then the
Signatory Airlines will make extraordinary coverage protection payments in addition to landing fees and terminal
rents. See “THE AIRPORT – Airline Use Agreement – Rates and Charges” below.
If Revenues and Net Revenues, together with any Transfer, in any Fiscal Year are less than the amounts
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the City will retain and direct a Consultant to make recommendations as to
the revision of the City’s business operations and its schedule of rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges for the use of
the Airport System and for services rendered by the City in connection with the Airport System, and after receiving
such recommendations or giving reasonable opportunity for such recommendations to be made, the City will take all
lawful measures to revise the schedule of rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges as may be necessary to produce
Revenues and Net Revenues, together with any Transfer in the amounts specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above in
the next succeeding Fiscal Year.
In the event that Revenues or Net Revenues for any Fiscal Year are less than the amounts specified in
paragraphs (a) or (b) above, but the City has, prior to or during the next succeeding Fiscal Year, promptly taken all
lawful measures to revise the schedule of rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges as required by the provisions set forth
in the prior paragraph, such deficiency in Revenues or Net Revenues will not constitute an Event of Default under the
Master Indenture. Nevertheless, if after taking the measures required by the provisions set forth in the prior paragraph
to revise the schedule of rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges, Revenues or Net Revenues in the next succeeding Fiscal
Year (as evidenced by the audited financial statements of the City for such Fiscal Year) are less than the amounts
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, such deficiency in Revenues or Net Revenues will constitute an Event of
Default under the Master Indenture.
See “THE AIRPORT –The Airline Use Agreement” for a discussion regarding certain limits on the ability
of the City to raise fees to be charged to the Signatory Airlines.
Common Debt Service Reserve Fund
Pursuant to the Master Indenture, the City established the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund (the
“Common Reserve Fund”) with the Trustee to secure any Bonds the City elects to participate in the Common Reserve
Fund. At the time of issuance of the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018 Bonds, the City elected to have the Series
2017 Bonds and the Series 2018 Bonds participate in the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund and, at the time of
issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the City will elect to have the Series 2021 Bonds participate in the Common
Reserve Fund. The Series 2017 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, the Series 2021 Bonds and any additional Bonds the
City elects to have participate in the Common Reserve Fund are collectively referred to in this Official Statement as
the “Common Reserve Fund Participating Bonds.”
Moneys held in the Common Reserve Fund will be used for the purpose of paying principal of and interest
on the Common Reserve Fund Participating Bonds on a parity basis. If, on any Payment Date for the Common Reserve
Fund Participating Bonds, the amounts in the Debt Service Funds for such Bonds are insufficient to pay in full the
amount then due on such Bonds, moneys held in the Common Reserve Fund will be used for the payment of the
principal of and/or interest thereon. If amounts in the Common Reserve Fund consist of both cash and one or more
Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety Policies, the Trustee will make any required payments of amounts in the Common
Reserve Fund first from any cash on deposit in the Common Reserve Fund prior to making a draw upon any such
Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety Policy. Moneys held in the Common Reserve Fund also may be used to make any
deposit required to be made to the Rebate Fund created for the Common Reserve Fund Participating Bonds at the
written direction of the City if the City does not have other funds available from which such deposit can be made.
The Common Reserve Fund is required to be funded at all times in an amount equal to the Reserve
Requirement. The “Reserve Requirement” is equal to the lesser of (a) Maximum Aggregate Annual Debt Service for
all Outstanding Common Reserve Fund Participating Bonds, (b) ten percent of the original principal amount of the
Outstanding Common Reserve Fund Participating Bonds, less the amount of original issue discount with respect to
such Common Reserve Fund Participating Bonds if such original issue discount exceeded 2% on such Common
Reserve Fund Participating Bonds at the time of their original sale, and (c) 125% of the average Aggregate Annual
Draft
32
Debt Service for the Outstanding Common Reserve Fund Participating Bonds. At the time of issuance of any
additional Bonds which the City elects to have participate in the Common Reserve Fund, the Reserve Requirement is
required to be met at the time of such issuance. The City may fund all or a portion of the Reserve Requirement with
a Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety Policy. See “APPENDIX C – FORM OF THE MASTER INDENTURE -
ARTICLE IV – REVENUES; FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS– Section 4.06 Common Debt Service Reserve Fund and
Series Debt Service Reserve Funds.” As of March 31, 2021, $139.7 million was on deposit in the Common Reserve
Fund. At the time of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, a portion of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds in the
amount of $__________ will be deposited to the Common Reserve Fund to meet the Reserve Requirement, which
will be $__________ and will be fully funded upon such deposit. Funds in the Common Reserve Fund are invested
in Permitted Investments. See “ – Permitted Investments” below.
Additional Bonds
The Master Indenture provides the City with flexibility as to establishing the nature and terms of any
additional Bonds hereafter issued with a lien and charge on Net Revenues on parity with the Series 2017 Bonds, the
Series 2018 Bonds, and the Series 2021 Bonds. For example, the Master Indenture provides for the issuance of
Variable Rate Indebtedness, Capital Appreciation Bonds and Balloon Indebtedness on a parity with the Series 2021
Bonds. See “APPENDIX C – FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE – ARTICLE II - FORM, EXECUTION,
DELIVERY AND REGISTRATION OF BONDS – Section 2.11 – Additional Bonds Test.” Additional Bonds may
be issued under the Master Indenture on a parity with the Series 2021 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, and the Series
2017 Bonds, provided, among other things, that there is delivered to the Trustee either:
(a) a certificate, dated as of a date between the date of pricing of the Bonds being
issued and the date of delivery of such Bonds (both dates inclusive), prepared by an Authorized City
Representative showing that the Net Revenues for the last audited Fiscal Year or for any 12 consecutive
months out of the most recent 18 consecutive months immediately preceding the date of issuance of the
proposed Series of Bonds, together with any Transfer for the most recently ended Fiscal Year, were at least
equal to 125% of Maximum Aggregate Annual Debt Service, which excludes Capitalized Interest, with
respect to all Outstanding Bonds and the proposed Series of Bonds, calculated as if the proposed Series of
Bonds were then Outstanding; or
(b) a certificate, dated as of a date between the date of pricing of the Bonds being
issued and the date of delivery of such Bonds (both dates inclusive), prepared by a Consultant, with national
recognition as experts in the area of air traffic and airport financial analysis, showing that:
(i) the Net Revenues for the last audited Fiscal Year or for any 12
consecutive months out of the most recent 18 consecutive months immediately preceding the date
of issuance of the proposed Series of Bonds, together with any Transfer for the most recently ended
Fiscal Year, were at least equal to 125% of the sum of the Annual Debt Service due and payable
with respect to all Outstanding Bonds for such applicable period; and
(ii) for the period from and including the first full Fiscal Year following the
issuance of such proposed Series of Bonds during which no interest on such Series of Bonds is
expected to be paid from the proceeds thereof through and including the later of: (A) the fifth full
Fiscal Year following the issuance of such Series of Bonds, or (B) the third full Fiscal Year during
which no interest on such Series of Bonds is expected to be paid from the proceeds thereof, the
estimated Net Revenues, together with any estimated Transfer, for each such Fiscal Year, will be at
least equal to 125% of the Aggregate Annual Debt Service for each such Fiscal Year with respect
to all Outstanding Bonds and calculated as if (y) the proposed Series of Bonds were then
Outstanding, and (z) any future Series of Bonds which the City estimates will be required to
complete payment of the estimated costs of construction of such portion of the Specified Project and
any other uncompleted portion of the Specified Project from which the Consultant projects
additional Revenues will be generated were then Outstanding.
For purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the amount of any Transfer taken into account cannot exceed
25% of the Aggregate Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds, the proposed Series of Bonds and any future
Series of Bonds required to complete the Specified Project as described above. The components of Aggregate Annual
Debt Service are to be calculated as provided in the Master Indenture. See “APPENDIX C – FORM OF MASTER
Draft
33
INDENTURE – ARTICLE II - FORM, EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND REGISTRATION OF BONDS – Section
2.11 – Additional Bonds Test.”
For purposes of subparagraph (b)(ii) above, in estimating Net Revenues, the Consultant may take into account
(1) Revenues from Specified Projects or other Airport Facilities reasonably expected to become available during the
period for which the estimates are provided, (2) any increase in fees, rates, charges, rentals or other sources of
Revenues which have been approved by the City and will be in effect during the period for which the estimates are
provided, and (3) any other increases in Revenues which the Consultant believes to be a reasonable assumption for
such period. With respect to Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System, the Consultant will use
such assumptions as the Consultant believes to be reasonable, taking into account: (x) historical Operation and
Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System, (y) Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System
associated with the Specified Projects and any other new Airport Facilities, and (z) such other factors, including
inflation and changing operations or policies of the City, as the Consultant believes to be appropriate. The Consultant
will include in the certificate or in a separate accompanying report the calculations and assumptions made in
determining the estimated Net Revenues and will also set forth the calculations of Aggregate Annual Debt Service,
which calculations may be based upon information provided by another Consultant.
For purposes of preparing the certificate or certificates described above, the Consultant or the Authorized
City Representative may reasonably rely upon financial information provided by the City.
At the time of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Airport Consultant will deliver a certificate as described
in paragraph (b) above to the Trustee.
Neither of the certificates described in paragraphs (a) or (b) above will be required if:
(i) the Bonds being issued are for the purpose of refunding then Outstanding Bonds
and there is delivered to the Trustee, instead, a certificate of an Authorized City Representative or Consultant
showing that Maximum Aggregate Annual Debt Service after the issuance of such Refunding Bonds will not
exceed the Maximum Aggregate Annual Debt Service prior to the issuance of such Refunding Bonds; or
(ii) the Bonds being issued constitute Notes and there is delivered to the Trustee,
instead, a certificate prepared by an Authorized City Representative or a Consultant showing that the
principal amount of the proposed Notes being issued, together with the principal amount of any Notes then
Outstanding, does not exceed 10% of the Net Revenues for any 12 consecutive months out of the most recent
24 months immediately preceding the issuance of the proposed Notes; or
(iii) the Bonds being issued are Completion Bonds and the following written
certificates are delivered to the Trustee (A) a Consultant’s certificate stating that the nature and purpose of
such Project has not materially changed and (B) a certificate of an Authorized City Representative to the
effect that (1) all of the proceeds (including investment earnings on amounts in the Construction Fund
established for the Project) of the original Bonds issued to finance such Project have been or will be used to
pay Costs of the Project and (2) the then estimated Costs of the Project exceed the sum of the Costs of the
Project already paid plus moneys available in the Construction Fund established for the Project (including
unspent proceeds of Bonds previously issued for such purpose). “Completion Bonds” are defined in the
Master Indenture as Bonds issued to pay costs of completing a Project for which Bonds have previously been
issued and the principal amount of such Bonds being issued for completion purposes does not exceed an
amount equal to 15% of the principal amount of the Bonds originally issued for the Project. The Series 2021
Bonds and any additional Bonds to be issued to finance additional costs of the TRP or the NCP will not be
deemed to constitute Completion Bonds under the Master Indenture. See “APPENDIX C – FORM OF
MASTER INDENTURE – ARTICLE I – DEFINITIONS; INTERPRETATION.”
The City expects to issue additional Bonds in the future to finance the development of the Airport System.
See “THE AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM – Funding Sources.”
Use of PFCs to Pay Debt Service
Pursuant to the Master Indenture, PFC revenues are excluded from the definition of Revenues and, therefore,
are not pledged to the payment of debt service on the Bonds, except for Pledged Passenger Facility Charges, which
Draft
34
are subject to the pledge of the Master Indenture but do not constitute Revenues. However, PFC revenues may still
be applied to pay debt service on Bonds that financed PFC-eligible projects in two separate ways. The City may
designate specified PFC revenues as Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service. Passenger Facility
Charges Available for Debt Service are transferred to the Trustee and deposited directly into a City designated Debt
Service Fund to be used to pay debt service on a specific Series of Bonds. The City may also pledge specified PFC
revenue to secure designated Bonds as Pledged Passenger Facility Charges. Pledged Passenger Facility Charges are
also transferred to the Trustee and deposited directly into a City designated Debt Service Fund to be used to pay debt
service on a specific Series of Bonds. The City has not elected, and the City has no current plans to elect, to designate
PFCs as Pledged Passenger Facility Charges. The City expects, however, to the extent approved by the FAA, to use
PFCs as Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service to pay a portion of the debt service on the Series 2021
Bonds, as well as the Series 2018 Bonds, and the Series 2017 Bonds that financed PFC-eligible projects. Debt service
paid with PFCs, whether designated as Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service and/or Pledged
Passenger Facility Charges, is not included in the calculation of the rate covenant set forth in the Master Indenture,
and debt service on additional Bonds expected to be paid from PFCs is not included in the additional bonds test set
forth in the Master Indenture. For additional information regarding PFCs and the City’s expected use of PFC revenues,
see “APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT.”
Permitted Investments
Moneys and funds held by the City will be invested in Permitted Investments, subject to any restrictions set
forth in the Master Indenture and subject to restrictions imposed upon the City by the State Money Management Act.
Moneys and funds held by the Trustee under the Master Indenture, including moneys in the respective Debt Service
Funds, and the accounts therein, and the Common Reserve Fund, may be invested as directed by the City in Permitted
Investments, subject to the restrictions set forth in the Master Indenture and subject to restrictions imposed upon the
City by the State Money Management Act. See “THE AIRPORT— Financial Considerations - Investment Policy”
herein.
Events of Default and Remedies; No Acceleration
Events of Default under the Master Indenture and related remedies are described in “APPENDIX C—FORM
OF THE MASTER INDENTURE—ARTICLE VIII – DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES.” The occurrence of an Event
of Default does not grant any right to accelerate payment of the Bonds, including the Series 2021 Bonds, the Series
2018 Bonds, and the Series 2017 Bonds, to either the Trustee or the Holders of the Bonds. The Trustee is authorized
to take certain actions upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, including proceedings to enforce the obligations
of the City under the Master Indenture. If there is an Event of Default, payments, if any, on the Bonds will be made
after payments of Operation and Maintenance Expense of the Airport System. Since Net Revenues are Revenues net
of all amounts needed to pay Operation and Maintenance Expense of the Airport System, and the City is not subject
to involuntary bankruptcy proceedings, the City may be able to continue indefinitely collecting Revenues and applying
them to the operation of the Airport System even if an Event of Default has occurred and no payments are being made
on the Bonds.
Subordinate Obligations (Subordinate Revolving Obligations)
The Master Subordinate Indenture provides for the issuance and/or incurrence, from time to time, of debt
obligations of the City secured by and payable from a pledge of Subordinate Revenues (as defined below) (including,
without limitation, bonds, notes, bond anticipation notes, commercial paper, revolving lines of credit, obligations
incurred pursuant to an interest rate swap agreement, obligations incurred through lease or installment purchase
agreements or certificates of participation, and certain other obligations, collectively, “Subordinate Obligations”).
“Subordinate Revenues” mean all Revenues remaining after the City has provided for the payment of
Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System, the payment of debt service on the Bonds and any
amounts necessary to replenish the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund (or any other debt service reserve fund
established to secure one or more series of Bonds).
As of the date of this Official Statement, the only outstanding Subordinate Obligations are the Subordinate
Revolving Obligations and the City’s payment obligations under the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit
Agreement. Pursuant to the Master Subordinate Indenture, the First Supplemental Subordinate Indenture and the
Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement, the City is authorized to issue and have outstanding, from time
Draft
35
to time, up to $300,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Subordinate Revolving Obligations. As of July 1, 2021,
the City had $[_____] aggregate principal amount of Subordinate Revolving Obligations outstanding. On or about
the date of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the City expects to repay all of the outstanding Subordinate Revolving
Obligations with a portion of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds. All of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations
issued by the City are purchased by the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Bank (JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association) in accordance with the terms of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement. Except as
otherwise provided in the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement, the principal of all Subordinate
Revolving Obligations outstanding pursuant the Master Subordinate Indenture, the First Supplemental Subordinate
Indenture and the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement are due and payable on March 1, 2024.
However, subject to the terms of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement, on March 1, 2024, the
City can convert any outstanding Subordinate Revolving Obligations to a term loan that will be payable in six equal
semi-annual installments following March 1, 2024.
Upon the occurrence of an event of default under the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement,
the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Bank may terminate its obligation to make revolving loans, bring a legal action
to take any action that may appear necessary to collect amounts due to the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Bank
and exercise any and all remedies the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Bank may have under the Subordinate
Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement and the Subordinate Indenture. The Subordinate Revolving Obligations
Bank is not permitted to accelerate amounts due under the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement or
the Subordinate Indenture.
Reference is made to the Subordinate Indenture and the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit
Agreement for the complete terms of such documents. Copies of the Master Subordinate Indenture, the First
Supplemental Subordinate Indenture and a redacted copy of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations Credit Agreement
are posted on EMMA.
Other Covenants of the City
Pursuant to the Master Indenture, the City has agreed to other covenants for the benefit of the holders of the
Bonds, including the Series 2021 Bonds, in addition to those described above. For example, the City has covenanted
not to issue any bonds or other obligations with a lien on or security interest in the Net Revenues which is superior to
the Bonds, not to enter into any contracts or take any actions that are inconsistent with the Master Indenture, and to
operate and maintain the Airport System in good working order. The City also has retained the right under the Master
Indenture to issue obligations secured by a pledge of Net Revenues which is subordinate to the lien securing the Bonds,
and to issue special facilities obligations that are not secured by a pledge of Net Revenues but that are secured only
by revenues derived from a specified Special Facility. See “APPENDIX C – FORM OF THE MASTER
INDENTURE – ARTICLE V – COVENANTS OF THE CITY.”
THE AIRPORT
Overview
The Airport serves as the principal airport for the Salt Lake City metropolitan region, the State and portions
of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming. See “APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT –
Air Service Area.” Based on data from the FAA, approximately 12.8 million enplaned passengers boarded aircraft at
the Airport in calendar year (“CY”) 2019, ranking it 23rd in the U.S. This was an increase of approximately 5.0% as
compared to FAA data for CY 2018. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of enplaned passengers fell
in CY 2020.
All the major network airlines and three low-cost carriers (“LCCs”) operate at the Airport. The Airport is
also a primary hub airport for Delta. Delta and its regional partners carried approximately 73% of the enplaned
passengers at the Airport in FY 2020. The Airport served a total of over 20 million passengers in FY 2020. The
Airport operates efficiently and is frequently ranked first among similarly sized U.S. airports for on-time arrivals and
departures by OAG Aviation Worldwide Limited. The Airport also has significant cargo operations. Approximately
221,385 U.S. tons of freight and mail were loaded and unloaded on and off aircraft at the Airport in FY 2020.
Based on data from Airports Council International-North America (“ACI-NA”), the Airport was ranked the
31st busiest cargo airport in the U.S. for CY 2019 with 182,320 metric tonnes of cargo. Also, in CY 2019, ACI-NA
Draft
36
data shows that the Airport had over 344,000 aircraft movements or operations, ranking the Airport 23rd in the U.S.
for aircraft movements.
The Airport’s Air Service Area
The Airport is the primary commercial air service facility serving the Salt Lake City metropolitan area and
the surrounding region. The Airport has essentially no competition from other airports within the region, with no
other large commercial service airports being located within 400 highway miles of the Airport. The geographical
region that serves as an airport’s primary air service catchment area generally is referred to as its primary Air Service
Area. The Airport’s primary Air Service Area is defined as the Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem Combined Statistical Area
(“CSA”), which includes 10 counties in Utah. The Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem CSA is the [27th] most populous CSA
in the U.S., with approximately 2.6 million people, or approximately 81% of the population in the entire State. In
many cases, an Air Service Area can extend beyond the primary area, depending on the location of other population
centers and availability of other commercial service airports; however, it is generally the economic strength of the
primary Air Service Area that provides the principal demand for supporting origin and destination (“O&D”) air travel,
which refers to persons who begin or end their air travel at the Airport. In the case of the Airport, its secondary air
service area generally consists of the remainder of the State and portions of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and Wyoming.
The chart below shows the Airport’s Air Service Area and its location in the State.
Draft
37
Because the Airport is isolated from competing airport facilities, it has limited, if any, competition for air
service. Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS) is the closest comparable airport, which is approximately
435 driving miles from the Airport. Denver International Airport (DIA) is the next closest at approximately 530
driving miles from the Airport. Boise Airport (BOI) in Idaho is about 340 driving miles from the Airport; however,
it is a much smaller facility and is classified as a Small Hub by the FAA. There are no other comparable facilities to
the Airport within the State in terms of air service. The next largest commercial service airport in Utah is Provo
Municipal Airport (PVO), which is much smaller than the Airport. PVO had approximately 110,279 enplaned
passengers for CY 2019, and was ranked as the 234th largest airport in the U.S. by enplaned passengers according to
data from the FAA.
The Airport’s Air Service Area recently has experienced population growth considerably above the national
average, and its labor force is also growing, while Utah’s unemployment rate of 3.2% was less than half the national
rate of 6.5% as of December 2020 by 3.3%. The region’s diverse economy includes banking and finance, the largest
component of the gross regional product (“GRP”); transportation and distribution, as the City is a point of convergence
for east-west rail lines and both east-west and north-south interstate highways; manufacturing and mining; and a
growing technology sector. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is headquartered in the City. The area is
also a regional healthcare and education hub, with three research hospitals and the only academic medical center in
Draft
38
the intermountain west, and all three of the State’s major universities are within 70 miles of the Airport. Lastly, the
area is a significant tourist destination, and a significant number of sports and outdoor products companies such as
Atomic, Black Diamond, Petzl and Salomon have large operations in the region. Many well-known, world-class ski
resorts are located within an hour’s drive of the Airport and these resorts are increasingly becoming year-round
destinations for golfing, hiking, mountain biking and other outdoor activities. Five national parks are located in Utah,
along with numerous National Recreation Areas, and the Airport is centrally located to provide access to other western
U.S. National Parks. This diverse economy supports a strong O&D market, complemented by Delta’s connecting
activity at the Airport. For additional information regarding the Airport’s Air Service Area and demographics, see
“APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT – Air Service and Air Traffic Analysis.”
The City
The Airport is owned by the City, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State. The City
owns three airports: the Airport, South Valley and Tooele, all of which are operated and managed by the Department.
The Mayor of the City and the City Council oversee the Department’s affairs. An eleven-member Airport Advisory
Board of citizen volunteers advises the Mayor and City Council.
The City has a Council-Mayor form of government. The City Council consists of seven members, who are
elected by voters within seven geographic districts of approximately equal population. The Mayor is elected at large
by the voters of the City and is charged with the executive and administrative duties of the government.
The seven-member, part-time City Council is charged with the responsibility of performing the legislative
functions of the City. The City Council performs three primary functions: it passes laws for the City, including
approving issuance of debt, adopts the City budget, including, as a part thereof, the budget of the Department, and
conducts management and operational audits of City departments.
Term information concerning the Mayor and the members of the City Council is set forth below:
Office District Person
Years in
Service
Expiration of
Current Term
Mayor --Erin J. Mendenhall 1 January 2025
Council Chair #7 Amy Fowler 3 January 2022
Council Vice Chair #1 James Rogers 7 January 2022
Council Member #3 Chris Wharton 3 January 2022
Council Member #2 Vacant -January 2024
Council Member #4 Ana Valdemoros 3 January 2024
Council Member #5 Darin Mano 1 January 2022
Council Member #6 Dan Dugan 1 January 2024
In February 1976, the City created the Airport Advisory Board to provide advice with respect to broad matters
of policy affecting the operation of the Airport System. All actions taken by the Airport Advisory Board constitute
recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor has the power to review, ratify, modify, or veto any action submitted by
the Airport Advisory Board. The members of the Airport Advisory Board are Steve Price, Chair, Theresa Foxley,
Vice Chair, Roger Boyer, Arlyn Bradshaw, Dick Burton, Tye Hoffman, State Senator Karen Mayne, Cynthia D.
Miller, Larry Pinnock, and James Rogers, as City Council Member from District 1.
Draft
39
Airport Management
The day-to-day operations of the Airport System are managed by the Executive Director of the Department,
who reports directly to and is appointed by the Mayor. The Department’s nine Division Directors oversee each of the
primary operating and administrative divisions of the Department, and include a newly created directorate of
Operational Readiness, Activation, and Transition that is intended to oversee the acceptance and start-up of the
facilities comprising the New SLC and is expected to be phased out at the conclusion of the New SLC project, and all
Directors report to the Executive Director. The executive team of the Department is a full-time staff of professional
and technical personnel located at the Airport. In addition to the Executive Director, the executive team of the
Department is comprised of the Chief Operating Officer, to whom the Director of Operations reports, along with
Airport police and firefighting, and the following nine Directors: (1) Administration and Commercial Services, (2)
Engineering, (3) Finance, (4) Operational Readiness, Activation, and Transition, (5) Maintenance, (6) Director of
Operations, (7) Planning and Environmental, (8) Information Technology, and (9) Communications and Marketing.
Brief biographies of the members of the Department’s management team are set forth below.
Bill Wyatt, Executive Director
Bill Wyatt began serving as the Executive Director of the Department in November 2017. Prior to joining
the Department, Mr. Wyatt served for 16 years as the Executive Director for the Port of Portland, Oregon, where he
oversaw Portland International Airport, four marine terminals, two general aviation airports, industrial parks and other
real estate properties.
Prior to serving as the Port of Portland’s Executive Director, he served as Chief of Staff to then Governor
John A. Kitzhaber for seven years, preceded by six years as President of the Oregon Business Counsel and five years
as Executive Director of the Association for Portland Progress which was, at the time, Portland’s downtown
development association. Mr. Wyatt served as an Oregon state representative from 1974 through 1977.
Mr. Wyatt studied political science at Willamette University and the University of Oregon, where he served
as Student Body President.
Treber Andersen, Director of Airport Operations
Treber Andersen has worked for the Department since 2004. Prior to his appointment as Director of Airport
Operations in 2021, Mr. Andersen was the Assistant Operations Director for terminal and landside programs including
the oversight of parking, passenger shuttle, ground transportation, gate management, and hard stand activities.
Mr. Andersen has also held positions in communications and airfield operations with the department where
he participated in emergency response coordination, snow removal activities, FAR 139 compliance, and security
functions. Before joining the department, he worked for fixed base operator Million Air servicing private jet and piston
aircraft.
Mr. Andersen is a graduate of Brigham Young University where he earned a Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration and a Master of Public Administration. He is a Certified Member of the American Association of
Airport Executives and serves on the Academic Relations Committee.
Shane Andreasen, Director of Administration and Commercial Services
Shane Andreasen serves as the Director of Administration and Commercial Services for the Department. He
leads the team responsible for business and policy development and implementation, airline and concession lease
negotiations, real property transactions, procurement, airport and tenant insurance and risk management, and facility
and property management. Mr. Andreasen also oversees the commercial and property assets of the Airport and two
reliever airports also owned by the Department. Mr. Andreasen has over 17 years’ experience in all aspects of airport
properties, development and leasing.
Prior to rejoining the Department in early 2020, Mr. Andreasen spent nine years working for the Port of
Portland where he most recently served as the Acting Director of the Portland International Airport Business &
Properties. Prior to that assignment, he led the redevelopment of the concessions program and negotiated a twenty
year rental car agreement.
Draft
40
Mr. Andreasen recently received his Certified Member accreditation from the American Association of
Airport Executives (“AAAE”), and is active in Airports Council International-North America (“ACI-NA”). He
graduated from Westminster College in Salt Lake City, Utah with a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Management.
Brian Butler, Chief Financial Officer
Brian Butler has worked for the Department since 2015. He has over 14 years of experience in both the
financial and accounting industries. As the Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Butler directs a staff of accountants that
oversee and manage the operating and capital budgets, accounting, financial reporting, financial audits, purchasing,
payroll, asset control, debt issuance, management of outstanding debt, and airline rate analysis and rate calculation.
He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Utah Association of Certified
Public Accountants, ACI-NA, AAAE and is a licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA). He is a graduate from
Brigham Young University with a Bachelor Degree in Corporate Finance, Utah Valley University with a Bachelor
Degree in Accounting, and the University of Utah with a Masters Degree in Accounting.
Edwin Cherry, Director of Information Technology
Edwin Cherry currently serves as the Director of Information Technology for the Department where he is
responsible for overseeing the provision of information and communication services throughout the Airport campus.
Mr. Cherry has spent the last 30 years in the aviation industry serving in numerous roles ranging from
consulting, project management and product development to his current role in airport information technology (“IT”)
management. He has led teams in the development of IT solutions at numerous domestic and international airports
with an emphasis on the integration of the disparate special systems that are widely used by passengers, airports and
airlines.
Mr. Cherry is active in ACI-NA as well as AAAE. He graduated from the University of South Florida with
a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering.
Eddie Clayson, Director of Maintenance
Eddie Clayson began working for the Department in 1993. He was appointed as the Director of Maintenance
in 2016. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Clayson worked in building controls and as the facilities superintendent for the
Department.
Before joining the Department, Mr. Clayson worked for Lockheed Engineering & Sciences as an electronics
engineer where he was responsible for control systems on buildings, test chambers and equipment.
Mr. Clayson is involved with AAAE and the International Facilities Management Association (“IFMA”). He
earned his Accredited Airport Executive (“AAE”) from AAAE in 2013. Through IFMA, Mr. Clayson has earned his
Certified Facility Manager and the Sustainability Facility Professional credentials. He has been active in the IFMA
Airport Facilities Council and is the past president of the Council. Mr. Clayson graduated from Brigham Young
University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronic Engineering and Technology.
Brady Fredrickson, AICP, ASLA, CM, Director of Planning and Environmental
Brady Fredrickson has 22 years of experience working in the planning and capital programming field. He
started his carrier with the SE Group in New Hampshire as a resort planner designing and developing plans for ski
resort base area and mountainside facilities.
Mr. Fredrickson has worked for the Department since 2000. Over the last 20 years, he has worked on a
variety of planning and development projects including the 2021 master plan update, planning and design of terminal
and concourse facilities, general aviation development plans, light rail service to the Airport, aircraft parking plans,
and a variety airport planning studies. As the Director of Planning and Environmental, he oversees the planning and
capital programming for Salt Lake City International Airport, South Valley Airport and Tooele Valley Airport.
Draft
41
Mr. Fredrickson is a graduate of Utah State University. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified
Planners, AAAE and American Society of Landscape Architects. He is a licensed professional Landscape Architect.
Medardo Gomez, Director of Operational Readiness, Activation, and Transition
Medardo Gomez began working in the Airport Maintenance and Engineering division in 1993 as a
Superintendent of Facilities and has also worked as Airport Maintenance Operations Superintendent, and as an
Assistant Director of Maintenance. Prior to his airport experience he worked in the maintenance of educational
facilities industry.
He is a member of ACI and AAAE and has been an Accredited Member since 2012. He is currently a National
Board of Examiner for AAAE. Mr. Gomez is a frequent contributor in professional organizations conferences and
currently sits in several Airport Cooperative Research Program (“ACRP”) research projects. He has been an adjunct
professor of Aviation Management since 2008.
Mr. Gomez is a graduate of Brigham Young University and holds a BS in Facilities Management, and a
Masters Degree in Public Administration (EMPA).
Peter L. Higgins, Chief Operating Officer
Mr. Higgins has worked for the Airport for more than 20 years, serving previously as both the Director of
Airport Operations and Director of Airport Maintenance. He has experience in aviation management and large-scale
development programs. In addition, Mr. Higgins has served as a senior level construction equipment fleet executive.
Before joining the Airport, Mr. Higgins worked for Granite Construction Company and for Gibbons and
Reed. Mr. Higgins currently serves as a member of the ACI World Safety & Technical Standing Committee and has
served as the Chair of the ACI Operations, Planning, Safety, Infrastructure and Development (OPSID) Committee.
Mr. Higgins is also a past president of the Northwest Chapter of AAAE. He is an accredited member of the
Association of Construction Equipment Managers and is also an Accredited Airport Executive by the AAAE.
Mr. Higgins is a graduate of the University of Utah where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil
Engineering. He is a graduate of the Executive Development Program-Professional Equipment Manager Certification
from Virginia Polytechnic Institute as well as the Executive and Supervisory Training Program.
Kevin F. Robins, P.E., Director of Engineering
Kevin Robins has more than 40 years of engineering and construction experience. He began his career with
Fluor Engineers in Irvine, California as a structural engineer working on the design of petrochemical facilities and
offshore oil platforms. Mr. Robins worked for Forsgren – Perkins Engineering in the Salt Lake City office, designing
a variety of civil and structural engineering projects.
Mr. Robins has worked for the Department since 1988. He has worked on a wide variety of projects at the
Airport including taxiway and apron construction, bridge and tunnel construction, and terminal and concourse
improvements. Mr. Robins directs a staff of engineers, architects and technicians that oversee and manage the design
and construction of facility improvements at all three of the airports managed by the Department.
Mr. Robins is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (“ASCE”) and is a licensed professional
engineer. He is a member of AAAE as well as a member of the Technical Committee of ACI-NA. Mr. Robins is a
graduate of Brigham Young University.
Nancy Volmer, Director of Communication and Marketing
Nancy Volmer began working for the Department in 2015. As the director of communication and marketing,
Ms. Volmer oversees media relations, community outreach and publications.
Ms. Volmer has worked for 35 years in the communications and marketing field. Before joining the
Department, she worked in communications and marketing for organizations, including the Utah State Courts, Salt
Draft
42
Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, the Salt Lake Area Chamber and the Park City
Chamber/Bureau.
Ms. Volmer is a member of AAAE, ACI-NA and the Public Relations Society of America. She is also
accredited by the International Association of Business Communicators.
Ms. Volmer is a graduate of the University of Utah where she earned Bachelor of Science degrees in Land
Resource Management and in Journalism and Mass Communication. In addition, she earned a Masters of Professional
Communication degree from Westminster College and has a certification in Integrated Marketing Communication
from the University of Utah.
Airport Facilities
Overview
The Airport is located on approximately 9,400 acres about five miles west of the City’s downtown. The
airfield at the Airport contains four runways, three of which are used for airline traffic and the fourth of which is used
for general aviation. The new terminal complex currently consists of three levels and provides 66 aircraft parking
positions at Concourses A and B, including 20 hardstand positions. The new terminal complex was placed into service
in September 2020, with Concourse B West opening in October 2020. The Airport also contains a new five level
parking garage structure for short-term parking, along with surface parking for longer-term parking and employees.
The Airport is classified by the FAA as a Large Hub facility based upon its share of nationwide enplaned passengers.
The FAA classifies Large Hub airports as those serving at least 1.0% of annual U.S. passenger enplanements.
The Airport commenced operations in 1911 with primarily acrobatic flights. The City purchased 100 acres
surrounding the original landing strip in 1920 and named the airport Woodward Field. The first commercial flight
took place in 1926, with two passengers sitting atop mail bags. In 1943, the Airport became a training base and
replacement depot for the U.S. Army Air Force. Following World War II, the Airport was transferred back to the City
and in 1950, the three runways were upgraded. The first terminal was dedicated in 1961 and Terminal Two was
completed in 1978. The third air carrier runway was added in 1995, an International Arrivals Building was added in
1996, and a new FAA air traffic control tower and terminal radar approach control facility were opened in 1999. With
the opening of the new Terminal, Concourse A West, Concourse B West and related facilities in the fall of 2020,
Phase I of the New SLC replacing the landside facilities of the Airport has been placed in service and the old facilities
have been demolished. Upon completion of Phase II, the vast majority of the Airport’s landside facilities will have
been replaced with new facilities. See “THE NEW SLC”.
Airfield
The existing airfield consists of three air carrier runways and a general aviation runway. The air carrier
runways are, generally, in a parallel north/south alignment (Runways 16L-34R, 16R-34L, and 17-35). The general
aviation runway is oriented in a northwest/southeast direction (Runway 14-32). Runway 16L-34R is 12,003 feet in
length, Runway 16R-34L is 12,000 feet in length, Runway 17-35 is 9,596 feet in length, and Runway 14-32 is 4,892
feet in length. All runways are 150 feet wide. The air carrier runways are equipped with high intensity runway lighting
systems, centerline lighting and touchdown zone lights. Precision instrument landing systems (“ILS”) are located on
all ends of the air carrier runways for approaches during instrument flight rules (“IFR”) conditions. The general
aviation runway (14-32) is not equipped with an ILS.
Terminal Facilities
The passenger terminal complex now consists of a single terminal facility, which is contiguous to Concourse
A and connected to the new parking garage via the new Gateway Center, and includes approximately 912,000 square
feet (“sf”) of space on three levels. Level 1 of the Terminal contains a federal inspection services area (“FIS”),
international baggage claim and recheck area, tenant administrative offices, a centralized security checkpoint for
dedicated employee access, ground transportation counters, and also serves commercial curbs and other ground
transportation functions. Level 2 provides passenger circulation areas and connects landside and airside components
of the facility. Public areas prior to the security checkpoint provide for baggage claim and airline baggage service
offices, an expansive meeter-greeter area, food and beverage retail concessions, and a centralized security screening
checkpoint. Areas beyond security screening include the main terminal plaza area consisting of 79,000 sf of
Draft
43
conessions, seating and circulation space, and transition to the airside concourses. Level 3 contains the ticketing area
for departing passengers, a conference center and administrative offices for the Department and other tenants at the
Airport, and a 30,0000 sf Delta Sky Club. Departing passengers being dropped off at the Airport arrive on the Level
3 curb. The Airport is served by the TRAX light rail system owned and operated by the Utah Transit Authority
(“UTA”), which connects the Airport with downtown Salt Lake City. The Terminal will accommodate relocation of
the terminus of the TRAX light rail station at the Airport from its previous location, which has been demolished to
accommodate the TRP, to the first level of the Terminal. The TRAX extension is being financed and built by the
UTA. See “THE NEW SLC.”
New concession contracts commenced with the opening of the first phase of the New SLC in the fall of 2020,
and all former contracts terminated at that time with the full demolition of the legacy facilities. New contracts
constitute 59 locations in the initial (“Phase I”) opening of the New SLC, with approximately 63% of locations
developed and operational as of the spring of 2021. Eight additional locations are under construction with openings
planned to occur in the summer of 2021. The remaining locations are expected to open in the fall/winter of 2021, and
in 2022 due to weakened demand and concessionaire financial constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Department intends to issue a second request for proposals (“RFP”) for Phase II concessions in the fall of 2021 for
openings to coincide with Concourse A East gates opening in the fall/winter of 2023, and a third RFP in the fall of
2023 for openings in Concourse B East to occur in 2025. Continuing with practices in Phase I, the Department intends
to award locations in packages of varying albeit smaller sizes to existing and new concessionaire partners with
successful proposals. Airport ground transportation services generally include taxis, limousines, shuttle buses and
transportation network companies (“TNCs”), such as Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”). The
terminal roadway provides vehicle access to the Terminal at ground level.
Parking Facilities
Public parking facilities currently located at the Airport consist of the new five level, short-term parking
garage near the terminal complex and long-term economy surface parking lots. As part of the TRP, the economy lots
have also been reconfigured. See “THE NEW SLC – Parking Garage and South Economy Parking Lot.” In total,
these facilities comprise about 152 acres, including the five levels of the garage, and have 14,401 public parking
spaces. The short-term parking garage has 3,469 public parking spaces on levels 2 through 5 and is located adjacent
to the passenger terminal. The first floor is dedicated to rental car operations. Current pricing for the short-term
parking garage is $35 per day or $55 per day for the Premium Reserved Parking service. In addition to the new
Parking Garage, the Airport also has a substantial amount of surface parking available for Airport patrons, including
a new surface parking area (“Lot E”) located east of the new parking structure within walking distance of the Terminal
that includes 384 parking spaces currently priced at $21 per day.
To help reduce vehicle traffic congestion in the terminal area, the Department maintains a 132-space Park
and Wait lot and adjacent Touch n’ Go service plaza located west of Terminal Drive, just south of the Terminal, where
motorists meeting arriving passengers may wait without charge until passengers are ready to be picked up. The Park
and Wait lot has large electronic signs displaying flight arrival information. Once a flight has arrived and sufficient
time has elapsed for passengers to claim their luggage, the sign indicates “ready for pick up.” To reduce congestion at
the curb, however, the Department encourages drivers to wait until passengers are at the curb, confirming with their
driver via cell phone.
Rental Car Facilities
Rental car operations for passengers at the Airport currently are located on the ground floor of the new
parking garage adjacent to the terminal building and include approximately 1,200 ready/return parking spaces Nine
rental car brands are currently located at the Airport: Alamo, Avis, Budget, Dollar, Enterprise, Hertz, National, Payless
and Thrifty. Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty continue to operate in bankruptcy and have assumed their agreements with the
City for operations at the Airport. In addition, six brands are located off-Airport and their customers must use shuttle
bus services.
The rental car service facilities were placed in service in March 2016. These facilities consist of a QTA
facility for fueling and washing cars and three facilities for performing light vehicle maintenance. The QTA is a two-
level building of approximately 468,000 sf with 14 wash and service bays on the first floor and vehicle storage and
parking on the second floor. The RSS facilities consists of three single-story service buildings containing a total of
approximately 34,000 sf of building space located south of the QTA. These buildings provide back-of-house
Draft
44
maintenance areas for the rental car providers and contain office, support and storage space. The QTA and RSS are
currently in use by the rental car companies operating at the Airport. See “THE NEW SLC – Rental Car Facilities.”
TNCs
The Airport is served by several TNCs, including both Uber and Lyft. The Department has set aside dedicated
curb space at the Airport for TNC pick-ups, but TNC drivers are required to wait for customers off-Airport. TNC
operations at the Airport have grown substantially since FY 2016, when TNC operations were first permitted at the
Airport and 209,800 transactions were reported, to FY 2020, when 1.26 million transactions were reported.
Air Cargo and Aircraft Maintenance Facilities
The Airport has over 1 million sf of leased cargo space. Both UPS and DHL have stand-alone cargo facilities
and FedEx constructed a 69,660 sf cargo facility. Delta and its regional partner, SkyWest, each maintain an aircraft
maintenance hangar at the Airport at which both routine and heavy maintenance are performed, and Delta has
maintained a reservation center at the Airport for over 25 years that employs over 620 persons.
Industrial Activity and Other Nonaeronautical Activities
In December 2017, the Department opened a new 8,400 sf Touch n’ Go Convenience Store at the site of the
Park and Wait lot. This new facility offers a gas station and convenience store, as well as a coffee house, a Burger
King ® and a fast casual restaurant. The facility also includes flight information display monitors, allowing persons
waiting to pick up arriving passengers to track flight arrivals, and a drive-through window.
The Department maintains an industrial park on the east side of the Airport for aviation-related businesses.
Boeing Corporation (“Boeing”) has a 100,000 sf fabrication and assembly facility at the Airport located on 16 acres
of land that currently employs approximately 575 persons where tail sections of its 787-9 “Dreamliner” aircraft are
assembled. Boeing has manufacturing facilities in the Salt Lake City area that manufacture many of the components
of this assembly and has also purchased an 850,000 sf building approximately 20 miles from the Airport at which
parts for the 787 are manufactured. Boeing holds an option until June 30, 2022 on an additional 157 acres of land
adjacent to its assembly facility on the west side of the Airport.
Airport Access
The Airport has access from Interstate Highway 80 and is approximately 5 miles, or 10 minutes, from
downtown Salt Lake City by car. The Airport is served by the TRAX light rail system owned and operated by the
UTA, which connects the Airport with downtown Salt Lake City. The Terminal was designed to accommodate
relocation of the terminus of the TRAX light rail station at the Airport from its previous location, which will be
demolished to accommodate the TRP, to the first level of the Terminal. The TRAX extension is being financed and
built by the UTA. UTA also provides limited bus service to Tooele and paratransit services. In addition, the Airport
is served by taxis, private shuttles and TNCs.
The City is served by a network of interstate highways, with I-15 providing north-south access and I-80
providing east-west access. Several recreational areas, such as Park City, are within one hour’s driving time from the
Airport and all three of the State’s major universities are within 70 miles of the Airport.
Ancillary Facilities
Ancillary facilities support the aviation-related activities at the Airport. These ancillary facilities include the
82 acre Utah Air National Guard site, the on-Airport fuel facility, general aviation facilities, including two fixed base
operators (“FBOs”), FAA, the Department, maintenance facilities, and commercial facilities. The second FBO
commenced service at the Airport in December 2015 and completed a new approximately $30 million facility to serve
corporate and general aviation customers in February 2018.
Auxiliary Airports
The Department also operates two general aviation (“GA”) airports owned by the City: South Valley and
Tooele (referred to collectively as the “Auxiliary Airports”). South Valley is approximately 880 acres in size and is
Draft
45
primarily a GA airport, with a 5,860 foot runway, over 200 based aircraft and approximately 67,500 annual operations.
Tooele provides GA and flight training services and is slightly smaller, with approximately 600 acres and a 6,100 foot
runway, 16 based aircraft and approximately 38,000 annual operations. These airports support the GA and flight
training needs of the region and complement the commercial airport services provided at the Airport.
Aviation Activity at the Airport
The Airport predominantly serves domestic traffic, which comprised approximately 96.2% of the Airport’s
enplaned passenger traffic in FY 2020; international traffic is a relatively small component at approximately 3.8%.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, international traffic was a growing segment of the air service at the Airport.
According to OAG Aviation Worldwide Limited (“OAG”), as of June 30, 2019, airlines served 98 non-stop
destinations and averaged 370 daily departures from the Airport. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, airlines operating
at the Airport have reduced service and, in June 2020, the Airport provide 143 average daily departures to 67 non-stop
destinations. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Airport had service to three Canadian cities and five locations in
Mexico. The Airport also had European service to Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (AMS), Paris Charles De Gaulle
Airport (CDG), and London Heathrow Airport (LHR). As a result of the pandemic, the only international service at
the Airport as of the date of this Official Statement is to Mexico. The Department expects that service to Canada and
Europe will return as travel restrictions are lifted, but there is no timeframe for such additional service.
Historical Enplaned Passengers
Enplaned passengers at an airport correlate positively to several important sources of non-airline revenue,
including in-terminal concessions, parking and rental car fees, as well as PFCs and CFCs. Based on data from the
FAA, approximately 10 million enplaned passengers boarded aircraft at the Airport in FY 2020 ranking it 23rd in the
U.S. for enplaned passengers. This was a decrease of approximately 23% as compared to FAA data for FY 2019, due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to data maintained by the Department and the United States Department of Transportation
(“USDOT”), in CY 2019, the Airport had an estimated 5.8 million domestic O&D enplaned passengers (57%) and an
estimated 4.3 million connecting passengers (43%).
The following table sets forth historical enplanement information for the Airport for the fiscal years ending
June 30, 2011 through 2020. Prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Airport had experienced six
consecutive fiscal years of enplanement growth through FY 2019. The table categorizes enplanement information
into O&D enplanements and connecting enplanements:
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Table Follows]
Draft
46
SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
O&D AND CONNECTING ENPLANED PASSENGERS
Fiscal Year
O&D
Enplaned
Passengers
% Change
From
Prior FY
Connecting
Enplaned
Passengers
% Change
From
Prior FY
Total
Enplaned
Passengers
% Change
From
Prior FY
2011 5,120,614 1.8 5,308,783 1.2 10,429,397 1.5
2012 5,148,891 0.6 4,976,195 (6.3)10,125,086 (2.9)
2013 5,206,208 1.1 4,837,861 (2.8)10,044,069 (0.8)
2014 5,239,044 0.6 5,055,650 4.5 10,294,694 2.5
2015 5,711,087 9.0 5,122,921 1.3 10,833,708 5.2
2016 6,145,817 7.6 5,147,194 0.5 11,293,011 4.2
2017 6,643,195 8.1 5,207,025 1.2 11,850,220 4.9
2018 7,201,438 8.4 5,218,734 0.2 12,420,172 4.8
2019 7,543,142 4.7 5,546,991 6.3 13,090,133 5.4
2020 5,817,629¹(22.9)4,278,103¹(22.9)10,095,732 (22.9)
Sources: Total Enplanements: Department Records; USDOT (via Diio) for O&D passengers. Connecting passengers were
derived by subtracting USDOT-reported O&D passengers from Department-reported total enplanements.
¹ Preliminary; FY 2020 O&D and connecting passengers estimated from Department and USDOT records.
Airlines report the number of enplaned passengers at an airport to the USDOT but are not required to
differentiate between O&D and connecting passengers. Based on other reported data, the USDOT estimates the
number of O&D versus connecting passengers, and this estimate is generally accepted within the industry.
Salt Lake City International Airport
Monthly Enplaned Passengers
Fiscal Years 2019 – 2021
Month FY 2019 FY 2020 Percent
Change from
Prior Year
FY 2021 Percent
Change from
Prior Year
July 2,396,092 2,483,505 3.65%874,975 -64.77%
August 2,403,907 2,439.354 1.47 1,008,942 -58.64
September 2,088,129 2,182,535 4.52 981,944 -55.01
October 2,149,335 2,347.698 9.23 1,089,536 -53.59
November 1,991,028 1,922,607 0.08 976,625 -50.99
December 2,042,707 2,229,537 9.15 1,095,595 -50.86
January 2,006,725 2,148,254 7.05 1,066,321 -50.36
February 1,913,125 2,077,679 8.60 1,066,382 -48.67
March 2,377,549 1,225,057 -48.47 1,482,408 21.01
April 2,170,658 176,524 -91.87
May 2,265,419 321,801 -85.80
June 2,399,302 582,094 -75.74
Total 13,090,133 10,095,732
Source: Department records
During the ten year period from FY 2011 to FY 2020, the number of passengers enplaned at the Airport grew
to a peak of approximately 13 million in FY 2019 and then declined to approximately 10 million enplaned passengers
in fiscal year 2020, a reduction of 23%, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Except for slight declines in FY 2012
and FY 2013, enplaned passengers at the Airport showed steady growth from FY 2011 through FY 2019. Since the
COVID-19 pandemic began to affect passenger traffic in March of 2020, enplaned passengers at the Airport have
decreased substantially, but less than many other U.S. airports. See “IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE
AIRPORT” and APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT. The Airport operates as both a
major O&D market and as a major connecting hub for Delta. Delta’s enplaned passengers combined with those of its
regional partners comprised approximately 73.0% of enplaned passengers at the Airport in FY 2020. Historically,
Draft
47
O&D passenger traffic at the Airport has ranged between 49% and 57% of total passengers. For a more complete
discussion of the changes in enplanements at the Airport and factors affecting these changes, see “APPENDIX B –
REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT – Air Traffic Activity and Trends.”
During the ten year period from FY 2011 through FY 2020, the two segments of enplanements at the Airport
differed substantially. O&D enplanements grew from an estimated 5.1 million enplaned passengers in FY 2011 to an
estimate of 7.5 million enplanements in FY 2019. O&D enplanements fell only in FY 2020, as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic. O&D enplanements have grown steadily, reflecting the strength of the Air Service Area’s economy and
demand for travel to and from the City and the region. In contrast, during the same ten year period, connecting
enplaned passengers declined in three of the ten years, reflecting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Delta’s
restructuring of its operations at the Airport.
Airlines Serving the Airport
All the major network airlines and three LCCs, including one ultra-low cost carrier (“ULCC”), operate at the
Airport. The Airport also has cargo operations by seven all-cargo carriers in addition to cargo carried by the passenger
airlines. Service by international airlines has been suspended due to governmental restrictions and the COVID-19
pandemic.
AIRLINES OPERATING IN MARCH 2020
AT SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Signatory Airlines Affiliate Airlines*
Alaska Airlines (AK)
American Airlines (AA)
Delta Air Lines (Delta)
Frontier Airlines
JetBlue Airways
Southwest Airlines
United Airlines (UAL)
Horizon Air (AK)
Mesa Airlines (AA, UAL)
Republic Airways (UAL)
SkyWest Airlines (AK, AA, Delta, UAL)
All Cargo Airlines
Air Transport International, Inc.
Ameriflight, LLC
Corporate Air
Empire Airlines
FedEx
Southern Air (operates DHL Express service)
United Parcel Service
Foreign Flag Airlines*†
Aeromexico (Delta)
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (Delta)
*Affiliated Signatory Airlines shown in parentheses. †Service currently suspended.
Delta is the dominant carrier at the Airport and, with its affiliates, generated approximately 73.0% of
enplanements in FY 2020. Southwest Airlines (“Southwest”) is the number two carrier at the Airport, with an enplaned
passenger market share of approximately 9.7% in FY 2020. American had an enplaned passenger market share of
approximately 5.5% in FY 2020. Alaska started service in 2013 and grew substantially until growth flattened in FY
2017, after which Alaska’s enplanements have decreased in each year. Delta has maintained the largest market share
at the Airport, with both a strong O&D and hubbing presence, but as the local O&D market has grown and Delta has
adjusted its hubbing operations at the Airport, the shares of Delta’s competitors have grown and the O&D share of
Delta’s passengers has also grown. The table below lists the airlines serving the Airport in FY 2016-2020 and their
respective market share of enplaned passengers in FY 2016 through 2020.
Draft
48
SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AIRLINE MARKET SHARE OF ENPLANED PASSENGERS
(000’s)
Fiscal Year ended June 30
Airline FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Market
Share
FY 2016
Market
Share
FY 2020
Delta Air Lines 5,597 6,097 6,431 6,896 5,587 70.2%*73.0%*
Delta Connection 2,329 2,184 2,298 2,563 1,778 ----
Southwest Airlines 1,214 1,216 1,310 1.300 982 10.8 9.7
American Airlines 752 747 775 740 555 6.7 5.5
United Air Lines 552 596 608 663 475 4.9 4.7
Alaska Air 409 421 379 333 253 3.6 2.5
JetBlue Airways 232 296 363 358 274 2.1 2.7
Frontier 198 246 243 263 191 1.8 1.9
Other 10 47 13 2 1 0.1 0.0
Total 11,293 11,850 12,420 13,090 10,096
* Includes Delta Connection
Amounts may not add due to rounding.
Source: Department Records
Delta and its predecessors have served Salt Lake City since 1926. Western Airlines (“Western”) began
service on April 17, 1926, flying mail from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City. In 1982, Western established a hub at the
Airport. In 1987, Delta acquired Western and Delta has maintained a hub at the Airport ever since.
According to Delta, the Airport provides an efficient western hub for Delta that connects passengers from
connecting markets in the western U.S. with Delta’s network, as well as connects passengers from Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX) and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), where Delta also has substantial
operations, to Delta’s eastern hubs and focus cities, including Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL),
John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) and Orlando
International Airport (MCO). Although a substantial percentage of Delta’s passengers flying through the Airport are
connecting passengers, based upon preliminary USDOT data for fiscal year 2020, approximately 47.1% of Delta’s
passengers at the Airport were O&D passengers, consistent with the strength of the Salt Lake City region’s air service
market. For more information regarding Delta’s operations at the Airport, see “APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE
AIRPORT CONSULTANT.”
Passenger Markets
For March 2021, scheduled non-stop service from the Airport was offered to 81 domestic and 5 international
destinations. In addition, Delta has announced it will restart service to Amsterdam in May, 2021. Set forth below is a
map depicting the non-stop destinations served from the Airport.
Draft
49
NON-STOP DESTINATIONS SERVED FROM
SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
[to be updated]
Draft
50
The following table shows the percentage of O&D passengers traveling on U.S. air carriers between the
Airport and other airports for the 12 months ended June 30, 2020, the most recent period for which data is available,
as reported by USDOT. Passengers traveling on foreign flag airlines are not included.
SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
TOP O&D PASSENGER DESTINATIONS
Destination City
Airport
Code(s)
% of O&D
Enplaned
Passengers
FY 2020
Enplaned O&D
Passengers
Los Angeles Area LAX, LGB, SNA,
BUR, ONT
636,492
San Francisco Bay Area SFO, OAK, SJC 345,993
New York / Newark JFK, EWR 268,638
Denver DEN 263,006
Phoenix PHX 257,997
Seattle SEA 198,282
Las Vegas LAS 194,748
Central Florida MCO, TPA 186,166
Dallas/Fort Worth DFW, DAL 184,716
Washington / Baltimore BWI, DCA, IAD 172,072
Chicago ORD, MDW 141,419
Atlanta ATL 132,640
Hawaii HNL, OGG 125,753
Portland PDX 125,409
Boston BOS 114,197
Houston IAH, HOU 107,700
Austin AUS 84,286
Sacramento SAC 76,994
Minneapolis/St. Paul MSP 75,013
Detroit DTW 60,442
Philadelphia PHL 55,313
Boise BOI 31,185
Spokane GEG 29,555
Anchorage ANC 25,401
Top 24 Total 4,069,141
Remaining 1,792,625
Total: 100.0% 5,861,766
Source: USDOT
The future level of aviation activity and enplaned passenger traffic at the Airport will depend upon factors
such as regional, national and international economic conditions, the regional, national and international recovery of
air travel from COVID-19, Delta maintaining its operating hub at the Airport, potential security threats, and the
financial condition of individual airlines and their continued service at the Airport. See “INVESTMENT
CONSIDERATIONS” below.
Aircraft Operations and Landed Weights
Total aircraft operations at the Airport increased from 315,585 in FY 2016 to 341,064 in FY 2019; however,
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, total aircraft operations decreased to 303,042 in FY 2020. Prior to a 12.3%
decrease in FY 2020 compared to FY 2019, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, landed weights increased from
13,581,663 thousand pounds of landed weight in FY 2016 to 15,465,060 in FY 2019, reflecting the shift from smaller
regional jets to larger aircraft. This trend is also shown by the shift in passengers from Delta’s regional carriers (“Delta
Connection”) to Delta’s mainline service. Total Delta enplanements between FY 2016 and FY 2019 increased from
Draft
51
7.93 million passengers in FY 2016 to 9.46 million in FY 2019, the number of enplaned passengers on Delta’s mainline
aircraft rose from approximately 5.6 million in FY 2016 to 6.9 million in FY 2019.
The following tables show historical data on aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) for FY 2016 through
FY 2020, and landed weights for the same periods. The approximate distribution of operations in FY 2020 was 71%
air carriers, 21% general aviation, 7%, cargo, and 1% military. Note, however, that cargo operations were reduced
only marginally and cargo operations increased to constitute approximately 9% of the landed weights in the same
period.
SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
(total landings and takeoffs)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Passenger Aircraft 237,294 247,150 250,904 253,578 216,320
Cargo 19,434 20,240 20,382 20,618 20,604
General Aviation 50,879 48,843 53,695 61,117 63,326
Military 7,978 7,202 7,037 5,751 2,792
Total Operations 315,585 323,435 332,018 341,064 303,042
Annual Change (1.4%)2.5%2.7%2.7%(11.1%)
Source: Department Records
SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL LANDED WEIGHTS
(amounts in thousands of pounds)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Airlines 12,511,833 13,303,497 13,737,381 14,263,691 12,315,209
Cargo 1,069,830 1,106,147 1,171,564 1,201,369 1,246,304
Total 13,581,663 14,409,644 14,908,945 15,465,060 13,561,514
Annual Change 2.9%6.1%3.5%3.7%(12.3%)
Source: Department Records
Air Cargo
The Airport is also a regional center for processing air cargo. Approximately 221,385 U.S. tons of freight
and mail were loaded and unloaded on and off aircraft at the Airport in FY 2020. As of June 30, 2020, the Airport
was served by seven all-cargo and small package and express carriers. All-cargo carriers carry only cargo and these
companies include FedEx and UPS.
For FY 2020, the companies with the largest share of enplaned and deplaned cargo at the Airport, based on
cargo tonnage, were FedEx with 51.9%; UPS with 36.8%; Delta with 3.5%; Alpine Aviation with 1.3%; Ameriflight
with 1.1%; and Southwest with 0.8%. Together, these six carriers accounted for over 95% of total cargo and mail
handled at the Airport in FY 2020. The following table shows historical data on air cargo and mail shipped through
the Airport for FY 2016 through FY 2020.
Draft
52
SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL AIR CARGO AND MAIL
(amounts in U.S. tons)
Fiscal Year ended June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Cargo 175,453 183,525 190,143 203,950 199,985
Mail 16,420 17,020 20,712 20,293 21,400
Total 191,873 200,545 210,855 224,243 221,385
Annual Change 5.9%4.5%5.1%6.3%(1.3%)
Source: Department Records
Airline Use Agreement
General
The City has entered into an Airline Use Agreement (the “AUA”) with each of the following carriers: Alaska,
American, Delta, Frontier, JetBlue Airways, Southwest and United (each a “Signatory Airline”). Each AUA
terminates on June 30, 2024, unless earlier terminated, except that Delta has entered into an amendment to its AUA
extending the term for an additional ten years to June 30, 2034. Each of the other Signatory Airlines has been offered
the opportunity to extend the term of their AUA on the same terms as Delta, but as of [DATE], 2021, none of the other
Signatory Airlines has elected to extend the term of their AUA. The AUA may only be terminated by a Signatory
Airline for an extraordinary event, such as closure of or imposition of material and substantial restrictions on operation
of the Airport for more than 90 days. The AUA also allows a Signatory Airline to designate one or more airlines
meeting certain criteria as Affiliates. All of the passenger air carriers operating at the Airport are Signatory Airlines
or their Affiliates. The AUA with each Signatory Airline is in substantially the same form and provides for the lease
of specified airline premises on an exclusive or preferential basis, depending upon the type of space, as well as use of
certain common and joint use facilities. Gates and ticket counters are leased on a preferential basis, pursuant to which
the Department may reallocate space to another airline in periods during which the Signatory Airline does not have a
scheduled operation using such facilities. Offices and passenger clubs/lounges are leased on an exclusive use basis,
and baggage and certain other areas are joint or common use facilities. In addition, the Department currently has not
leased and has reserved three gates and five aircraft hardstand positions as common use facilities. The AUA also
provides for reallocation of space by the Department, either on its own initiative, in which case moving costs will be
paid by the Department, or at the Signatory Airline’s request, in which case all costs are paid by the requesting
Signatory Airline. The AUA grants the Signatory Airlines the right to operate at the Airport. The form of the AUA
is set forth in APPENDIX D hereof.
Rates & Charges
The AUA establishes the manner in which the Department will establish and collect rates and charges for use
of the Airport by Signatory Airlines. Pursuant to the AUA, the Department has established seven direct Cost and
Revenue Centers, including the Airfield and the Terminals and two indirect Cost Centers for general and
administrative (“G&A”) and roadway expenses. Landing fees for use of the airfield are calculated on a residual basis.
All budgeted costs allocable to the airfield, including operating expenses, debt service, amortization of capital costs
funded with Revenues other than the TRP and amounts necessary to replenish reserves allocable to the Airfield Cost
and Revenue Center, less Revenues allocable to the airfield other than landing fees, are divided by estimated landed
weights and recovered on the basis of actual landed weights of aircraft operated at the Airport. Landing fees are
charged monthly in arrears based upon actual landed weights for the preceding month.
The rental rate for terminal space is calculated on a commercial compensatory basis by dividing all budgeted
costs properly allocable to the Terminal Cost and Revenue Center, less Revenues from airlines that are not Signatory
Airlines, by the Rentable Airline Space within the Terminals to determine the rental rate. The rental rates are then
adjusted based upon whether the leased space has heating, ventilation and air conditioning, known as conditioned
Draft
53
space, or is unconditioned space. Baggage claim facilities are joint use facilities and charged by allocating 20% of
the revenue requirement for such facilities among all Signatory Airlines and 80% by the percentage of passengers of
each such carrier. For common use gate facilities, the Department establishes a per turn rate by determining the
highest cost per operation for all carriers, equal to the total of leased gate space multiplied by the conditioned rate per
square foot and then dividing that amount by 365, and then dividing that daily rate by the lowest number of scheduled
operations at any leased gate to determine the per turn fee. Rates for common use ticket counters and bag make-up
areas are similarly calculated to derive a daily rate for use of such space. Other fees that are charged for use of the
Airport’s aeronautical facilities include fees for international passengers to cover costs associated with the screening
of international passengers; charges for over-night aircraft parking; storage of ground service equipment; storage areas
and ticketing kiosks; and fees for employee badging and parking.
The Department has the right to recalculate rates and charges if budgeted costs, landed weights or rented
terminal space are likely to vary by more than 10% from the actual costs or estimates, or if recalculation is required
by the Master Indenture. Within 120 days after the close of each Fiscal Year, the Department calculates the actual
costs and expenses and the amounts collected in landing fees, terminal rents and other charges for the prior Fiscal
Year and, if the amount collected exceeded or was less than the actual revenue requirements, the difference or shortfall
is included in the rates for the second Fiscal Year following the Fiscal Year of such operations. See “ – Airport
Financial Operations – Management’s Discussion and Analysis – Terminal Rents” below.
The Department shares a portion of certain concession revenues with the Signatory Airlines in the amount of
$1 per enplaned passenger for up to 10,000,000 enplaned passengers and additional amounts if enplaned passengers
exceed 10,000,000; provided, however, that the total revenue sharing amount in any Fiscal Year cannot exceed the
least of (i) 30% of Net Remaining Revenue; (ii) the total amount of Annual Adjusted Gross Revenues for Selected
Concessions; and (iii) the Calculated Revenue Sharing Amount. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 such revenue sharing
totaled $14.1 million and $10.1 million, respectively. The decrease in FY 2020 was caused by a reduction in enplaned
passengers at the Airport due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The AUA also provides for extraordinary coverage protection if the Department expects to fail to meet the
rate covenant under the Master Indenture. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS – Rate Covenant.”
Under the AUA, if in any Fiscal Year the amount of Revenues less Operating Expenses is projected to be less than
the sum of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest due in that Fiscal Year on the Bonds and subordinated
indebtedness, if any, then Outstanding, plus 25% of such Debt Service on Bonds and the amount required under the
agreement providing for the issuance of such subordinated indebtedness, then the Signatory Airlines will make
extraordinary coverage protection payments in addition to landing fees and terminal rents. Such payments shall be
allocated among the Signatory Airlines in a fair and not unjustly discriminatory manner to the landing fee or terminal
rentals or both in the reasonable discretion of the Executive Director.
See “APPENDIX D – FORM OF AIRLINE USE AGREEMENT – Rates and Charges.”
The New SLC and Other Construction Projects
Each Signatory Airline, by execution of the AUA, has approved the TRP. The NCP was approved
unanimously by the Signatory Airlines in April 2016 in accordance with the provisions of the AUA for approval of
additional capital projects in the Terminal and Airfield Cost and Revenue Centers. Certain other capital investments
at the Airport are subject to approval by at least one of the Signatory Airlines, following consultation between the
Department and the Signatory Airlines, before the Department may undertake such improvements; provided, that
certain capital projects, such as those mandated by the FAA, USDOT or TSA, projects to repair casualty damage,
projects at Cost and Revenue Centers other than the Airfield or Terminal, reasonable repairs, emergency expenditures,
projects funded with PFCs, CFCs or grants, or projects undertaken for and funded by a Signatory Airline may be
undertaken without Signatory Airline approval.
The AUA requires that the Signatory Airlines appoint an Airline Technical Representative to represent them
in matters pertaining to the TRP. The Airline Technical Representative must participate in design review, attend
meetings of the Airport’s Financial Oversight and Construction Committees, and may inspect and review construction
and make recommendations to the Department regarding matters related to the New SLC. The Department must
consult with the Airline Technical Representative in the development of contract documents and construction
schedules, and in the event of certain cost increases. The cost of the TRP originally approved in the AUA was $1.782
billion. This total cost may be increased with the approval of 55% of the Signatory Airlines or Signatory Airlines that
Draft
54
collectively accounted for at least 55% of the terminal rents in the preceding Fiscal Year. Project costs may also be
increased without Signatory Airline approval to reflect additional costs because of causes beyond the City’s control
following review by the Airline Technical Representative or for elements of the TRP undertaken to satisfy the request
of a Signatory Airline as long as such Airline pays such additional costs.
Because of a robust construction market in the Salt Lake City area as well as nationally, bids for elements of
the TRP exceeded the program budget established in 2014 by nearly 20%. On March 16, 2021, Delta, acting on behalf
of the Signatory Airlines pursuant to the AUA, agreed to an increase in the overall cost of the New SLC to an estimated
construction cost, of $4.45 billion, an increase of approximately $352 million. The full cost of the TRP, including
soft costs, is estimated to be $2.71 billion. Delta accounted for approximately 73.6% of all Terminal rents paid to the
City in FY 2020, satisfying the requisite percentage for approval of a cost increase for the TRP under the AUA.
The current estimate of $1.73 billion for the NCP is based upon the final estimated costs for the Concourse
B West portion of the project and related projects and recent experience with construction costs in the Salt Lake City
area. Delta’s March 16, 2021 approval of the cost of the New SLC included an $187 million increase in the cost of
the NCP, reflecting both tenant scope additions, including hardstand expansion, passenger and baggage system
enhancements, and an accelerated schedule cutting one to two years from the construction schedule, as well as cost
escalations due to materials pricing impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and a robust construction environment in
the Salt Lake City area
In the event of cost increases where the actual bid for a contract exceeds the estimate by more than 10%, or
total costs of a project contract, including change orders, exceed the total estimated cost of that element of the TRP
by 10%, then the City must meet with the Airline Technical Representative prior to the award of any further contracts
and seek agreement on a method of revising the TRP or accepting such increased costs. If the Department and the
Airline Technical Representative cannot agree, then a majority of a committee composed of the Program Director, the
Department’s Chief Financial Officer and the Airline Technical Representative shall make recommendations to the
Executive Director regarding revising such contract to bring costs within the allowable limits. Change orders that
would increase the amount of any contract by the greater of $250,000 or more than 10% of the original contract must
also be submitted to the Airline Technical Representative for review and comment before execution by the
Department. See “APPENDIX D — FORM OF AIRLINE USE AGREEMENT — Capital Investments — Special
Provisions for the Project.”
Airport Financial Operations
The Department is an enterprise fund of the City and receives no City funding. All Revenues generated by
the Airport System are deposited in the Revenue Fund and applied in accordance with the Master Indenture. No City
general tax revenues are used for any Airport purpose.
Management’s Discussion of Historical Operating Results
The Department prepares its financial statements on an accrual basis in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles as set forth by the Government Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”). Revenues and expenses
are recorded when earned and incurred, not when received or paid, except for PFCs, which are recorded when received.
The Department’s financial statements for the Fiscal Years ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, audited by Eide Bailly
LLP, are attached to this Official Statement as APPENDIX A. See also “INDEPENDENT AUDITORS” herein.
The Department receives Revenues from a variety of sources, including from airlines for both landing fees
and terminal rents, parking facilities, rental car operators, in-terminal concessions, ground transportation fees, other
airline fees and miscellaneous revenues. The Department has pursued a strategy of maintaining a low cost per
enplanement (“CPE”) through maximizing non-airline revenues and sharing certain concessions revenues with the
Signatory Airlines, continually seeking ways to improve concessions and associated revenues generated at the Airport
and controlling operating expenses. Prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, non-airline Revenues
had increased for four consecutive fiscal years and represented approximately 64.5% of all Revenues received by the
Department in FY 2019, or a total of $111.9 million, compared to $89.5 million, or 63.5% of total Revenues in FY
2016. In FY 2020, non-airline revenues represented approximately 58.3% of all Revenues received by the
Department, or a total of $94.1 million, and airline revenues, net of revenue sharing, were approximately $67.2 million,
compared to $61.6 million in FY 2019. In addition, the Department accumulated PFC and CFC revenues as well as
excess Net Revenues from prior Fiscal Years in anticipation of TRP funding needs, although with the commencement
Draft
55
of construction of elements of the TRP in FY 2015, the amount of cash generated from Airport operations available
for future construction has diminished. At June 30, 2020, the Department held $265 million that is available for future
construction, including proceeds of the Series 2017 Bonds, proceeds of the Series 2018 Bonds, and Department
revenues, compared to $745 million at the end of FY 2017, all of which was generated from Department revenues.
The Department collected approximately $40.6 million in PFCs in FY 2020, including interest earnings, compared to
$49.7 million in FY 2019, and $12.5 million in CFCs in FY 2020 compared to $16.0 million in FY 2019. PFC and
CFC collections are used to fund eligible capital projects at the Airport. PFC and CFC collections are directly related
to passenger traffic at the Airport, with PFCs being collected only from eligible enplaned passengers, while CFCs are
paid by the portion of deplaned O&D passengers renting cars at the Airport.
The Department manages its costs in order to maintain a low CPE; however, due to the reduction in enplaned
passengers resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the average airline CPE increased 38%, from $3.90 in FY 2019
to $5.41 in FY 2020. CPE is forecast to be $11.07 in FY 2021 and is budgeted to be $11.56 in FY 2022. Although
the Department anticipates that its operating expenses will increase as elements of the New SLC are placed in service,
management also anticipates that the new structures and energy efficient design of the New SLC will reduce certain
costs on a per square foot basis, such as energy and routine capital maintenance, compared to the cost of operating
and maintaining its former aging and inefficient facilities. See “REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT” and
“APPENDIX B – REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT – Airline Revenues” regarding the Airport
Consultant’s projection of CPE at the Airport at completion of the New SLC.
The FAA has approved Department applications to impose and use a $4.50 PFC, as authorized by federal
legislation, and collect a total of $2.158 billion of PFCs through approximately April 1, 2037. The revenues from
PFCs are dedicated to certain FAA-authorized capital projects and are excluded from the Revenues pledged under the
Master Indenture that secure the Bonds, except as expressly provided therein. However, PFCs may be applied to pay
debt service on the Bonds under certain circumstances. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS – Use of
PFCs to Pay Debt Service.” The Department also requires CFCs to be paid by rental car customers at the Airport.
The current CFC of $5 per day, with a limit of 12 transaction days, is collected by the rental car companies and paid
to the Department and held in a separate account for certain capital projects. CFC revenues are also excluded from
Revenues pledged under the Master Indenture securing the Bonds. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021
BONDS – Pledge of Net Revenues” herein.
The table below presents the Department’s Operating Revenues, Operating Expenses, Non-Operating
Revenues and Expenses and Net Position for Fiscal Years 2016 through 2020.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
Draft
56
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES AND EXPENSES
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020
through
March
FY 2021
through
March
Operating Revenues
Airfield $31,809,896 $35,333,251 $37,850,416 $40,799,238 $40,689,749 $35,666,101 $39,759,207
Terminals 50,070,474 52,951,540 56,371,640 60,286,589 58,015,237 47,051,227 53,104,924
Landside 57,912,911 64,364,602 68,304,466 72,852,990, 58,885,211 53,951,723 31,336,847
Auxiliary Airports 939,098 1,523,721 1,782,152 2,031,742 2,138,371 1,598,512 1,498,815
General Aviation 2,056,534 2,262,353 2,526,808 2,392,266 2,568,559 1,974,007 1,974,377
Support Areas 7,149,854 7,449,642 7,662,008 6,437,741 5,957,045 4,446,263 3,881,626
Other 2,035,050 3,090,190 4,057,479 2,739,183 3,169,004 4,230,360 3,595,926
Operating Revenues 151,973,817 166,975,299 178,554,969 187,539,749 171,423,176 148,918,193 135,151,721
Less: Airline Revenue
Sharing
(10,941,229) (12,169,163) (13,007,308) (14,076,885) (10,096,880) (110,973,183) (4,304,318)
Total Operating Revenues $141,032,588 $154,806,136 $165,547,661 $173,462,864 $161,326,296 $137,945,010 $130,847,403
Operating Expenses
Airfield $28,358,533 $30,038,981 $31,484,601 $31,305,225 $32,866,248 $25,130,219 $26,674,509
Terminals 37,150,225 40,038,056 41,079,201 40,435,158 47,183,508 35,379,548 42,549,948
Landside 11,237,669 12,336,435 12,522,236 10,081,900 11,223,893 8,095,606 10,118,031
Auxiliary Airports 1,746,575 3,054,345 3,253,108 4,241,437 4,534,580 3,933,043 3,427,355
General Aviation 996,707 2,890,348 995,461 877,645 892,387 677,623 650,608
Support Areas 1,130,272 1,347,481 1,235,761 1,661,436 1,600,159 1,315,038 1,254,303
Roads and Grounds 6,991,987 7,165,486 6,876,733 7,670,463 8,516,862 4,291,642 2,971,074
Other 2,453,128 2,588,726 2,529,250 2,161,008 3,085,500 2,088,424 1,766,756
Total Operating Expenses
Before Depreciation
90,065,096 99,459,858 99,976,351 98,434,272 109,903,136 80,911,143 88,412,584
Net Federal Grants (ex. AIP)3,908,282 40,236,291
Operating Income Before
Depreciation
50,967,492 55,346,278 64,429,382 75,028,592 55,331,442 57,033,867 82,671,110
Depreciation 61,656,896 63,664,986 63,826,718 63,549,763 57,604,443 49,634,691 86,427,988
Operating Income/(Loss)(10,689,404) (8,318,708) 602,664 11,478,829 (2,273,001) 7,399,176 (3,756,878)
Non-Operating Revenues
(Expenses)
Passenger Facility Charges 42,805,519 45,750,397 47,739,461 49,720,539 40,607,278 38,308,017 17,527,096
Customer Facility Charges 15,613,155 16,157,076 15,740,068 16,012,445 12,477,986 11,701,722 5,788,241
Net Bond interest expense - (14,479,594) (34,674,629) (72,222,513) (85,497,741) (67,897,544) (67,821,279)
Bond issuance costs - (3,453,689) - (3,129,538) - - (250,258)
Interest Income 2,782,668 21,782,631 36,964,373 19,360,991 16,060,563 1,514,544
Other revenue (expenses), net (488,665) (25,615) (2,501,999) 9,405,217 1,527,746 2,103,600 121,639
Net Non-Operating Revenue
(Expenses)
60,712,677 56,100,239 48,085,532 36,750,523 (11,523,740) 276,358 (43,120,027)
Capital Contributions 14,230,033 17,793,909 18,142,126 14,284,968 31,124,710 19,249,924 5,231,727
Net Position
Increase in Net Position 64,253,306 65,575,440 66,830,322 62,514,320 13,419,687 26,925,458 (41,645,168)
Net Position, Beginning of
Period
1,157,981,328 1,222,234,634 1,287,810,074 1,354,640,396 1,417,154,716 1,417,154,716 1,430,574,403
Net Position, End of Period $1,222,234,634 $1,287,810,074 $1,354,640,396 $1,417,154,716 $1,430,574,403 $1,444,080,174 $1,388,929,235
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airport Audited Financial Statements (FY) and internal records
Draft
57
Airline Revenues
The Department received approximately $67.2 million, or 41.7% of its total Revenues, in FY 2020 from the
airlines operating at the Airport, net of revenue sharing, compared to $61.6 million, or 35.5% of total Revenues, in
FY 2019; the Department credited approximately $10.1 million and $14.1 million of revenue sharing back to the
Signatory Airlines in FY 2020 and FY 2019, respectively, resulting in an average CPE of $5.41 in FY 2020 and $3.90
in FY 2019. Through March 2021, the Department received approximately $85.2 million, or 63.0% of its total
Revenues, from airlines operating at the Airport, net of revenue sharing, compared to $66.6 million, or 44.7% of total
Revenues through March 2020, and $59.9 million, or 40.7% of total Revenues, through March 2019. The Department
receives Revenues from the Signatory Airlines and other aviation users of the Airport’s facilities based on their use or
lease of the Airport’s aeronautical facilities. The primary sources of such revenues are landing fees, which are charged
by 1,000 pounds of landed weight, and terminal rents, which are charged on a per square foot basis or, for common
or joint use facilities, on a per passenger, per use or daily basis. Other aeronautical fees are derived from aircraft
parking (“remain overnight” or “RON”) fees, support building rentals, fuel farm charges and fees for use of the
passenger loading bridges. Landing fees and terminal rental rates are set annually by the Department pursuant to the
terms of the AUA. See “ – Airline Use Agreement” above. The tables below provide a summary of the sources of
the Department’s Revenues as well as a break-out of the sources of airline revenues by carrier.
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SUMMARY OF OPERATING REVENUES
(in thousands)
Fiscal Year ended June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 FY 2020
through
March
FY 2021
through
March
Landing Fees $27,023 $30,020 $32,742 $35,434 $35,638 $31,261 $36,681
Airline Terminal Space Rentals 28,500 29,775 31,028 33,432 34,645 30,278 42,984
Other Airline Revenues 6,931 6,844 6,799 6,769 7,031 5,049 5,524
Car Rental 22,142 27,186 29,181 29,856 25,372 22,785 15,712
Auto Parking Facilities 33,409 34,297 35,323 36,297 27,974 25,796 13,761
Other Terminal Rentals 30,859 35,042 39,041 42,046 37,634 30,585 17,876
Other Revenues 3,110 3,811 4,441 3,704 3,129 3,166 2,613
Credit: Revenue Sharing (10,941) (12,169) (13,007) (14,077) (10,097) (10,973) (4,304)
Total Operating Revenues $141,033 $154,806 $165,548 $173,461 $161,326 $137,947 $130,847
Source: Department Records
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
Draft
58
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SOURCES OF AIRLINE REVENUES
(in thousands)
Fiscal Year ended June 30
FY 2019 FY 2020
Airline
(includes affiliates)
Landing
Fees
% of
Total Rents
% of
Total
Landing
Fees
% of
Total Rents
% of
Total
Alaska $851 2.4%$819 2.5%$826 2.3%$984 2.8%
American 1,858 5.2 1,300 4.0 1,646 4.6 1,959 5.7
Delta 23,534 66.4 24,671 75.9 23,850 66.9 25,431 73.6
Frontier 540 1.5 494 1.5 484 1.4 548 1.6
JetBlue 875 2.5 508 1.6 796 2.2 664 1.9
Southwest 3,250 9.2 3,225 9.9 3,078 8.6 3,357 9.7
United 1,655 4.7 1,501 4.6 1,451 4.1 1,632 4.7
Other (1)2,871 8.1 -0.0 3,507 9.8 -0.0
TOTALS: $35,434 100.0% $32,518 100.0% $35,638 100.0% $34,575 100.0%
Source: Department Records
(1)Includes charter, cargo and commuter.
Landing Fees. Landing fees at the Airport increased slightly from $35.43 million in FY 2019 to $35.64
million in FY 2020. During this period the landing fee per thousand pounds of landed weight increased from $2.29
to $2.64. The landing fee for FY 2021 is $3.77, due to projected decreased landed weights, application of federal
CARES Act and CRRSA grants and reduced operating expenses. The landing fee for FY 2022 is budgeted to be
$3.96. Under the AUA, any variance between the landing fees collected and the direct and indirect costs of operating
the Airfield Cost and Revenue Center during a Fiscal Year is calculated after the Fiscal Year ends, and the adjustment
is either added to, in the case of a shortfall, or credited to, in the case of a surplus, the landing fee for the second
succeeding Fiscal Year, although the Department retains the ability to revise the landing fee if the amount to be
collected in any Fiscal Year is substantially less than the expected costs. Landed weights at the Airport decreased
from 15,465,060 thousand pounds in FY 2019 to 13,561,514 thousand pounds in FY 2020 due to reduced passenger
aircraft operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, landed
weights at the Airport steadily increased from FY 2016 through FY 2019. Through March 2021, landed weights at
the Airport decreased to 8,854,462 thousand pounds from 10,956,818 thousand pounds through March 2020 and
10,649,608 thousand pounds through March 2019.
Terminal Rents. Each Fiscal Year, the Department establishes terminal building rental rates and fees on a
commercial compensatory basis as required by the terms of the AUA. The annual calculation allows the Department
to recover its budgeted direct and indirect capital and operating costs for such leased terminal space, but the
Department bears the risk of not recovering the cost of any unleased terminal space. As of June 30, 2020, prior to
opening of the new Terminal and Concourse A West and Concourse B West, substantially all airline space at the
Airport was either leased, or in use on a common or joint use basis. Following opening of the new facilities, all gates
and substantially all other airline space was leased, except for three common use gates controlled by the Department.
Similar to the method described above for adjusting landing fees on an annual basis, terminal rates and fees are also
adjusted based on actual costs incurred and rents received. The Department calculates the variance from the budget
estimates after the Fiscal Year ends, and the adjustment is either added to the second succeeding year’s terminal rental
rate (in the case of a shortfall) or credited against such rental rate (in the case of a surplus). The Department does not
recover the costs allocable to unrented space through its terminal rentals. The Department can also make adjustments
during the year to the rates charged to the Signatory Airlines for terminal rentals.
The Department currently leases 43 of the 46 currently operational gates to various airlines serving the
Airport. The remaining gates are held for use on common use basis and airlines using such gates are charged a per
turn or daily fee. Current demand at the Airport has outstripped the number of gates available, and the Department
routinely requires Signatory Airlines to allow other airlines to operate from preferentially leased space during hours
when the Signatory Airline has no scheduled operation at the gate or to share common use gates. Delta also operates
from 15 hardstand positions and five additional hardstand positions are operated by the Department on a common use
Draft
59
basis. Passengers boarding at hardstand positions use temporary holdrooms located in Concourse B and are bused to
the aircraft. Upon completion of Concourse A, most hardstand operations are expected to cease and, upon completion
of the New SLC, the Department expects that there will be no hardstand operations. Terminal rental revenue from the
airlines in FY 2020 was $34.6 million, an increase of $1.1 million from the $33.5 million received in FY 2019, which
in turn was an increase of $2.5 million compared to the $31 million in terminal revenues received from the airlines in
FY 2018. The terminal rental rate for class 1 conditioned space was $75.62 per square foot in FY 2019 compared to
$78.51 per square foot in FY 2020. Through March 2021, terminal revenues received from the airlines operating at
the Airport increased to $42.6 million from $28.9 million through March 2020 and $25.1 million through March 2019.
The rate for FY 2021 is $120.03 per square foot, reflecting the costs associated with elements of the New SLC being
placed in service and debt service becoming payable following the capitalized interest period. The budgeted terminal
rental for FY 2022 is $187.04. Under the AUA, the Department is permitted to recover its budgeted costs of operating
and maintaining the terminal space as adjusted to account for actual costs, plus certain approved capital costs. The
approved capital costs include the capital costs of the New SLC, provided that the Department may not recover capital
costs of the New SLC paid with accumulated capital (Department funds), PFCs or AIP grants, and if costs increase
beyond certain limits, the Department and the Signatory Airlines must undertake a process to resolve the overruns.
See “ – Airline Use Agreement” above and “APPENDIX D — FORM OF THE AIRLINE USE AGREEMENT” for
a more complete discussion of the provisions of the AUA.
Other Airline Fees. As described above, the Department receives fees from the airlines operating at the
Airport from several other sources, including rental of support buildings, which generated $4.3 million in FY 2019
and $4.4 million in FY 2020; passenger loading bridge fees, which generated $1.7 million in FY 2019, compared to
$1.9 million in FY 2020; use of the fuel farm, which generates approximately $1.81 per year under a new agreement
effective January 1, 2021; and RON fees, which generated approximately $244,000 in FY 2019 and $158,000 in FY
2020.
Non-Airline Revenues
The Department seeks to maximize non-airline Revenues and shares a portion of certain Selected Concession
Revenues, as defined in the AUA, consisting of rents received from rental car concessions, excluding CFCs, and in-
terminal concession revenues, with the Signatory Airlines in order to maintain a low CPE and to promote expansion
of service by carriers. The primary sources of the Department’s non-airline Revenue are parking fees, rental car fees
and in-terminal concessions. Approximately $94.1 million, or 58.3% of total Revenues, were generated from non-
airline sources in FY 2020, compared to $111.9 million, or 64.5% of total Revenues in FY 2019. Non-airline revenues
for the nine-month period ending March 31, 2021 were $50.0 million compared to $82.3 million and $82.7 million
for the same nine-month period for fiscal years 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Parking Fees. Airport parking fees decreased from $36.3 million in FY 2019 to $28 million in FY 2020.
This decrease was primarily because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Parking fees are generated according to the parking
rates established by the Department. In FY 2020, the Department increased the daily rate for parking in the garage
from $32 to $35 and implemented a fee of $55 per day for Premium Reserved Parking. The Department does not
share parking fees with the Signatory Airlines as an offset to either landing fees or terminal rents; rather, the
Department retains the business risk and the return of this Cost and Revenue Center. Parking fees for the nine-month
period ending March 31, 2021 were $15.3 million compared to $32.3 million and $32.3 million for the same nine-
month period for fiscal years 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Rental Cars. Fees and rentals from car rental companies decreased from $29.9 million in FY 2019 to $25.4
million in FY 2020, primarily because of COVID-19 pandemic. Fees and rentals from car rental companies for the
nine-month period ending March 31, 2021 were $15.7 million compared to $22.8 million and $22.9 million for the
same nine-month period for fiscal years 2020 and 2019, respectively. The agreements with the rental car companies
for use of the new RSS and QTA facilities are for a ten year term commencing on March 1, 2016. These agreements
provide for a payment of an effective 11.1% commission on rental car revenues, plus fair market rent on a per square
foot basis for all facilities occupied by the rental car companies, plus CFCs. The rental car facilities are operated and
maintained by a third party engaged by the rental car companies. CFCs, which are not Revenues pledged to payment
of the Series 2021 Bonds, generated an additional $16 million in FY 2019 and $12.5 million in FY 2020, and will be
applied to fund certain capital construction related to rental car company operations at the Airport.
TNCs and Ground Transportation. As of July 1, 2020, the Department collects a charge of $2.50 for each
1-9 passenger vehicle operated by a TNC operator at the Airport that picks up or drops off a passenger, with a flat fee
Draft
60
of $10 per operation for vehicles with 10 or more seats. The fees prior to that ranged from $1.13 to $2.46 per pick up
or drop off. Since FY 2016, when TNCs were first permitted to operate at the Airport, TNC revenues to the Airport
have grown from approximately $247,100 to $3.1 million in FY 2020. Although ground transportation revenues from
other services at some airports that have a substantial TNC presence have declined in recent years, the Airport’s total
ground transportation revenues, excluding TNC revenues, increased slightly from $66.6 million in FY 2018 to $68.7
million in FY 2019, then decreased in FY 2020 to $55.5 million due to the reduction in passengers because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Although without TNC trips, other ground transportation trips have declined from
approximately 816,700 in FY 2018 to 804,000 in FY 2019 and 557,100 in FY 2020 (including a 1.6% decline in trips
between FY 2018 and FY 2020). However, total ground transportation revenues, including TNCs, increased from
$68.0 million in FY 2018 to $72.4 million in FY 2019 and decreased to $58.6 million in FY 2020. Ground
transportation revenue excluding TNCs for the nine-month period ending March 31, 2021 was $30.4 million compared
to $50.8 million and $51.8 million for the same nine-month period for fiscal years 2020 and 2019, respectively. Total
ground transportation revenue for the nine-month period ending March 31, 2021 was $31.4 million compared to $53.6
million and $54.5 million for the same nine-month period for fiscal years 2020 and 2019, respectively. As shown
above, although TNC operations have increased substantially since FY 2016, both parking and rental car revenues
have continued to grow. There can be no assurance, however, that TNC operations will not have an adverse impact
on parking fees, rental car revenues and other ground transportation revenues in the future.
Terminal Concessions. Revenue from concessions decreased from $20.5 million in FY 2019 to $16.7 million
in FY 2020, primarily because of decreased passengers due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenues from concessions
for the nine-month period ending March 31, 2021 were $6.3 million compared to $15.4 million and $15.5 million for
the same nine-month period for fiscal years 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Other Revenue Sources. The Department also derives Revenues from other sources, including cargo and
other building rentals, hangar rents for both air carrier maintenance facilities and for general aviation facilities at the
Auxiliary Airports, FBO rents and fees and other buildings leased by the Department, such as the new Touch n’ Go
Convenience Store and the Boeing assembly facility. Revenues from these sources totaled $4.6 million in FY 2020,
compared to $5 million in FY 2019. The decrease is a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Other revenues for the
nine-month period ending March 31, 2021 were $4.8 million compared to $5.1 million and $5.0 million for the same
nine-month period for fiscal years 2020 and 2019, respectively.
In addition to revenues, the Airport received a grant under the federal CARES Act in the amount of
approximately $82.5 million which may be used for any lawful purposes, including reimbursement of operating
expenses and debt service, of which $3.9 million was drawn and applied to operating expenses in fiscal year 2020.
The Airport expects to apply $66.0 million in fiscal year 2021 and the remaining $12.6 million in fiscal year 2022 to
reimburse the Airport for operating expenses, thereby reducing airline rates and charges. In addition, CRRSA provides
for additional grant funding for airports. The FAA has announced that the Airport will receive approximately $23.4
million under CRRSA, including approximately $2.75 million which must be used to provide rental relief to certain
concessions at the Airport, which it anticipates drawing down in fiscal year 2022 and applying to operating expenses.
The ARP Act passed in March 2021 will also provide additional relief funding to the Department. As described above,
use of these funds to offset O&M expenses reduces the rates and charges that must be paid by the airlines and other
tenants at the Airport and helps the Department meet its rate covenants. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021
BONDS – Rate Covenant.”
Operating Expenses
The Department’s operating expenses fall into six primary categories and include salaries and benefits,
materials and supplies, services, which include utilities, intergovernmental charges, and other operating expenses.
Operating expenses are allocated to each of the Revenue and Cost Centers and the indirect G&A and roadways Cost
Centers. Amounts allocable to the two aeronautical cost centers are recovered through landing fees and terminal
rentals, while the Department seeks to generate revenues in excess of the costs allocable to the other non-aeronautical
Revenue and Cost Centers from allocable rents, fees and charges. Costs allocable to the G&A and roadways Cost
Centers are allocated to and recovered from each of the seven direct Revenue and Cost Centers based upon the
proportion of the G&A and roadways services properly allocable to such Revenue and Cost Centers. The
Department’s management of operating expenses is an important aspect of maintaining the CPE at the Airport within
the Department’s desired range. As a result, the Department’s operating expenses (excluding capital outlays) have
increased at a compounded annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of 3.8% from FY 2017 through FY 2019 from a total of
$100.4 million in FY 2017 to $108.1 million in FY 2019. Net operating expenses in FY 2020, after application of
Draft
61
$3.9 million of CARES Act grant funds, were $108.5 million. The Department budgeted $148.22 million for operating
expenses in FY 2021, and forecasts that the actual net amount of operating expenses for FY 2021 will be $68.7 million,
after application of $66.0 million of CARES Act funds, reflecting the opening of elements of the New SLC in the fall
of 2020. The Department has budgeted $161.38 million for operating expenses in FY 2022, reflecting the increased
costs of operating and maintaining the new, larger facilities of the New SLC, which is expected to be offset by
additional CARES Act and CRRSA grant funds. Operating expenses for the nine-month period ending March 31,
2021 were $88.4 million compared to $80.9 million and $75.2 million for the same nine-month period for fiscal years
2020 and 2019, respectively.
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENSES
(in thousands)
Fiscal Year ended June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 FY 2020
through
March
FY 2021
through
March
Personnel Services $45,096 $49,350 $50,076 $40,258 $48,584 $36,213 $37,277
Charges/Services/Fees 20,811 24,901 23,996 26,300 25,118 19,941 26,849
Operational Maintenance Supplies 10,940 11,725 11,343 12,610 12,381 8,306 8,009
Utilities 6,175 5,946 6,166 5,721 5,697 5,245 4,440
Fire Services 4,597 4,886 5,130 5,364 5,587 3,831 3,946
Police Services -- -- -- 3,8918,332 6,225 6,225
Salt Lake City Administration 2,446 2,651 3,265 4,288 4,204 1,150 1,667
Total Operating Expenses $90,065 $99,459 $99,976 $98,433 $109,903 $80,911 $88,413
Source: Department Records
* Starting on January 1, 2019, the Airport Police combined with Salt Lake City Police, and all wages, benefits, and operating expenses are broken
out separately.
The Department’s largest expense is personnel services (salaries and benefits), which were $48.6 million in
FY 2020, a 20.6% increase from the $40.3 million in FY 2019, and which comprised approximately 44.2% of the total
operating expenses for FY 2020. The Department pays salaries and wages of its employees directly and reimburses
the City for its share of fringe benefits, including insurance and pension benefits allocable to the Department’s staff.
Services represent the second largest category of the Department’s operating expenses and include costs
associated with outsourcing parking lot operations, shuttle bus services, janitorial services and professional and
consulting services. Services for FY 2020 were $25.1 million, or 22.9% of total operating expenses for the Fiscal
Year, and decreased from $26.3 million in FY 2019, or 26.7%. Since FY 2016, the costs of services increased from
$20.8 million to $25.1 million in FY 2020, an increase of 20.7%. The decrease in FY 2020 compared to FY 2019 was
primarily from reduced services provided at the Airport as a result of the pandemic, primarily in parking and ground
transportation. Operational maintenance supplies constituted approximately 11.3% of the Department’s operating
expenses and were $12.4 million in FY 2020, compared to $12.6 million in FY 2019. Intergovernmental charges
comprised approximately 16.5% of the total operating expenses for FY 2020, and were $18.1 million, compared to
$13.5 million in FY 2019. These charges consist primarily of reimbursements to the City for the costs associated with
the City’s provision of aircraft rescue and firefighting services at the Airport, which accounted for $5.6 million of
such costs in FY 2020, compared to $5.4 million in FY 2019, as well as reimbursement for other centralized services,
such as legal, accounts payable, purchasing, human resources and contract management services. Starting on January
1, 2019, the Airport Police combined with Salt Lake City Police, and the Department now reimburses the City for the
actual direct and indirect costs of the salaries, benefits and related expenses of the police officers assigned to the
Airport, which accounted for $8.3 million in FY 2020, compared to $3.9 million in the second half of FY 2019.
Liquidity
The table below shows the Airport’s liquidity position for the past five fiscal years. The table below does not include
any unused and available draws on the Line of Credit, which is available for any lawful use at the Airport. The table
below also does not reflect application of the remaining CARES Act Funds ($12.6 million) nor the CRRSA grant
funds ($20.7 million), which the Department expects to apply in FY 2022 to pay a portion of O&M expenses, or any
Draft
62
amounts to be received by the Department as ARPA grant funds. The table includes proceeds held in both the PFC
and CFC Accounts. The Department expects to expend the majority of PFCs collected towards payment of principal
of and interest on Bonds issued to fund PFC-eligible elements of the TRP, and the Department expects to apply CFCs
to reimburse itself for a portion of the costs of the recently completed Parking Facility that will serve rental car
companies, and elements of the roadway system serving the rental car facilities.
Airport Liquidity Position and Days Cash on Hand
Fiscal Years 2016 – 2020
(ended June 30)
($ in 000’s)
Fund Balances FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Unrestricted
cash†$242,497 $181,571 $255,628 $462,861 $402,435
O&M Reserve* 21,300 22,600 23,300 25,300 28,600
CFC Account 1,800 3,300 266 1,700 2,400
PFC Account 120,300 163,200 9,100 10,200 12,100
Debt Service
Reserve Fund**0 240,783 200,842 314,345 219,819
Total Reserves
and Unrestricted
Cash [A]$385,897 $611,454 $489,136 $814,406 $665,354
O&M Expenses
[B]††$90,065 $99,459 $99,976 $98,433 $109,903
Days Cash on
Hand [A] /
([B]/365/366)1,569 2,244 1,785 3,016 2,216
Source: Department Records
†Reflects amounts in the Surplus and Revenue Funds.
* Includes $5 million for renewal and replacement reserve fund per the AUA.
** Also includes capitalized interest
††Excluding depreciation
Personnel Considerations
As of June 30, 2020, the Department had 498 full-time-equivalent employees. Approximately 80.5% of the
Department’s employees are employed in the Maintenance (242) and Operations (159) Departments.
Prior to July 1, 2019, the Airport’s police officers were direct employees of the Department. However, the
City and the Department agreed to transfer the Department’s police officers to the City’s Police Department, effective
as of January 1, 2019. The Department retains a small staff of dedicated Airport police officers, but the Airport police
officers have direct supervision and back-up from the remainder of the City’s police force and are direct employees
of the City. The Department reimburses the City for the actual direct and indirect costs of the salaries, benefits and
related expenses of the police officers assigned to the Airport. According to the Department, the transfer of the
Airport’s police officers to the City’s Police Department has not resulted in a material difference between the costs
budgeted by the Department for police services and the actual costs charged by the City.
The Department reimburses the City for the actual direct and indirect cost of providing Aircraft Rescue and
Fire Fighting, Police and certain other services. The City and Local 1004 of the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (“AFSCME”), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) was
renegotiated in June 2020 and will expire in June 2023, replacing the prior MOU with AFSCME that was in effect
through June 27, 2020, to establish the wages, benefits and employment conditions of eligible employees identified
Draft
63
by the City as required by the Collective Bargaining and Employee Representation Joint Resolution dated March 22,
2011, including 252 unionized City employees at the Airport as of March 30, 2021. In addition to other eligible City
employees, the MOU covers all Public Safety and certain maintenance employees, Airport Operations Coordinators
and eligible employees in the Police and Fire Department, including those who serve at the Airport. Pursuant to the
MOU, AFSCME has agreed not to engage or encourage employees to engage in any strike, work stoppage or other
collective concerted withholding of services. No eligible employee under the MOU will receive any benefits or wages
while he or she is engaged in a strike, work stoppage or other interruption of work.
The Department considers its relations with its employees and the union representatives of the City’s public
safety employees that are members of AFSCME Local 1004 to be good.
Certain users of the Department’s facilities that generate a substantial portion of the Department’s Revenues,
such as the air carriers, are dependent upon successful management of their own labor relations for continuation of
their operations. These matters are beyond the control of the Department, and significant labor disputes in these areas
could have an adverse effect on the Department’s Revenues.
Retirement and Other Post-Employment Benefits
Employee Workforce and Retirement System. The Department participates in the Utah Retirement Systems,
which provide three cost-sharing multiple-employer public employee retirement systems and one multiple employer
agent system, each of which are defined benefit retirement plans covering public employees of the State and employees
of participating local governmental entities (the “URS”). The URS are administered under the direction of the Utah
State Retirement Board (the “URS Board”) whose members are appointed by the Governor of Utah. Each year, as
approved by the State Legislature, the URS Board sets rates, enacts rules and implements policies related to the
pensions and benefits the Department’s retirees receive. Starting in FY 2014-15, GASB Statement Number 68 requires
URS to pass on pension and retirement liability to public entities it serves, including the Department. Working with
the Department’s independent auditors and State specialists, this net pension liability has been recorded on the
Department’s financial statements for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2020 in the amount of $8.4 million. The
Department contributed $5.4 million in FY 2020, $5.2 million in FY 2019 and $6.5 million in FY 2018 to the URS
with respect to the pension and retirement liabilities of its employees.
See “APPENDIX A — SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS COMPREHENSIVE
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2020
AND JUNE 30, 2019— Notes to Financial Statements — 7 — Pension Plans.”
Other Postemployment Benefits. As a result of a City-wide undertaking, commencing January 1, 2016, all
postemployment benefits other than pensions for City employees, including those employed by the Department, were
terminated. No contributions have been made since January 31, 2016 and none are expected to be made going forward.
For additional information regarding the City’s postemployment benefits see “APPENDIX A — SALT LAKE CITY
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2020
AND 2019 — “Notes to Financial Statements - Pension Plans” and “Other Post-employment Benefits.”
Risk Management
The Department carries a general liability policy with a maximum limit of $500,000,000 covering bodily
injury, property damage, excess auto liability off of the Airport and hangarkeeper’s liability. The policy includes
sublimits of $50 million for each occurrence for personal and advertising injury, and a $50 million excess of the
$500,000 self-insured retention for commercial automobiles. The Airport also carries war liability/TRIA coverage of
$50,000,000. The Airport facilities are covered by an all risk property insurance policy with a maximum limit of
$1,000,000,000 and $100,000 deductible per occurrence. Earth movement and flood coverage each carry sub-limits
of $100,000,000 with a 1% deductible per location, subject to a $100,000 minimum and $5,000,000 maximum
deductible for all locations in any one occurrence (defined as a 168-hour period). Windstorm or hail carries a
$100,000,000 limit and a 5% deductible, subject to a minimum $250,000 deductible per occurrence. Business
Interruption is covered at $200,000,000 with a 2% deductible, subject to a minimum $100,000 deductible up to a
maximum $5,000,000 per occurrence. Cyber and technology coverage, including data breach response, is covered up
to $5,000,000, with a $50,000 deductible. The Airport carries $30,000,000 of excess liability workers’ compensation
coverage above its self-insured retention of $750,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 employer’s liability coverage
per occurrence. The Department carries commercial automobile liability coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence with
Draft
64
no deductible, plus $2 million of business auto liability coverage, combined single limit.
Contractors, including the CMAR, are required to carry builders’ risk insurance covering all facilities under
construction during the full period of construction. As elements of the New SLC are completed, the Department
expects to continue evaluating its coverage limits and increase them as appropriate to account for the increased value
of the new construction.
Pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to the HDJV CMAR Contract, HDJV has provided, is administrating and has
implemented a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program (“CCIP”) that covers on-site exposures for HDJV and, with
limited exceptions, all subcontractors performing work on the TRP. Demolition and environmental remediation
contracts; off-site labor or fabrication; architects, engineers and consultants; contracts under $20,000; and work, labor,
transportation and other activities outside the boundaries of the TRP site are excluded from participation in the CCIP.
The coverage provided under the CCIP includes on-site Worker’s Compensation, on-site Employer’s Liability, on-
site general liability and on-site excess liability insurance with combined limits equal to $25,000,000. Under its
CMAR Contract, HDJV also is required to carry additional insurance coverage, including builder’s risk and
professional liability coverage. The City is included as an additional insured on all such policies of insurance except
Worker’s Compensation. HDJV’s policies of insurance are primary and any other insurance carried by the City are
excess and not contributing.
The City Treasurer is covered under a $10,000,000 public official’s bond. The City also has: (1) public
employee dishonesty insurance (an employee “blanket policy”) with a $1,000,000 limit for theft and a $20,000
deductible, and (2) public entity excess liability coverage of $2,000,000 in excess of a $1,000,000 self-insured
retention. The City is self-insured for losses above the limits and below the deductibles. Further, the City is self-
insured for unemployment. The Risk Management Fund, an internal service fund, has been established to pay these
claims along with health insurance premiums and certain administrative expenses. During the past three fiscal years,
there have been no settlements that exceeded the self-insured retentions.
Debt Management Policy
The City maintains a Debt Management Policy (“Debt Policy”) that is applicable to the Bonds issued by the
City for the benefit of the Department. The Series 2021 Bonds comply with the requirements of the Debt Policy. The
Debt Policy covers the types of debt that the City may issue; the legal, policy and financial limits that govern the
issuance of debt and use of the proceeds of such debt; debt structuring practices; debt issuance practices; and debt
administration and management practices, including tax law requirements, arbitrage regulations and disclosure
practices.
Futures, options other than options to enter into swaps, calls or puts are not legal investments under the Money
Management Act. Interest rate exchange or swap contracts, cash flow exchange or swap contracts, any derivatives of
these contracts, including forward swaps and options to enter into swaps, and interest rate floors, caps and collars may
only be entered into if it is first determined that such contract (a) is designed to reduce the amount or duration of
payment, rate, spread or similar risk or (b) is reasonably anticipated to result in a lower borrowing cost. Such contracts
are to be utilized for the control or management of debt or the cost of servicing debt and not for speculation. It is the
City’s current practice not to enter into such derivative contracts, but no assurance can be given that the City or
Department will not enter into such contracts in the future.
Investment Policy
City Policy. It is the policy of the City to invest public funds, of which the Department’s funds are a part, in
accordance with the principles of sound treasury management and in compliance with State and local laws, regulations
and other policies governing the investment of public funds, specifically, according to the terms and conditions of the
State Money Management Act of 1974 and Rules of the State Money Management Council as currently amended
(collectively, the “Money Management Act”), and the City’s own written investment policy. The following investment
objectives, in order of priority, are required to be met when investing public funds: (1) legality, (2) safety of principal,
(3) need for liquidity, (4) maximum yield on investments consistent with the first three objectives and (5) maturity of
investments, so that the maturity date does not exceed the anticipated date of the expenditure of funds or as required
by the Money Management Act. Bond and note proceeds and all funds pledged or otherwise dedicated to the payment
of principal of and interest on those bonds and notes will be invested in accordance with the applicable terms of the
borrowing instruments, the Master Indenture in the case of the Department, or if silent or less restrictive, then in
Draft
65
accordance with Section 571-7-11 of the Money Management Act. See also “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021
BONDS – Permitted Investments” and “APPENDIX C – FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE – Article I –
Definitions; Interpretation; and – Article VI – Investment of Moneys; Permitted Investments,” relating to investment
of Series 2021 Bond proceeds and amounts held in the funds and accounts under the Indenture.
The City may use investment advisers to conduct investment transactions on its behalf as permitted by the
Money Management Act and local ordinance or policy. Investment advisers must be certified by the Director of the
Utah State Division of Securities of the Department of Commerce. Only qualified depositories as certified by Utah’s
Commissioner of Financial Institutions are eligible to receive and hold deposits of public funds. The State Money
Management Council issues a quarterly list of certified investment advisers, certified dealers and qualified depositories
authorized by State statute to conduct transactions with public treasurers. Transactions involving authorized deposits
or investments of public funds may be conducted only through issuers of securities authorized by Section 51-7-11(3)
of the Utah Code, qualified depositories included in the current State list, and certified dealers included in the current
State list. The City Treasurer must take delivery of all investments purchased, including those purchased through a
certified investment adviser. This may be accomplished by the City Treasurer taking physical delivery of the security
or delivering the security to a bank or trust company designated by the City Treasurer for safekeeping. The City
Treasurer may use a qualified depository bank for safekeeping securities or maintain an account with a money center
bank for the purpose of settling investment transactions and safekeeping and collecting those investments.
In FY 2011 the Department began investing certain of its funds in U.S. Treasury and Agency notes, rather
than in the Utah State Public Treasurer’s Investment Fund (“PTIF”), in order to increase return on restricted and
reserved funds. As of June 30, 2020, the Department held $____ million in such investments.
City policy provides that not more than 25% of total City funds or 25% of the qualified depository’s allotment,
whichever is less, can be invested in any one qualified depository. Not more than 20% of total City funds may be
invested in any one certified out-of-state depository institution. However, there is no limitation placed on the amount
invested with the PTIF and other money market mutual funds, provided that the overall standards of investments
achieve the City’s policy objectives.
The City’s entire portfolio, including the invested funds of the Department, is currently in compliance with
all of the provisions of the Money Management Act.
The Utah Public Treasurers’ Investment Fund. The PTIF is a local government investment fund, established
in 1981, and managed by the State Treasurer. As of June 30, 2020, Department funds on deposit in the PTIF totaled
approximately $312.3 million, which represents a substantial portion of the Department’s funds. All investments in
the PTIF must comply with the Money Management Act and rules of the State Money Management Council. The
PTIF invests primarily in money market securities. Securities in the PTIF include certificates of deposit, commercial
paper, short-term corporate notes, obligations of the U.S. Treasury and securities of certain agencies of the federal
government. By policy, the maximum weighted average adjusted life of the portfolio is not to exceed 90 days and the
maximum final maturity of any security purchased by the PTIF is limited to five years. Safekeeping and audit controls
for all investments owned by the PTIF must comply with the Money Management Act. The PTIF is not rated, and the
average maturities of those investments is not known.
All securities purchased are delivered versus payment to the custody of the State Treasurer or the State
Treasurer’s safekeeping bank, assuring a perfected interest in the securities. Securities owned by the PTIF are
completely segregated from securities owned by the State. The State has no claim on assets owned by the PTIF except
for any investment of State moneys in the PTIF. Deposits are not insured or otherwise guaranteed by the State.
Investment activity of the State Treasurer in the management of the PTIF is reviewed monthly by the State
Money Management Council and is audited by the State Auditor.
The information in this section concerning the current status of the PTIF has been obtained from sources the
Department believes to be reliable, but the Department and the City take no responsibility for the accuracy thereof.
See “APPENDIX A – COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2020 AND JUNE 30, 2019 — Notes to the Financial Statements —
Note 2 – Deposits and Investments.”
Draft
66
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE FACTORS
Environmental and Sustainability Factors
For many years, the Department has maintained a strong focus on reducing the impacts of the Airport’s
operations and benefitting the greater Salt Lake City community. Sustainability is a core value of the Department and
the Department has taken many steps to enhance sustainability. For example, the Department anticipates achieving
LEED gold certification for the entire New SLC, in compliance with City ordinance. The New SLC replaces older,
energy inefficient buildings with new, highly efficient buildings that are expected to reduce energy consumption per
square foot substantially. The Department has invested significant sums in reducing emissions at the Airport through
the use of alternative fuels and electrified ground service (“GSE”) equipment and other vehicles, increasing renewable
energy generation, diverting waste from landfills and conserving water resources. The New SLC includes provision
of charging infrastructure that will enable the airlines operating at the Airport to electrify their GSE. The restrooms in
the New SLC all feature touchless faucets, reducing wasted water and increasing hygiene. Reflecting the
Department’s success in reducing emissions, the Airport recently advanced from Level 2 to Level 3 in the Airport
Carbon Accreditation Program.
The New SLC has been designed to meet current requirements for seismic resiliency up to a category 7.0
earthquake. Segments of the Wasatch Fault, which is an active fault located primarily on the western edge of the
Wasatch Mountains, underlie Salt Lake City. A category 5.7 earthquake struck Salt Lake City in March 2020. None
of the elements of the New SLC sustained any significant damage. See “THE NEW SLC – Summary of the New
SLC.” [MORE TO COME]
Social Factors
The Department is also focused on benefitting all of the disparate people that live and work in the Salt Lake
City area. The Department’s diversity and inclusion program seeks to ensure that the Department’s workforce, and
that of its airline and concessionaire partners, reflects the diversity of the Salt Lake City community. The Department
is a leader in health and safety. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department instituted a series of actions
designed to protect its workers, including the trades people working on the New SLC. The result was a dramatic
reduction in illness and injury well below industry averages, as well as opening the first phase of the New SLC on
time. In addition, the Department instituted its Fly Healthy Promise through enhanced efforts to clean its facilities,
adding hand sanitizer stations, installing handrail cleaning systems, placing plexiglass shields at key locations and
enveloping seating area with anti-bacterial fog. Similarly, the Department works to ensure that it maintains good
relations with all of its workers through ______ and provides education and training opportunities to allow its
employees to grow and advance. [MORE TO COME]
Governance Factors
The Department’s mission is to develop and manage a system of airports, owned by the City, which provides
quality transportation facilities and services to optimize convenience, safety and efficiency for aviation customers.
The Department’s vision is to achieve excellence and unprecedented customer service in making Salt Lake City among
the most convenient and efficient air transportation centers in the world.
The Mayor appoints and the City Council approves the appointment of the Executive Director of the
Department. See “THE AIRPORT – The City.” An Advisory Board reports to the Mayor and makes
recommendations regarding the operation and management of the Airport System. The Department is an enterprise
fund and a self-sustaining organization requiring no funding from property taxes, general funds of local governments
or special district taxes. The Department’s budgets are prepared by Department staff and submitted to and approved
by the Mayor and City Council.
The City owns the Airport, South Valley and Tooele, all of which are operated and managed by the
Department. The Mayor of the City and the City Council oversee the Department’s affairs. The Mayor is also advised
by the Airport Advisory Board. The day-to-day operations of the Airport System are managed by the Executive
Director, who reports directly to the Mayor. The executive team of the Department is a full-time staff of professional
and technical personnel located at the Airport. See “THE AIRPORT– The City” and “Airport Management.” [MORE
TO COME]
Draft
67
REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT
General
[To be refined to conform with final L&B Report]
The Department has retained the firm of Landrum & Brown, Inc., as recognized experts in their field, to
prepare a report on traffic, revenues, expenses, the New SLC and financial analyses in connection with the issuance
of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Airport Consultant has prepared a Report of the Airport Consultant dated _________,
2021 (the “Report of the Airport Consultant” or the “Report”) in connection with the issuance of the Series 2021
Bonds. The Airport Consultant has consented to the Report of the Airport Consultant being included in this Official
Statement as APPENDIX B. This Report should be read in its entirety for an explanation of the assumptions and
methodology used therein.
The Report of the Airport Consultant is divided into five sections plus a cover letter summarizing the Airport
Consultant’s conclusions. Section 1 discusses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 2 provides an overview
of the role of the Airport and the economic base for air traffic at the Airport. Section 3 reviews air service at the
Airport and provides air traffic projections of air service activity at the Airport for the period from FY 2021 through
FY 2028, the expected period of construction of the New SLC (the “projection period”). Section 4 reviews the existing
Airport facilities and the capital program, generally consisting of the New SLC, as well as the on-going capital projects
through FY 2024. Section 5 of the Report reviews the Department’s financial framework and provides a financial
analysis, concluding with projections of net revenues and debt service coverage through FY 2028, calculated in
accordance with the Master Indenture. In preparation of the projections in its Report, the Airport Consultant has made
certain assumptions with respect to conditions that may occur and the course of action management expects to take
during the projection period. The Airport Consultant has relied upon Department staff for representations about its
plans and expectations and for disclosure of significant information that might affect the realization of projected
results. Department staff has reviewed these assumptions and concur that they provide a reasonable basis for the
purpose of the projection. While the Department and the Airport Consultant believe these assumptions to be
reasonable for the purpose of the projections, they are dependent upon future events, and actual conditions may differ
from those assumed in the analysis. To the extent actual future factors differ from those assumed by the Airport
Consultant or provided to the Airport Consultant by others, the actual results could vary materially from those
projection. The Airport Consultant has no responsibility to update its Report for events and circumstances occurring
after the date of its Report. The projection is based on assumptions that may not be realized and actual results may
differ materially from the projection. See “INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS – Financial Assumptions” herein.
Projection of Debt Service Coverage and Cost Per Enplanement
The following table reflects the projection of Net Revenues and the calculation of debt service coverage on
the Bonds, including the Series 2021 Bonds and the estimated $___ million of New SLC project costs expected to be
funded with proceeds of additional Bonds expected to be issued in the future. The Airport Consultant’s projection is
based on actual Net Revenues for FY 2018 through FY 2020, actual net revenues for the first three quarters of FY
2021, and projected Net Revenues from FY 2021 through FY 2028, as set forth in Section 5 of the Report of the
Airport Consultant. Such projection reflects the impact on revenues and expenses associated with the Series 2021
Bonds, the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018 Bonds, as well as additional Bonds expected to be issued during
the projection period and the operating costs of the elements of the New SLC as they are placed into service. The
projection does not reflect the impact on Department finances of projects other than the New SLC and the other capital
projects discussed in the Report. Any additional future capital projects may be financed by future issuance of
additional Bonds.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
Draft
68
PROJECTION OF DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE*
(Fiscal Year)
($ in thousands)
Actual
2018
Actual
2019
Actual
2020
Budget
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Revenues
Operating
Expenses and
Capital
Outlays
Federal
COVID Relief
Funds applied
to O&M
Net Revenues
Plus: Rolling
Coverage
Account
Net Revenues
& Rolling
Coverage
Account
Total Debt
Service (Net
of Capitalized
Interest)
PFCs applied
to Debt
Service
Debt Service
(net of PFCs)
Debt Service
Coverage
Source: Airport Consultant
*Amounts may not add due to rounding
The Report of the Airport Consultant and the projection of Net Revenues and debt service coverage included
therein incorporated assumptions of the debt service on the Series 2021 Bonds and additional Bonds expected to be
issued during the projection period based upon information provided by PFM Financial Advisors LLC (“PFM”),
financial advisor to the Department, in ______, 2021. PFM’s calculations are based upon the assumptions set forth
in the Report of the Airport Consultant. Both PFM and the Airport Consultant have used what they believe are
conservative assumptions to estimate the projected annual debt service on the additional Bonds to be issued to fund
the New SLC; however, there can be no assurance that the assumed rates will be achieved or that interest rates will
not exceed those used in the assumptions. Several other projections included in the Report of the Airport Consultant,
such as projected airline payments per enplaned passenger, rely on the estimated debt service amounts and investors
should take into consideration these assumptions when considering the Report of the Airport Consultant.
The Report of the Airport Consultant should be read in its entirety for an understanding of the report and its
underlying assumptions. As noted in the Report of the Airport Consultant, any projection is subject to uncertainties.
Inevitably, some of the assumptions used to develop the Report of the Airport Consultant will not be realized and
unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. The actual financial results achieved will vary from those in the
Report of the Airport Consultant and the variations may be material. The Report of the Airport Consultant is not
expected to be updated with final pricing information for the Series 2021 Bonds. See “INVESTMENT
CONSIDERATIONS – FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS” and “APPENDIX B - REPORT OF THE AIRPORT
CONSULTANT.”
Draft
69
INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS
This section contains a general overview of certain risk factors which should be considered, in addition to
the other matters set forth in this Official Statement, in evaluating an investment in the Series 2021 Bonds. This
section is not meant to be a comprehensive or definitive discussion of the risks associated with an investment in the
Series 2021 Bonds, and the order in which this information is presented does not necessarily reflect the relative
importance of various risks. The Series 2021 Bonds may not be suitable for all investors. Potential investors in the
Series 2021 Bonds are advised to consider the following factors, among others, and to review this entire Official
Statement to obtain information essential to making of an informed investment decision, including, in particular, the
matters referred to in the following summary and under the heading “IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE
AIRPORT.” The following summary does not purport to be a comprehensive or exhaustive discussion of risks or
other considerations which may be relevant to investing in the Series 2021 Bonds. In addition, the order in which the
following information is presented is not intended to reflect the relative importance of any such considerations. There
can be no assurance that other considerations not discussed herein will not become material in the future. The risks
to the Airport related to COVID-19, although not purported to be a comprehensive or exhaustive discussion, can be
found above under the heading “IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT.” The risks below present
a summary of additional risks to the Airport’s Revenues, not related to COVID-19, that prospective purchasers of the
Series 2021 Bonds should give careful consideration to prior to purchasing the Series 2021 Bonds.
COVID-19
See “IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT” above for risks associated with the
Series 2021 Bonds and the Airport resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Delta’s Presence at the Airport
Delta is the dominant air carrier operating at the Airport and maintains a large connecting hub at the Airport.
Approximately 73.0% of the passengers enplaned at the Airport in FY 2020 and 24.9%, of the Department’s operating
revenue (after airline revenue sharing) was received from rentals and services provided to Delta and the Delta
Connection carriers for FY 2020.
As a result of the Airport’s geographic location, facilities and capabilities and Delta’s investment in the
Airport, including the New SLC, the Department expects that the Airport will remain a system hub for Delta; however,
no assurance can be given to that effect or with regard to Delta’s future level of activity at the Airport, regardless of
Delta’s financial condition. If, for whatever reason, Delta discontinues or reduces its hubbing operations at the Airport,
its current level of activity at the Airport may not be replaced by other carriers. It is possible that if Delta or another
airline were to cease service or significantly reduce service at the Airport, Revenues, PFC collections and costs for
other airlines serving the Airport could be adversely affected. Such a change in Delta’s or another airline’s activity at
the Airport could result in differences to the projections presented in the Report of the Airport Consultant. See “THE
AIRPORT - Aviation Activity at the Airport -Airlines Providing Service at the Airport” above.
Project Costs and Schedule
The estimated costs of, and the projected schedule for, the New SLC and other capital projects depend on
various sources of funding, and are subject to a number of uncertainties. The ability of the Department to complete
these projects within the current budgets and on the current schedules may be adversely affected by various factors
including: (1) estimating errors, (2) design and engineering errors, (3) cost increases because of demand for and
scarcity of labor and materials, (4) contractors’ difficulty in predicting costs over a lengthy constructions period, (5)
the need to estimate costs of unbid project elements, (6) changes to the scope of the projects, (7) delays in contract
awards, (8) material and/or labor shortages, (9) delays because of airline operational needs, (10) unforeseen site
conditions, (11) adverse weather conditions, (12) contractor defaults, (13) labor disputes, (14) unanticipated levels of
inflation, (15) litigation and (16) environmental issues. See “THE NEW SLC - Summary of the New SLC” No
assurance can be given that the costs of the projects will not exceed the current budget for these projects or that the
completion will not be delayed beyond the currently projected completion dates. Any schedule delays or cost increases
could result in the need to issue additional Bonds or Subordinate Obligations, which would require additional approval
for certain increased costs. The issuance of additional Bonds or Subordinate Obligations may result in increased costs
per enplaned passenger to the airlines. No assurance can be given that the City would receive the required Signatory
Airline approvals, or that, absent such approvals, an alternative source of funding would be available. At present, the
Draft
70
Department is unable to estimate the costs associated with each of the risks identified above and the total impact of
these risks if such events were to occur. In addition, the Department may ultimately decide not to proceed with certain
capital projects or may proceed with them on a different schedule, resulting in different results than those included in
the projections shown in “APPENDIX B - REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT.”
Financial Assumptions
The City’s plan of financing for the New SLC is based on a number of financial assumptions, including
assumptions relating to: (1) the estimated costs and timing of construction of the New SLC and the ability of the
Department to complete construction of the New SLC within budget; (2) the projected levels of aviation activity at
the Airport; and (3) timing of, and assumptions with respect to the issuance of and interest rates borne by additional
Bonds, including access to the capital markets. Although the Department believes each of these assumptions is based
on reasonable judgments, one or more of these assumptions may prove incorrect. The impact of a significant variation
of any of the assumptions described above could have a material adverse effect on the plan of financing for the New
SLC.
The City’s plan of financing is based upon certain assumptions with respect to growth in aviation at the
Airport. The factors affecting such levels of activity are largely beyond the Department’s control. Origination and
destination traffic, which accounts for approximately 57% of passenger activity at the Airport, will be affected to a
significant degree by the speed of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic vitality of the City and the
region. The level of hubbing activity by Delta or any other airline that may choose to hub in the City’s air trade area
will reflect corporate decisions made by such airlines. These decisions will be based, in part, upon each airline’s
financial capacity and strategic markets, availability of aircraft, cost of aviation fuel and a number of other factors
beyond the control of the City.
Seismic Risk and Other Force Majeure Events
Segments of the Wasatch Fault, which is an active fault located primarily on the western edge of the Wasatch
Mountains, underlie Salt Lake City. An earthquake on the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch Fault could severely
damage the Airport facilities and adversely affect the Department’s ability to generate Revenues. As noted above, in
March of 2020, the Salt Lake City area suffered a magnitude 5.7 earthquake. Although many buildings in the region
were damaged by the earthquake, none of the new facilities of the New SLC suffered damage from the earthquake
requiring repair. Other events of force majeure, such as extreme weather events and other natural occurrences such
as fires and explosions, spills of hazardous substances, strikes and lockouts, sabotage, terrorist attacks or wars,
blockades or riots could also adversely affect the Department’s ability to generate Revenues. There is no assurance
that such events will not occur while the Series 2021 Bonds are Outstanding. Although the Department has attempted
to mitigate the risk of loss from many of these occurrences by purchasing commercial property and casualty insurance,
no assurance can be given that such insurance will be available or in sufficient amounts at a reasonable cost or available
at all or that insurers will pay claims in a timely manner, or at all. The New SLC is designed, in part, to upgrade the
seismic stability of the facilities at the Airport. Nevertheless, the Airport could sustain extensive damage to its
facilities in a major earthquake from ground motion and possible liquefaction of underlying soils. Damage could
include pavement displacement (which could necessitate the closing of one or more runways for extended periods of
time), distortion of pavement grades, breaks in utilities, loss of water supply, damage to drainage and sewage lines,
displacement or collapse of buildings. A major earthquake in the Salt Lake City region may cause significant
temporary and possibly long-term harm to the economy of the Salt Lake City area, which in turn could have a negative
effect on passenger traffic and Revenues, and such effect could be material.
General Economic Considerations
Historically, the financial performance of the air transportation industry has correlated with the state of the
national and global economy. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. and world-wide air travel industries
have sustained unprecedented losses. Following significant and dramatic changes that occurred in the financial
markets in September 2008, the U.S. economy experienced a recession followed by weak growth. The near-term
economic outlook for the national and Utah economies to recover from the recession due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the speed and extent of which will be dependent on a number of factors, including the efficacy and availability of
vaccines against the COVID-19 virus, the ability of businesses (including ski resorts in the surrounding area) to
recover from the effects of the pandemic, the reopening of colleges and universities in the greater Salt Lake City area
to in-person study, and the willingness of persons to begin traveling again for both business and leisure. There can be
Draft
71
no assurances that the prolonged weak economic conditions, the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, or other
national and international fiscal concerns will not have an adverse effect on the air transportation industry.
Financial Condition of the Airline Industry
The number of passengers using the Airport will depend partly on the profitability of the U.S. airline industry
and the associated ability of the industry and individual airlines, particularly Delta, to make the necessary investments
to continue providing service. The airline industry historically has been highly cyclical and is characterized by intense
competition, high operating and capital costs, and varying demand. Passenger and cargo volumes are highly sensitive
to general and localized economic trends, and passenger traffic varies substantially with seasonal travel patterns. After
an exceptional period of volatility in the 2000s, U.S. carriers experienced record profitability prior to the COVID-19
pandemic. In the near-term, the recovery of the airlines from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will take some
time and likely constrain growth in air service for some period of time. The profitability of the airline industry may
continue to fluctuate dramatically from quarter to quarter and from year to year, even in the absence of catastrophic
events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the economic recession of
2008 and 2009.
Further, because of the discretionary nature of business and personal travel spending, airline passenger traffic
and revenues are heavily influenced by a variety of factors, including: (i) the strength of the U.S. economy and other
regional and world economies, (ii) the cost and availability of labor, fuel, aircraft and insurance, (iii) international
trade, (iv) currency values, (v) competitive or partnership considerations, including the effects of airline ticket pricing,
(vi) traffic and airport capacity constraints, (vii) governmental regulation, including security regulations and taxes
imposed on airlines and passengers, and maintenance and environmental requirements, (viii) passenger demand for
air travel, including the availability of business travel substitutes such as teleconferencing, videoconferencing and
web-casting, (ix) strikes and other union activities and (x) disruptions caused by airline accidents, criminal incidents,
acts of war or terrorism, outbreaks of disease, epidemic or pandemic, and weather and natural disasters.
It is reasonable to assume that any significant financial or operational difficulties incurred by Delta, the
dominant airline servicing the Airport, could have a material adverse effect on the Airport, although financial or
operational difficulties by any of the other Signatory Airlines, whether directly or indirectly, also may have an adverse
impact on Revenues or Airport operations, the effect of which may be material. See “ – Delta’s Presence at the
Airport” above. At this time, it is not possible to predict the effect that any financial or operational difficulties incurred
by Delta or any other airline serving the Airport could have on the Airport.
Airline Consolidation
In 2005, ten major airlines were flying inside the United States (AirTran, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines,
America West, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United and US Airways) and accounted for 87.0% of all
available seats. Faced with declining profitability because of increased costs of aviation fuel, lower fares brought on
by the proliferation of low cost carriers (as described below), reduced growth potential in the domestic markets and
declining passenger activity based on security concerns, the airlines pursued consolidation. As a result of these
consolidations, today there are five major network airlines flying inside the United States – Alaska, American, Delta,
Southwest and United -- that account for approximately 80% of domestic capacity (available seats). Additionally, in
2009, Republic Airways Holdings purchased Frontier Airlines and Midwest Airlines operating the combined carrier
as Frontier Airlines. Republic Airways sold Frontier Airlines in 2013. In December 2016, Alaska Air Group acquired
Virgin America, and a single operating certificate was issued in 2018. Such consolidation, combined with a focus on
driving profitability via capacity discipline and unbundling of services and resulting increased fee income, had
increased airline profitability prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, American and JetBlue
recently entered into an agreement pursuant to which each can code share with the other and each can access the other
airline’s passenger loyalty program.
Further airline consolidation remains possible. Depending on which airlines serving the Airport merge or
join alliances, if any, the result may be fewer flights or decreases in gate utilization by one or more airlines. Such
decreases could result in reduced Airport revenues, reduced PFC collections and increased costs for the airlines serving
the Airport.
Effect of Bankruptcy of Air Carriers and Other Tenants
Draft
72
Since 2001, several airlines with operations at the Airport have filed for and have subsequently emerged from
bankruptcy protection, including United, Continental, Delta, Frontier, Northwest, US Airways and, most recently,
American Airlines in 2011. Additional bankruptcies, liquidations or major restructurings of other airlines could occur.
The Department’s stream of payments from a debtor airline could be interrupted to the extent of unpaid fees for pre-
petition goods and services, including accrued rent and landing fees. Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a debtor airline
that is a lessee under an unexpired lease with the Department of non-residential real property, such as a lease of
Terminal space or a hangar, is required within certain statutory time periods to assume or reject such lease. Rejection
of a lease or other agreement or executory contract would give rise to an unsecured claim of the Department for
damages, the amount of which in the case of a lease or other agreement is limited by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The
amount ultimately received in the event of a rejection of a lease or other agreement could be considerably less than
the maximum amounts allowed under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Additionally, during the pendency of a bankruptcy
proceeding, a debtor airline may not, absent a court order, make any payments to the Department on account of goods
and services provided prior to the bankruptcy. The Department actively monitors past due balances to minimize any
potential losses due to such proceedings, aggressively pursues overdue amounts and bankruptcy claims, and includes
an allowance for uncollectible debts in its landing fee and terminal rental rates. Whether or not an airline agreement
is assumed or rejected by a debtor airline in a bankruptcy proceeding, it is not possible to predict the subsequent level
of utilization of the gates leased under such agreement.
In addition, the Hertz family of rental car companies, including Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty filed for bankruptcy
protection in May 2020. All three companies continued to operate at the Airport and all three have now assumed their
agreements with the City relating to operations at the Airport.
It is not possible to predict the impact on the Department of any future bankruptcies, liquidations or major
restructurings of other airlines or tenants.
Cost of Aviation Fuel
Airline earnings are significantly affected by changes in the price of aviation fuel. Fuel prices continue to be
susceptible to, among other factors, political unrest in various parts of the world (particularly in the oil-producing
nations in the Middle East and North Africa); Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries policy; the rapid growth
of economies such as China and India and resulting demand for oil-based fuels; the levels of inventory carried by
industries; the amounts of reserves maintained by governments; the amount and availability of new sources of energy
(e.g., U.S. fracking operations); disruptions to production and refining facilities; and weather.
There has been no shortage of aviation fuel since the fuel crisis of 1974, but there have been significant price
increases for fuel. From 2000 to 2008, the price of aviation fuel more than tripled. Oil prices reached an all-time
record high of approximately $145 per barrel in July 2008, and while oil prices have declined from this elevated level,
they have fluctuated significantly since then. During the second half of CY 2014, an imbalance between worldwide
supply and demand resulted in a significant drop in the price of oil and aviation fuel. As of April 26, 2021, according
to Bloomberg, the price of Brent crude oil futures was $65.65 per barrel. According to Form 41 (USDOT), for CY
20__, fuel expenses were approximately ____% of U.S. passenger airline operating costs. Historically, significant
fluctuations and prolonged increases in the cost of aviation fuel have adversely affected air transportation industry
profitability, causing airlines to reduce capacity, fleet and personnel; to invest in new, more fuel efficient aircraft and
equipment; and to increase airfares and institute fuel, checked baggage, and other extra surcharges, all of which may
reduce demand for air travel.
Many airlines engage in or have engaged in fuel hedging – purchasing fuel in advance at a fixed price through
derivative contracts – to help manage the risk of future increases in fuel costs. However, there can be no assurance
that any fuel hedging contract can provide any particular level of protection from volatile fuel prices. One carrier has
even gone as far as to purchase its own refinery in order to better manage its fuel costs.
Structural Changes in the Travel Market
Many factors have combined to alter consumer travel patterns. The threat of terrorism against the United
States remains high. As a result, the federal government has mandated various security measures that have resulted
in security taxes and fees and longer passenger processing and wait times at airports. Both add to the costs of air
travel and make air travel less attractive to consumers relative to ground transportation, especially to short-haul
destinations. Additionally, consumers have become more price sensitive. Efforts of airlines to stimulate traffic by
Draft
73
heavily discounting fares have changed consumer expectations regarding airfares. Consumers have come to expect
extraordinarily low fares. In addition, the availability of fully transparent price information on the internet now allows
quick and easy comparison shopping, which has changed consumer purchasing habits. Consumers have shifted from
purchasing paper tickets from travel agencies or airline ticketing offices to purchasing electronic tickets over the
internet. This has made pricing and marketing even more competitive in the U.S. airline industry. Finally, smaller
corporate travel budgets, combined with the higher time costs of travel and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic,
have made business customers more amenable to communications substitutes such as teleconferencing and
videoconferencing.
Technological Innovations in Ground Transportation
One significant source of non-airline revenues is generated from ground transportation activity, including
use of on-Airport parking facilities; trip fees paid by taxi, limousine and TNCs; and rental car transactions by Airport
passengers. While passenger levels are increasing, the relative market share of these sources of revenue is shifting.
As one example, the popularity of TNCs was increasing prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic because of the
increasing number of cities where TNCs operate, the other technological innovations in ground transportation,
convenience of requesting a ride through a mobile application, the ability to pay for this service without providing
cash or other payment to the hired driver, and competitive pricing. In FY 2020, TNCs recorded over 1.2 million
Airport pick-ups and drop-offs resulting in approximately $3.1 million in trip fee revenue for the Department,
compared to nearly 1.4 million pick-ups and drop-offs and approximately $3.6 million in trip fee revenue in FY 2019.
Although ground transportation revenue in total and excluding TNC trip fees has continued to perform well, there can
be no assurance that passengers will not choose to utilize TNCs instead of parking or using rental cars in the future,
which could result in a reduction in ground transportation revenues.
New technologies (such as autonomous vehicles and connected vehicles) and innovative business strategies
in established markets such as commercial ground transportation and car rental may continue to occur and may result
in further changes in Airport passengers’ choice of ground transportation mode. While the Department makes every
effort to anticipate demand shifts, there may be times when the Department’s expectations differ from actual outcomes.
In such event, revenue from one or more ground transportation modes may be lower than expected. The Department
cannot predict with certainty what impact these innovations in ground transportation will have over time on revenues
from parking, other ground transportation services or rental cars. The Department also cannot predict with certainty
whether or to what extent it will collect non-airline revenues in connection with such new technologies or innovative
business strategies.
Aviation Security, Health and Safety Concerns
Public health and safety concerns also affect air travel demand from time to time, as clearly evidenced with
the current COVID-19 pandemic. The current COVID-19 pandemic has had and likely will continue to have material
adverse effects on passenger traffic and the Airport’s operations and financial performance. See “IMPACT OF
COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT” above. Future outbreaks or pandemics may lead to a decrease in
passenger traffic, which in turn could cause a decrease in passenger activity at the Airport and a corresponding decline
in Airport Revenues.
Concerns about the safety of airline travel and the effectiveness of security precautions, particularly in the
context of potential international hostilities and terrorist attacks, may influence passenger travel behavior and air travel
demand. Travel behavior may be affected by anxieties about the safety of flying and by the inconveniences and delays
associated with more stringent security screening procedures, both of which may give rise to the avoidance of air
travel generally and the switching from air to surface travel modes.
Following the fatal crashes of two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft that are suspected to have been caused by the
malfunction of the aircraft’s automated flight control system, all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft were grounded in March
2019. Among North American airlines, Air Canada, American, Southwest and United were affected. At the time of
the grounding, Boeing 737 MAX aircraft accounted for approximately 1.5% of U.S. airline seat capacity. On
November 18, 2020, the FAA signed an order formally rescinding the grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft,
clearing the way for its return to service. The grounding of the 737 MAX aircraft had an adverse effect on several
Draft
74
airlines serving the Airport that utilize the 737 MAX aircraft, including Southwest and United, but these did not appear
to cause a reduction in operations for either carrier at the Airport.
Travel Substitutes
Teleconference, video-conference and web-based meetings continue to improve in quality and price and are
often considered a satisfactory alternative to face-to-face business meetings. Events such as the COVID-19 pandemic
have accelerated this trend and increased the number of individuals who are able to work from home. While the
effects cannot be quantified, it is possible that business travel to and from the Airport may be susceptible to such travel
substitutes.
Information Concerning the Airlines
Many of the principal domestic airlines serving the Airport, or their respective parent corporations, are subject
to the information reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and in accordance
therewith file reports and other information with the SEC. Likewise, foreign airlines serving the Airport that have
American Depository Receipts (“ADRs”) registered on a U.S. national exchange are subject to the same reporting
requirements. Certain information, including financial information, concerning such domestic airlines, or their
respective parent corporations, and such foreign airlines is disclosed in certain reports and statements filed with the
SEC. Such reports and statements can be inspected and copied at the public reference facilities maintained by the
SEC and on its website.
Foreign airlines serving the Airport, or foreign corporations operating airlines serving the Airport, unless
such foreign airlines have ADRs registered on a national exchange, are not required to file information with the SEC.
Such foreign airlines, or foreign corporations operating airlines, serving the Airport file limited information only with
the USDOT.
The Department does not undertake any responsibility for or make any representation as to the accuracy or
completeness of: (i) any reports and statements filed with the SEC or USDOT or (ii) any material contained on the
SEC’s website as described in the two preceding paragraphs, including, but not limited to, updated information on the
SEC website or links to other Internet sites accessed through the SEC’s website.
FAA Reauthorization and Federal Funding
On October 5, 2018, the President signed into law a five year reauthorization bill for the FAA – the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018. The 2018 FAA reauthorization retains the federal cap on PFCs at $4.50 and authorizes
$3.35 billion per year for AIP through federal fiscal year 2023, which is the same funding level as was in place for the
preceding five years. The AIP provides federal capital grants to support airport infrastructure through entitlement
grants, which are determined by formulas based on passenger, cargo and general aviation activity levels, and
discretionary grants, allocated on the basis of specific set-asides and the national priority ranking system. The
Department is unable to predict the level of AIP funding at this time, since authorization is subject to Congressional
appropriation. If there is a reduction in the amount of AIP grants awarded to the Department for the Airport, it could:
(1) increase by a corresponding amount the capital expenditures that the Department would need to fund from other
sources, including operating revenues, and Bond proceeds, (2) extend the timing to complete certain projects, or (3)
reduce the scope of individual proposed projects or the overall program, or both. See “The NEW SLC - Funding
Sources” for more information regarding federal grant funding received by the Department.
Federal Law Affecting Rates and Charges
Rates and charges for aeronautical use of an airport imposed pursuant to a written agreement between the air
carriers operating at an airport and the operator of the airport are generally not subject to federal regulation. The AUA
between the City and the Signatory Airlines sets forth a formula for establishing rates and charges for use of the
aeronautical facilities at the Airport. Accordingly, the Department believes that the provisions of federal law regarding
the determination of such fees are generally inapplicable during the term of the AUA.
For rates and charges not determined pursuant to an agreement, Federal aviation law requires, in general, that
airport fees be reasonable and that, in order to receive federal grant funding, all airport generated revenues must be
expended for the capital or operating costs of the airport, the local airport system, or other local facilities owned or
Draft
75
operated by the airport owner that are directly and substantially related to air transportation of passengers or property.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, the USDOT and FAA
have promulgated regulations setting forth an expedited hearing process to be followed in determining the
reasonableness of airport rates and charges, and have also promulgated a policy statement (the “Rates and Charges
Policy”), which sets forth the standards that the USDOT uses in determining the reasonableness of the fees charged
to airlines and other aeronautical users.
In 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined that a portion of the
Rates and Charges Policy was arbitrary and capricious and vacated portions of the policy and remanded it to the
USDOT. In 2008, USDOT amended the Rates and Charges Policy to permit “congested airports,” as defined therein,
to charge a two part landing fee that includes a per operation charge intended to help reduce congestion and operating
delays. Congested airports are also permitted to include certain other costs in their rate base, including the cost of
certain construction in progress and costs associated with reliever airports, if owned by the same airport operator. The
Airport does not currently qualify as a congested airport. The USDOT has not yet proposed any other revisions to the
Rates and Charges Policy. If new guidelines are published, the costs that will be permitted to be included in
determining an airport’s rate base and the extent to which such future guidelines may limit the Department’s flexibility
in negotiating new airline agreements or in setting rates and charges for use of the Airport’s airfield and non-airfield
facilities cannot be determined at this time. Any new FAA guidelines or any standards promulgated by a court in
connection with a dispute could limit the amounts and allocation of costs payable by airlines serving the Airport. Until
the USDOT promulgates a new policy regarding rates and charges, the guiding principle for determining whether rates
and charges established for use of airport assets is the requirement of federal law that such charges be “reasonable.”
PFC Revenues and Other Sources of Funding
The plan of finance for the New SLC assumes that PFC revenues, federal grants and other sources of funding
will be received in certain amounts and at certain times to pay certain project costs and debt service. See “The NEW
SLC - Funding Sources.” No assurance can be given that these sources of funding actually will be available in the
amounts or on the schedule assumed.
The amount of PFC revenue collected for the Airport in past years has varied, and in future years will vary,
based upon the actual number of passenger enplanements at the Airport. No assurance can be given that any level of
enplanements will be realized. As a consequence of the reduction in passengers using the Airport due to the COVID-
19 pandemic, the amount of PFCs collected diminished from FY 2019 levels in FY 2020 and is expected to be reduced
in FY 2021 as well. See “IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT – Impact of COVID-19 on
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs).” This adverse impact of decreased enplanements could be direct or indirect. For
example, PFC shortfalls could result in increases in terminal rentals or landing fees at the Airport, thereby negatively
impacting the airlines’ desire to operate at the Airport. Furthermore, under the terms of the PFC Act, the FAA may
terminate the Department’s authority to impose a PFC if the Department’s PFC revenues are not being used for
approved projects in accordance with the FAA’s approval, the PFC Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder, or
if the Department otherwise violates the PFC Act or regulations. The FAA may also terminate the Department’s
authority to impose a PFC for a violation by the Department of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act. The PFC
termination provisions contained in the regulations provide both informal and formal procedural safeguards. The
FAA’s PFC regulations require Collecting Carriers (as defined in the PFC Act) to account for PFC collections
separately, and indicate that such funds are to be regarded as trust funds held by the Collecting Carriers for the
beneficial interest of the public agency imposing the PFC. In early cases in which PFCs were at issue, certain
bankruptcy court decisions indicated that PFCs may not be treated as trust funds and that airports are not entitled to
any priority over other creditors of the Collecting Carrier as to such funds. In the more recent cases, such as the
American Airlines bankruptcy, however, the bankruptcy court has recognized the airports’ interests in PFCs and taken
steps to segregate PFCs from airline revenues. Where an air carrier files for bankruptcy protection and liquidates,
PFC revenues may not be recoverable if they have been expended by the carrier before such filing.
To the extent that any portion of the funding assumed in the plan of finance for capital projects at the Airport
is not available as anticipated, the Department may be required to issue an additional Series of Bonds or Subordinate
Obligations to pay the costs of such capital projects and to increase airline rates and charges to pay debt service on the
Bonds and the Subordinate Obligations and to fund the required coverage thereon. As an alternative to issuing Bonds
or Subordinate Obligations, the Department may ultimately decide not to proceed with certain capital projects or may
proceed with them on a different schedule, producing different results than those included in the projections shown in
the “APPENDIX B - REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT.”
Draft
76
Cybersecurity
The Department, like many other large public and private entities, relies on a large and complex technology
environment to conduct its operations, and faces multiple cybersecurity threats including, but not limited to, hacking,
phishing, viruses, malware, ransomware and other attacks to its computing and other digital networks and systems
(collectively, “Systems Technology”). As a recipient and provider of personal, private, or sensitive information, the
Department may be the target of cybersecurity incidents that could result in adverse consequences to the Department’s
Systems Technology, requiring a response action to mitigate the consequences.
Cybersecurity incidents could result from unintentional events, or from deliberate attacks by unauthorized
entities or individuals attempting to gain access to the Department’s Systems Technology for the purposes of
misappropriating assets or information or causing operational disruption and damage. To mitigate the risk of business
operations impact and/or damage by cybersecurity incidents or cyber-attacks, the Department invests in multiple forms
of cybersecurity and operational safeguards.
While Department cybersecurity and operational safeguards are periodically tested, no assurance can be
given by the Department that such measures will ensure against other cybersecurity threats and attacks. Cybersecurity
breaches could damage the Department’s Systems Technology and cause material disruptions to the Department’s
finances or operations. The costs of remedying any such damage or protecting against future attacks could be
substantial. Further, cybersecurity breaches could expose the Department to material litigation and other legal risks,
which could cause the Department to incur material costs relating to such legal claims or proceedings.
The airlines serving the Airport and other Airport tenants, as well as the FAA and TSA, also face
cybersecurity threats that could affect their operations or finances.
Environmental Regulations
The EPA and the State Department of Environmental Quality are responsible for regulating air quality and
water quality. The City is not aware of any releases of pollutants or contaminants at the Airport, other than those
which are subject to ongoing remediation described in Note No. 1 (“Pollution Remediation Obligations”) to the
audited financial statements in APPENDIX A hereto, and as described in the following sentence. In addition to on-
going remediation efforts, the Department is investigating the extent to which certain materials listed by the EPA as
“emerging contaminants” contained in fire-fighting foam are contained in soil and groundwater located at or adjacent
to the Airport’s Utah Air National Guard facilities and the Department’s now closed fire-fighting training facility and
surrounding Airport property. The Department is continuing to undertake extensive investigation of soil and
groundwater at the Airport and is evaluating how to address treating the materials released from fire-fighting foam.
However, there could be other such releases not known to the City as of the date of this Official Statement. The
potential exists for additional federal regulation or remediation that may require capital expenditures or changes in
operations at the Airport System.
Potential Limitation of Tax Exemption of Interest on Series 2021 Bonds
From time to time, the President of the United States, the United States Congress and/or state legislatures
have proposed and could propose in the future, legislation that, if enacted, could cause interest on the Series 2021
Bonds to be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal income taxation or to be subject to or exempted from state income
taxation, or otherwise prevent Beneficial Owners from realizing the full current benefit of the tax status of such
interest. Clarifications of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or court decisions may also cause interest
on the Series 2021 Bonds to be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal income taxation or to be subject to or exempted
from state income taxation. The introduction or enactment of any such legislative proposals or any clarification of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or court decisions may also affect the market price for, or marketability
of, the Series 2021 Bonds. Prospective purchasers of the Series 2021 Bonds should consult their own tax advisors
regarding any such pending or proposed federal or state tax legislation, regulations or litigation, as to which Bond
Counsel expresses no opinion. See “TAX MATTERS - Changes in Federal and State Tax Law.”
Legislative Developments
The Department is a department of the City and subject to applicable federal, State and City legislation and
regulation, changes to which could have a material effect on the operations or financial position of the Department.
Draft
77
The Airport is highly regulated by federal agencies including the FAA, the TSA, Customs and Border Protection and
the Department of Health. In the past, actions by these agencies (in particular the FAA and the TSA) have required
the Department to undertake additional capital expenditures and have affected passenger traffic. The Department
cannot predict whether any such legislation or regulations will be introduced after the date of this Official Statement
or, if introduced, whether such legislation or regulations would be enacted or adopted, or their effect on the operations
or financial condition of the Department.
Limitation of Remedies; No Acceleration
Any remedies available to owners of the Bonds upon the occurrence of an event of default under the Master
Indenture are in many respects dependent upon judicial actions which are in turn often subject to discretion and delay
and could be both expensive and time-consuming to obtain. If the Department fails to comply with its covenants
under the Master Indenture, including its covenant to pay principal of or interest on the Bonds, there can be no
assurance that available remedies will be adequate to fully protect the interests of the owners of the Bonds. The ability
of the Department to comply with its covenants under the Master Indenture and to generate Net Revenues sufficient
to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds may be adversely affected by actions and events outside the control of
the Department. Further, the rate covenant included in the Master Indenture provides that if the requirement that Net
Revenues together with any Transfer equal at least 125% of aggregate Annual Debt Service with respect to the Bonds
is not met, so long as the Department is taking specified steps to meet the rate covenant, an event of default will not
be triggered until after the following Fiscal Year. See “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS-Rate
Covenant.” The ability of the Department to increase its rates, fees and charges and to reduce its expenses will be
limited by, among other things, existing contracts and federal law.
Events of Default under the Indenture and related remedies are described herein under “APPENDIX C -
FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE-ARTICLE VIII-DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES.” The occurrence of an Event
of Default does not grant any right to accelerate payment of the Bonds, including the Series 2021 Bonds. In addition,
the Master Subordinate Obligation Indenture does not grant any right to accelerate payment of Subordinate Obligations
as a result of an event of default thereunder. Since Net Revenues are Revenues net of all amounts needed to pay
Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System, and the City is not subject to involuntary bankruptcy
proceedings, the City may be able to continue indefinitely collecting Revenues and applying them to the operation of
the Airport System even if an Event of Default has occurred and no payments are being made on the Bonds, including
the Series 2021 Bonds.
Forward-Looking Statements
This Official Statement contains projections and estimates that are based on current expectations. In light of
the important factors that may materially affect the financial condition of the Department and the aviation industry
generally and other economic and financial matters, the inclusion in this Official Statement of such projections and
estimates should not be regarded as a representation by the City that such projections and estimates will occur. Such
projections and estimates are not intended as representations of fact or guarantees of results.
As discussed in the Report of the Airport Consultant, the factors affecting aviation activity at the Airport
include: the growth of population and of the economy in the Airport Service Area, the recovery from the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic, airline service and route networks, the financial health and viability of the airline industry,
national and international economic and political conditions, the availability and price of aviation fuel, levels of air
fares, the capacity of the national air traffic control system and capacity at the Airport and elsewhere. The Report of
the Airport Consultant should be read in its entirety for an understanding of all of the assumptions used to prepare the
projections made therein. Inevitably, some assumptions used to develop the projections will not be realized and
unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, the actual results achieved during the projection period
will vary, and the variations may be material. See “APPENDIX B - REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT.”
TAX MATTERS
General
In the opinion of Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel to the City, under existing laws, regulations, rulings and
judicial decisions, interest on the Series 2021 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes,
except for interest on any Series 2021A Bond for any period during which such Series 2021A Bond is held by a
Draft
78
“substantial user” of the facilities financed or refinanced by the Series 2021A Bonds or by a “related person” within
the meaning of Section 147(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Bond Counsel is
further of the opinion that (a) interest on the Series 2021A Bonds constitutes an item of tax preference for purposes of
the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals, and (b) interest on the Series 2021B Bonds is not a
specific preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. The opinions described above assume
the accuracy of certain representations and compliance by the City with covenants designed to satisfy the requirements
of the Code, that must be met subsequent to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds. Failure to comply with such
requirements could cause interest on the Series 2021 Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax
purposes retroactive to the date of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds. The City has covenanted to comply with such
requirements. Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion regarding other federal tax consequences arising with respect
to the Series 2021 Bonds.
The accrual or receipt of interest on the Series 2021 Bonds may otherwise affect the federal income tax
liability of the owners of the Series 2021 Bonds. The extent of these other tax consequences will depend on such
owners’ particular tax status and other items of income or deduction. Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion
regarding any such consequences. Purchasers of the Series 2021 Bonds, particularly purchasers that are corporations
(including S corporations and foreign corporations operating branches in the United States of America), property or
casualty insurance companies, banks, thrifts or other financial institutions, certain recipients of social security or
railroad retirement benefits, taxpayers entitled to claim the earned income credit, taxpayers entitled to claim the
refundable credit in Section 36B of the Code for coverage under a qualified health plan or taxpayers who may be
deemed to have incurred or continued indebtedness to purchase or carry tax-exempt obligations, should consult their
tax advisors as to the tax consequences of purchasing or owning the Series 2021 Bonds.
A copy of the proposed form of opinion of Bond Counsel is attached hereto as Appendix G.
Tax Treatment of Original Issue Premium
The Series 2021 Bonds that have an original yield below their respective interest rates, as shown on the inside
cover of this Official Statement (collectively, the “Premium Series 2021 Bonds”), are being sold at a premium. An
amount equal to the excess of the issue price of a Premium Series 2021 Bond over its stated redemption price at
maturity constitutes premium on such Premium Series 2021 Bond. A purchaser of a Premium Series 2021 Bond must
amortize any premium over such Premium Series 2021 Bond’s term using constant yield principles, based on the
purchaser’s yield to maturity (or, in the case of Premium Series 2021 Bonds callable prior to their maturity, generally
by amortizing the premium to the call date, based on the purchaser’s yield to the call date and giving effect to any call
premium). As premium is amortized, the amount of the amortization offsets a corresponding amount of interest for
the period, and the purchaser’s basis in such Premium Series 2021 Bond is reduced by a corresponding amount
resulting in an increase in the gain (or decrease in the loss) to be recognized for federal income tax purposes upon a
sale or disposition of such Premium Series 2021 Bond prior to its maturity. Even though the purchaser’s basis may
be reduced, no federal income tax deduction is allowed. Purchasers of the Premium Series 2021 Bonds should consult
with their tax advisors with respect to the determination and treatment of premium for federal income tax purposes
and with respect to the state and local tax consequences of owning a Premium Series 2021 Bond.
Tax Treatment of Original Issue Discount
General
The Series 2021 Bonds that have an original yield above the respective interest rate as shown on the inside
cover of this Official Statement (collectively, the “Discount Series 2021 Bonds”) are being sold at an original issue
discount. The difference between the initial public offering prices of such Discount Series 2021 Bonds and their stated
amounts to be paid at maturity constitutes original issue discount treated in the same manner for federal income tax
purposes as interest, as described above.
The amount of original issue discount that is treated as having accrued with respect to such Discount Series
2021 Bond or is otherwise required to be recognized in gross income is added to the cost basis of the owner of the
bond in determining, for federal income tax purposes, gain or loss upon disposition of such Discount Series 2021
Bond (including its sale, redemption or payment at maturity). Amounts received on disposition of such Discount
Series 2021 Bond that are attributable to accrued or otherwise recognized original issue discount will be treated as
tax-exempt interest, rather than as taxable gain, for federal income tax purposes.
Draft
79
Original issue discount is treated as compounding semiannually, at a rate determined by reference to the yield
to maturity of each individual Discount Series 2021 Bond, on days which are determined by reference to the maturity
date of such Discount Series 2021 Bond. The amount treated as original issue discount on such Discount Series 2021
Bond for a particular semiannual accrual period is equal to the product of (i) the yield to maturity for such Discount
Series 2021 Bond (determined by compounding at the close of each accrual period) and (ii) the amount that would
have been the tax basis of such Discount Series 2021 Bond at the beginning of the particular accrual period if held by
the original purchaser, less the amount of any interest payable for such Discount Series 2021 Bond during the accrual
period. The tax basis for purposes of the preceding sentence is determined by adding to the initial public offering
price on such Discount Series 2021 Bond the sum of the amounts that have been treated as original issue discount for
such purposes during all prior periods. If such Discount Series 2021 Bond is sold between semiannual compounding
dates, original issue discount that would have been accrued for that semiannual compounding period for federal
income tax purposes is to be apportioned in equal amounts among the days in such compounding period.
Owners of Discount Series 2021 Bonds should consult their tax advisors with respect to the determination
and treatment of original issue discount accrued as of any date, with respect to when such original issue discount must
be recognized as an item of gross income and with respect to the state and local tax consequences of owning a Discount
Series 2021 Bond. Subsequent purchasers of Discount Series 2021 Bonds that purchase such bonds for a price that is
higher or lower than the “adjusted issue price” of the bonds at the time of purchase should consult their tax advisors
as to the effect on the accrual of original issue discount.
Recognition of Income Generally
Section 451 of the Code was amended by Pub. L. No. 115-97, enacted December 22, 2017 (sometimes
referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), to provide that taxpayers using an accrual method of accounting for federal
income tax purposes generally will be required to include certain amounts in income, including original issue discount,
no later than the time such amounts are reflected on certain financial statements of such taxpayer. The application of
this rule may require the accrual of income earlier than would have been the case prior to the amendment of Section
451 of the Code. Investors should consult their own tax advisors regarding the application of this rule and its impact
on the timing of the recognition of income related to the Discount Series 2021 Bonds under the Code.
Backup Withholding
As a result of the enactment of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, interest on tax-
exempt obligations such as the Series 2021 Bonds is subject to information reporting in a manner similar to interest
paid on taxable obligations. Backup withholding may be imposed on payments fails to provide certain required
information including an accurate taxpayer identification number to any person required to collect such information
pursuant to Section 6049 of the Code. The reporting requirement does not in and of itself affect or alter the
excludability of interest on the Series 2021 Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes or any other
federal tax consequence of purchasing, holding or selling tax-exempt obligations.
Changes in Federal and State Tax Law
From time to time, there are legislative proposals in the Congress and in the various state legislatures that, if
enacted, could alter or amend the federal and state tax matters referred to above or adversely affect the market value
of the Series 2021 Bonds. It cannot be predicted whether or in what form any such proposal might be enacted or
whether if enacted it would apply to bonds issued prior to enactment. In addition, regulatory actions are from time to
time announced or proposed and litigation is threatened or commenced which, if implemented or concluded in a
particular manner, could adversely affect the market value of the Series 2021 Bonds. It cannot be predicted whether
any such regulatory action will be implemented, how any particular litigation or judicial action will be resolved, or
whether the Series 2021 Bonds or the market value thereof would be impacted thereby. Purchasers of the Series 2021
Bonds should consult their tax advisors regarding any pending or proposed legislation, regulatory initiatives or
litigation. The opinions expressed by Bond Counsel are based upon existing legislation and regulations as interpreted
by relevant judicial and regulatory authorities as of the date of issuance and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds, and
Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion as of any date subsequent thereto or with respect to any pending legislation,
regulatory initiatives or litigation.
Draft
80
RATINGS
The Series 2021 Bonds have been assigned ratings of “___” (outlook: _______) by Moody’s Investors
Service (“Moody’s”), “____” (outlook: ________) by S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”) and “____” (outlook: _______)
by Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Inc. (“KBRA”), respectively. Such ratings reflect only the respective views of Moody’s,
S&P and KBRA and an explanation of the significance of such ratings may be obtained from the rating agency
furnishing the same. There is no assurance that such ratings will continue for any given period of time or that they
will not be revised or withdrawn entirely by any or all of such rating agencies if, in its or their judgment, circumstances
so warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of such ratings may have an adverse effect on the market
price of the Series 2021 Bonds.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Official Statement contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities
laws in the sections hereof entitled “THE NEW SLC,” “THE AIRPORT,” “REPORT OF THE AIRPORT
CONSULTANT” and APPENDIX B. If and when included in this Official Statement, the words “expects,” “projects,”
“intends,” “anticipates,” “estimates” and analogous expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements
as defined in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and any such statements inherently are subject to a variety of
risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Such risks and
uncertainties include, among others, general economic and business conditions, changes in political, social and
economic conditions, regulatory initiatives and compliance with governmental regulations, litigation and various other
events, conditions and circumstances affecting airports and the airline industry, many of which are beyond the control
of the Department. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Official Statement. The
Department disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-
looking statement contained herein to reflect any change in the Department’s expectations with regard thereto or any
change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.
NO DEFAULTED BONDS
The City has never failed to pay principal and interest when due on any of its bonds, notes or other financial
obligations.
LEGAL MATTERS
Litigation
The City Attorney reports the following matters involving potential financial liability of the City with
respect to the Department:
An opinion executed by the City Attorney, dated the date of closing, will be provided stating, among other
things, that to the best of her knowledge, after due inquiry, no litigation, with merit, in the State or federal courts has
been served on the City or is, to the best of her knowledge, threatened, challenging the creation, organization or
existence of the City, or the titles of its officers to their respective offices, or seeking to restrain or enjoin the issuance,
sale or delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds, or directly or indirectly contesting or affecting the proceedings or the
authority by which the Series 2021 Bonds are issued, the legality of the purpose for which the Series 2021 Bonds are
issued, or the validity of the Series 2021 Bonds, or the issuance thereof.
Lawsuits are periodically filed against the Department and/or its employees, involving construction claims,
workers’ compensation and employment claims, claims related to procurement processes and small claims. The
majority of these claims are covered by the Department’s insurance coverage and self-insured retentions within
expected limits. The City has a statutory obligation to defend and indemnify its officers and employees, including
those of the Department, in relation to lawsuits arising from acts or failures to act of the officers or employees while
in the scope and course of employment.
The City is involved from time to time in routine litigation matters relating to the Department and its
operations. These routine matters include personal injury and property damage claims for which the City’s liability
is covered in whole or part by insurance or by contractual provisions that obligate third party service providers or
concessionaires to indemnify and defend the City from claims that relate to such third party services at the Airport.
Draft
81
Other matters include disputes with employees; disputes with contractors, subcontractors, engineers and others arising
out of construction and maintenance of the Department’s properties; disputes over leases and concessions; and
property, theft and damage claims arising from the Department’s parking operations. The City has assessed the
pending litigation and determined that the likelihood of liability in uninsured claims currently pending is remote. The
City does not expect that these matters will require any amounts to be paid that, singly or in the aggregate, will have
a material effect on the operations or financial position of the Department. There can be no assurance, however, that
a judgment may be rendered and sustained upon appeal that exceeds the amount of the Department’s insurance and
its self-insured retentions, and such amounts, although unlikely, could be material.
Approval of Legal Proceedings
Certain legal matters incident to the authorization and issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds are subject to the
approval of Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel to the City. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the City by the
City Attorney and by Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, the City’s Disclosure Counsel. The Underwriters are being
represented by their counsel, Gilmore & Bell, P.C. The approving opinion of Bond Counsel will be delivered with the
Series 2021 Bonds in substantially the form set forth in APPENDIX G of this Official Statement.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
The basic financial statements of the Department as of and for the year ended June 30, 2020 and 2019,
included in APPENDIX A to this Official Statement, have been audited by Eide Bailly LLP, independent auditors, as
stated in their report appearing in APPENDIX A herein.
Copies of the City’s comprehensive annual financial report may be obtained upon request from the City
Treasurer’s office, 451 South State Street, Room 228, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. Copies of the Department’s
comprehensive annual financial report may be obtained upon request from Brian Butler, the Department’s Chief
Financial Officer, 3920 West Terminal Drive, P.O. Box 145550, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122].
UNDERWRITING
The Series 2021 Bonds are being purchased by Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC,
[BofA Securities, Inc. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and ZB National Association]
(collectively, the “Underwriters”), for whom Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citi”), is acting as representative (the
“Representative”). The Underwriters have agreed, subject to certain conditions, to purchase all of the Series 2021
Bonds at an aggregate purchase price of $____________ (equal to the par amount of the Series 2021 Bonds, [plus an
original issue premium in the aggregate amount of $_____________] less an underwriting discount of
$____________) pursuant to a Bond Purchase Agreement between the City and the Representative, on behalf of the
Underwriters (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”) and to reoffer the Series 2021 Bonds at public offering prices not
higher than or at yields not lower than those set forth on the inside cover page hereof. The Bond Purchase Agreement
provides that the Underwriters will purchase all of the Series 2021 Bonds, if any are purchased. The Underwriters
reserve the right to join with dealers and other underwriters in offering the Series 2021 Bonds to the public. The
obligations of the Underwriters to accept delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds are subject to various conditions of the
Bond Purchase Agreement.
The Underwriters may offer and sell the Series 2021 Bonds to certain dealers (including depositing the Series
2021 Bonds into investment trusts, which investment trusts may be sponsored by an Underwriter) and others at prices
lower than the public offering prices stated on the inside cover page hereof. The initial public offering prices may be
changed from time to time by the Underwriters.
The Underwriters and their respective affiliates are full service financial institutions engaged in various
activities, which may include securities trading, commercial and investment banking, investment management,
principal investment, hedging, financing and brokerage activities. Certain of the Underwriters and their respective
affiliates have, from time to time, performed, and may in the future perform, various investment banking services for
the City, for which they received or will receive customary fees and expenses.
In the ordinary course of their various business activities, the Underwriters and their respective affiliates may
make or hold a broad array of investments and actively trade debt and equity securities (or related derivative securities)
and financial instruments (which may include bank loans and/or credit default swaps) for their own account and for
Draft
82
the accounts of their customers and may at any time hold long and short positions in such securities and instruments.
Such investment and securities activities may involve securities and instruments of the City.
The following language has been provided by the Underwriters named herein. The City takes no
responsibility as to the accuracy or completeness thereof.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an underwriter of the Series 2021 Bonds, has entered into a retail distribution
agreement with Fidelity Capital Markets, a division of National Financial Services LLC (together with its affiliates,
“Fidelity”). Under this distribution agreement, Citi may distribute municipal securities to retail investors at the
original issue price through Fidelity. As part of this arrangement, Citi will compensate Fidelity for its selling efforts.
[To be provided]
MUNICIPAL ADVISOR
PFM is serving as municipal advisor to the Department for the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds. PFM is
not obligated to undertake, and has not undertaken, either to make an independent verification of or to assume
responsibility for, the accuracy, completeness, or fairness of the information contained in this Official Statement. PFM
is an independent financial advisory firm and is not engaged in the business of underwriting, trading or distributing
securities. PFM is a registered municipal advisor with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
The City will enter into a Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the “CDA”),in substantially the form attached
hereto as APPENDIX F, for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the Series 2021 Bonds to send certain information
annually and to provide notice of certain events to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board pursuant to the
requirements of Section (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12 (the “Rule”) adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Commission”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In the CDA, the City will agree to use diligent efforts
to require certain “obligated persons” (at this time only Delta) to provide certain annual financial information and
operating data, unless the City is no longer required to do so under the Rule. The City has not undertaken to provide
additional information regarding any person that is not obligated under the AUA, a lease or other agreement having a
term of more than one year to pay a portion of the debt service on the Series 2021 Bonds and providing at least twenty
percent (20%) of the Revenues of the Department for the prior two (2) Fiscal Years. Delta has agreed in the AUA to
provide the City such information with respect to Delta as the City may reasonably request in order for the City to
comply with the requirements of the Rule.
A failure by the City to comply with the CDA will not constitute a default under the Indenture and beneficial
owners of the Series 2021 Bonds are limited to the remedies described in the CDA. A failure by the City to comply
with the CDA must be reported in accordance with the Rule and must be considered by any broker, dealer or municipal
securities dealer before recommending the purchase or sale of the Series 2021 Bonds in the secondary market.
Consequently, such a failure may adversely affect the transferability and liquidity of the Series 2021 Bonds and their
market price. See “FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT” attached hereto as APPENDIX F for
the information to be provided, the events which will be noticed on an occurrence basis and the other terms of the
CDA, including termination, amendment and remedies.
The City entered into a CDA with respect to the Series 2017 Bonds in February 2017, and the City entered
into an additional CDA with respect to the Series 2018 Bonds in October 2018. Prior to February 2017, the City did
not have any bonds secured by Net Revenues of the Airport System outstanding within the period ending five (5)
years before the date of this Official Statement. The City has complied fully with its continuing disclosure obligations
with respect to its Airport Revenue Bonds for the preceding five years.
The City has entered into a number of continuing disclosure undertakings with respect to the bonds it has
issued for facilities and functions unrelated to the Airport. The City does not believe that these other continuing
disclosure agreements or its compliance with them is material to holders of the Bonds.
Draft
83
MISCELLANEOUS
All quotations from, and summaries and explanations of the Utah Constitution, statutes, programs, laws of
the State, court decisions and the Indenture, which are contained in this Official Statement do not purport to be
complete and reference is made to said Constitution, statutes, programs, laws, court decisions and the Indenture for
full and complete statements of their provisions.
Any statements in this Official Statement involving matters of opinion, whether or not expressly so stated,
are intended as such and not as representations of facts. This Official Statement is not to be construed as a contract
between the City or the Underwriters and the purchasers or owners of any of the Series 2021 Bonds.
The appendices attached hereto are an integral part of this Official Statement and should be read in
conjunction with the foregoing material.
The delivery of this Official Statement and its distribution and use have been duly authorized by the City.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
By:
Erin J. Mendenhall, Mayor
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF
AIRPORTS
By:
Bill Wyatt, Executive Director
Draft
A-1
APPENDIX A
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
B-1
APPENDIX B
REPORT OF THE AIRPORT CONSULTANT
PREPARED BY
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated
Appendix B:
Report of the Airport Consultant
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
PREPARED FOR
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
4445 Lake Forest Drive
Suite 700
Cincinnati, OH 45242
USA
T +1 513 530 5333
F +1 513 530 1278
landrum-brown.com
July XX, 2021
Mr. William W. Wyatt
Executive Director
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
Salt Lake City International Airport
3920 West Terminal Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84122
Re: Report of the Airport Consultant, Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT) and
Series 2021B (Non-AMT), Salt Lake City International Airport
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated (L&B), in association with Airmac LLC, is pleased to submit this Report of the
Airport Consultant (Report) for the proposed issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Airport Revenue Bonds,
Series 2021A (AMT) and Series 2021B (Non-AMT) herein referred to collectively as the Series 2021 Bonds. This
independent Report has been prepared for the Salt Lake City Department of Airports (Department) to support its
planned issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and is intended to be included in the Official Statement for the Series
2021 Bonds as Appendix B, Report of the Airport Consultant. All capitalized terms in this Report are used as
defined in the Official Statement relating to the Series 2021 Bonds or the Master Trust Indenture, except as
otherwise defined herein.
Salt Lake City International Airport (Airport) is owned by Salt Lake City, Utah (City) and operated by the City
through the Department. The Mayor of the City, the City Council and an 11-member advisory board (Airport
Advisory Board) of citizen volunteers oversee its affairs. The Airport Advisory Board provides advice with respect
to broad matters of policy affecting the operation of the Airport System, while the Mayor and City Council oversee
the Department’s affairs. The Airport comprises approximately 9,400 acres of land in Salt Lake County, Utah. It is
located approximately five miles west of the City’s downtown. The Airport is generally isolated from other airport
competition and is the primary commercial air passenger and cargo service facility for the Salt Lake Valley, the
State of Utah, and portions of southwestern Wyoming, southeastern Idaho, northeastern Nevada, and
northwestern Colorado. The Department also operates two general aviation airports: South Valley Regional
Airport in West Jordan and Tooele Valley Airport in Erda (Auxiliary Airports). These airports serve the general
aviation needs of corporate and private aircraft in the region. The Department operates the Airport and the
Auxiliary Airports together as an Airport System.
The day-to-day operations of the Airport System are managed by the Executive Director, who is appointed by and
reports directly to the Mayor. The Executive Director leads the management staff of the Department along with
the Department’s Division Directors. Ten Directors are responsible for the following nine Divisions: Operations;
Maintenance; Finance; Engineering; Planning and Environmental; Administration and Commercial Services;
Communication and Marketing; Information Technology; and Operational Readiness, Activation, and Transition
for the New SLC. The executive team of the Department is a full-time staff of professional and technical personnel
located at the Airport.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
ii | Landrum & Brown
The New SLC
The Department has completely redeveloped the Airport’s landside and terminal facilities and has completed the
initial phase of its new airside concourses. Forty-six of the 78 loading-bridge capable gates are complete and in-
use, and the new airside concourse development is planned to be complete by late 2024. This redevelopment is
comprised of two major capital programs known as the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North
Concourse Program (NCP), as further described below. Collectively, these redevelopment programs are referred
to as the New SLC (formerly referred to as the Airport Redevelopment Program). An overview of the TRP and the
NCP is provided below, and additional details are contained in Chapter 4 of this Report.
The Terminal Redevelopment Program
In 2014, the Signatory Airlines (defined herein) operating at the Airport approved the implementation of the TRP
through execution of a new Airline Use Agreement (AUA) that incorporates the TRP and is effective through June
30, 2024. As described below, the Department offered an extension of the AUA through June 30, 2034, which has
been executed by Delta Air Lines (Delta). The TRP replaced all of the former aged and functionally obsolete
terminal complex, including the development of a consolidated terminal facility, an attached linear airside
concourse (Concourse A, formerly referred to has the South Concourse), and landside facilities at the Airport. In
addition, the TRP addressed changes in the aviation industry and improved inherent operational inefficiencies of
the former facilities. Other than the eastern half of Concourse A, the TRP has been completed and opened in
September 2020. The remaining portion of Concourse A is planned to be completed in late 2023. It is currently
estimated that the TRP will cost approximately $2.72 billion of which approximately $2.21 billion has already been
spent as of March 31, 2021.
Additional details on the TRP and its primary components are contained in Chapter 4 of this Report.
The North Concourse Program
The NCP consists of a 31-gate midfield concourse and the development of an underground connecting tunnel
from Concourse A of the TRP. The initial phase of the NCP that has provided 21 of the planned 31 gates on
Concourse B (formerly referred to as the North Concourse) was completed and opened in October 2020. The
development of the NCP eliminated the need to renovate and maintain former Concourses C, D, and F. In April
2016, the Signatory Airlines unanimously approved the implementation of the NCP. The remaining portions of
Concourse B along with the new central underground tunnel are planned to be completed in the third quarter of
2025. When completed, it is currently estimated that the NCP will cost approximately $1.73 billion of which
approximately $637 million has already been spent as of March 31, 2021. Additional details on the NCP and its
primary components are contained in Chapter 4 of this Report.
The Series 2021 Bonds
The Series 2021 Bonds are being issued pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture and Third Supplemental Trust
Indenture. As of July 2, 2021, the Department currently had $1.849 billion of debt outstanding consisting of the
Series 2017 Bonds and Series 2018 Bonds. In addition, the Department has entered into a short-term revolving
credit facility with JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, pursuant to which the City can access up to $300
million (Line of Credit) secured by one or more notes (Notes); which Notes constitute subordinate obligations
under the Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture. As of date, the Department has an outstanding balance of $xx
million on the Line of Credit.
The Department has funded to date and expects to continue to fund the design and construction of the New SLC
from a variety of sources, including Department funds, proceeds of airport revenue bonds, the Line of Credit (as
an interim funding source), Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), Customer Facility Charges (CFCs), and federal
grants. In addition to the Series 2021 Bonds, the Department previously issued its $1.0 billion of Series 2017
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | iii
Bonds and its $850.55 million of Series 2018 Bonds, and the Department currently expects that it will issue
additional bonds to complete the funding for the New SLC.
Proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds will be used to (1) fund a portion of the costs of the New SLC, (2) repay the
current outstanding balance of the Line of Credit, (3) fund capitalized interest, (4) fund a deposit to the Common
Debt Service Reserve Fund, and (5) pay the costs of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds
are special limited obligations of the City, secured by a pledge of Net Revenues derived by the Department from
the operation of the Airport System.
Master Trust Indenture
The City is obligated under the Master Trust Indenture, referred to herein as the Master Indenture, to establish,
fix, prescribe and collect rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges in connection with the operation of the Airport
System and for services rendered in connection therewith, so that during each Fiscal Year (FY) the Net
Revenues, together with any Transfer from the Rolling Coverage Account, will be equal to at least 125% of
Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds for such FY. In addition, the City has covenanted, while any
Bonds are Outstanding, to establish, fix, prescribe, and collect rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges in connection
with the operation of the Airport System and for services rendered in connection therewith, so that Revenues in
each FY will be at least equal to the following amounts: (i) Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport
System due and payable during such FY; (ii) the Annual Debt Service on any Outstanding Bonds required to be
funded by the City in such FY as required by the Master Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture with respect to
the Outstanding Bonds; (iii) the required deposits to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund or any Series Debt
Service Reserve Fund which may be established by a Supplemental Indenture; (iv) the reimbursement owed to
any Credit Provider or Liquidity Provider as required by a Supplemental Indenture; (v) the interest on and principal
of any indebtedness of the Department required to be funded during such FY, other than for Outstanding Bonds,
but including Subordinate Obligations; and (vi) funding of any debt service reserve funds created with respect to
any indebtedness of the Department, other than Outstanding Bonds, but including Subordinate Obligations.
Airline Use Agreement
The City entered into a 10-year AUA with the Signatory Airlines operating at the Airport effective on July 1, 2014
and expiring on June 30, 2024, except for the AUA with Delta that is effective through June 30, 2034 (as
described below). The AUA establishes, among other things, procedures for setting and adjusting rentals, rates,
fees and charges to be collected for the use of Airport facilities. As of the date of this Report, the Signatory
Airlines at the Airport include Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta, Frontier Airlines, JetBlue Airways,
Southwest Airlines and United Airlines. Together, the Signatory Airlines accounted for 98.1% of enplaned
passengers at the Airport in FY 2020.
In May 2018, The Department offered a 10-year extension to the AUA to all the Signatory Airlines operating at the
Airport to extend all existing terms and conditions of the AUA through June 30, 2034. At this time, Delta is the only
airline that has executed the 10-year AUA extension. Delta is the largest airline operating at the Airport with
approximately 73% of the enplaned passengers in FY 2020. The Department is currently in discussions with the
other Signatory Airlines regarding their execution of the AUA extension.
The AUA governs airline use of certain Airport facilities, including Airfield, Terminal, Terminal Aircraft Aprons,
baggage claim, ticket counters and gate areas and permits the Signatory Airlines to lease Exclusive Use
Premises, Preferential Use Premises, and Joint Use Premises. Exclusive Premises generally include office space,
storage areas, airline club lounges, and employee break rooms; and Preferential Use Premises is Airport space,
including holdroom areas and gates, ticket counters, and certain baggage makeup areas, leased to a Signatory
Airline and to which the Signatory Airline has a higher and continuous priority of use over all other air carriers.
Joint Use Premises generally include baggage claim areas and baggage makeup equipment. The AUA also
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
iv | Landrum & Brown
contemplated the development of the TRP during the course of its term. Section 10.06 of the AUA specifies
special provisions regarding the TRP including memorializing that the Signatory Airlines have approved and
support the TRP. The NCP was not contemplated as part of the AUA; however, the Signatory Airlines approved
its implementation in April 2016.
The AUA also provides for extraordinary coverage protection that allows the Department to collect additional
payments from the Signatory Airlines to satisfy the Rate Covenant set forth in the Master Indenture if the
Department expects it will not meet the Rate Covenant in any FY. More information on the AUA can be found in
Chapter 5 of this Report.
Report of the Airport Consultant
In our preparation of this independent Report, we evaluated the ability of the Department to generate Revenues
from operation of the Airport System sufficient to meet the funding requirements and obligations established by
the Master Indenture during the projection period of FY 2022 through FY 2028. The following provides an
overview of the primary findings and conclusions contained in the Report.
COVID-19 Impacts on the Aviation Industry and the Airport
COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a novel strain of coronavirus. The World Health Organization
(WHO) declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern on January 30,
2020, and subsequently declared it a pandemic on March 11, 2020. As of March 15, 2021, WHO has reported
over 119.6 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and over 2.6 million deaths worldwide.1 For the United States
(U.S.), as of March 15, 2021, WHO reported over 29.1 million confirmed cases and over 529,000 deaths. In terms
of confirmed cases and deaths, the U.S. has been the most impacted country in the world, representing more
than 20% of total global numbers.2 The State of Utah (State) has also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
As of March 15, 2021, the Utah Department of Health reported that there were approximately 378,600 cases and
2,027 deaths related to COVID-19 in the State, which represents approximately 1.3% and 0.38% of the total U.S.,
respectively.3 In terms of population, State is just under 1.0% of the total U.S. As of March 15, 2021, the State
had approximately 11,802 confirmed COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people as compared to the nationwide
average of 8,816 cases per 100,000.4 In terms of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, the State is below the
national average of 160 at 63 as of March 15, 2021.5
Along with all other airports in the U.S. and abroad, the Airport has been acutely impacted by the broad-based
economic shutdown resulting from efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including reductions in flights and
severe declines in the volume of passenger traffic. The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected domestic and
international travel and travel-related industries. Airlines have reported unprecedented downturns in passenger
volumes, which in turn, have prompted them to significantly reduce, and in many cases eliminate, both domestic
and international scheduled service.
1 World Health Organization, WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard, https://covid19.who.int/table, accessed March 2021.
2 Ibid.
3 Utah Department of Health, Overview of COVID-19 Surveillance, https://coronavirus.utah.gov/case-counts/, accessed March 2021.
4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC COVID Data Tracker, https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases, accessed
March 2021.
5 Ibid.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | v
Figure 1 illustrates the relative effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on annual U.S. passenger volumes as
compared to the effect of prior significant events and situations in the U.S. on passenger traffic. As presented, the
associated impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in the largest passenger declines in aviation history.
Chapter 1 of this Report provides information on COVID-19 prevention measures being undertaken by the State
and Airport, economic impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, a summary of aviation industry and
Airport activity impacts, and a summary of Airport financial impacts.
It should be noted despite recent improved COVID-19 metrics and increased air travel activity, that
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic still are emerging, and at this time L&B is unable to fully quantify the
effect that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on the region’s economic base and the Airport and the length
of time over which this effect will occur. The historical financial information and operating data set forth
in this Report for the dates as of which such information and data are set forth and for the periods that
occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures instituted to control such pandemic may not
be indicative of future results or performance due to these and other factors. For a description of the
Department’s ongoing response to COVID-19 and related financial and operating effects on the
Department and the Airport, see the section in the Official Statement titled “IMPACT OF COVID-19
PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT.”
Figure 1 U.S. Aviation System Shocks and Recoveries
Note: Excludes non-revenue enplaned passengers.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Air Carrier Traffic Statistics; National Bureau of Economic
Research, U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions.
COVID-19
Impact
PATCO Strike
Pan Am Flight 103
Gulf War
WTC Bombing
9/11 Attack
Iraq War
COVID-19 Pandemic
SARS Outbreak
Avian Flu
19
7
3
-75
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
8
0
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
8
1
-82
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
9
0
-91
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
20
0
1
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
Gr
e
a
t
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
CO
V
I
D
-19
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
United States Enplaned Passengers
12-month rolling; In millions
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
vi | Landrum & Brown
As described in Chapter 1 of this Report, because of certain unique characteristics of the Salt Lake City region,
the Airport has not been as negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic as the nation as a whole. A
summary of these are as follows.
The region has historically exhibited stronger employment trends than the nation as a whole. As of March
2021, the region’s unemployment rate is 2.8% as compared to the overall U.S. of 6.2%.
The region is in relatively close proximity to many national parks, state parks, and ski resorts that offer
unique outdoor activities that are more conducive for visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Visitor
traffic to these areas was robust during the latter portion of 2020 and early 2021.
Passenger traffic at the Airport has not been as impacted as the overall U.S.
Scheduled departing seats for the Airport for May 2021 as compared to May 2019 are up by 4.3%. The
seat capacity for the nation is still down as compared to 2019 levels.
As the 4th largest airport for Delta in terms of seat capacity, the Airport is currently scheduled to have an
increase of 7.2% in departing seats for FY 2021 as compared to FY 2020. The Airport is the only airport
within Delta’s ten largest that is scheduled to have an increase in seats.
Role of the Airport
The Airport serves two distinct roles for passenger air transportation: origin-destination (O&D), for passengers
beginning or ending their trip at the Airport, and as Delta’s primary connecting hub for the inter-mountain region
and the western U.S. Based on data for calendar year (CY) 2019, the Airport was classified by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) as a Large Hub facility based upon its share of nationwide enplaned passengers.
Based on data from the FAA, approximately 12.8 million enplaned passengers boarded aircraft at the Airport in
CY 2019, ranking the Airport 23rd in the U.S. The Airport has a diverse, stable base of air carriers. Four of the U.S.
network airlines along with two low-cost carriers (LCCs) and one ultra-low-cost carrier are Signatory Airlines at the
Airport. The Airport serves a large and growing O&D market. Per the U.S. Department of Transportation in FY
2020, an estimated 58% of the Airport’s enplaned passengers were O&D. The Airport is also a primary
connecting hub airport for Delta. Delta accounted for approximately 73% of enplaned passengers at the Airport in
FY 2020 consisting of both O&D and connecting passengers (estimated at 47% O&D and 53% connecting).
Economic Base for Air Traffic
The Airport is the primary commercial air service facility serving the Salt Lake City metropolitan area and the
surrounding region and is located far from other comparable airports. The geographical region that serves as an
airport’s primary air service catchment area can be referred to as its ‘Air Service Area.’ For the purposes of this
Report, the Airport’s Air Service Area is defined as the Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem Combined Statistical Area
(CSA), which includes the following 10 counties in Utah: Box Elder, Davis, Juab, Morgan, Salt Lake City, Summit,
Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber. The Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem CSA is the 22nd most populated CSA in the
U.S., with approximately 2.3 million people, and comprises over 82% of the population for the State of Utah.
The Air Service Area’s economic strength is evaluated in Chapter 2 of this Report. The Air Service Area has
historically exhibited more favorable trends in population growth, educational attainment, employment, and
household income than the U.S., and these trends are projected to continue.
The economy in the Air Service Area is also connected to visitors to the region, including both leisure and
business travelers. The Air Service Area is in relatively close proximity to many national parks (including the
Mighty 5), state parks, and ski resorts that offer visitors unique and exceptional activities in an open and outdoor
natural setting more conducive to restrictions in place during pandemics. Many of these activities have been as
popular as ever during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | vii
While, overall, the associated impacts and restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have negatively
affected the regional economy, tourism, conventions, and events over the past year, the Air Service Area has
fared better than the national economy. It is anticipated the economy will continue its recovery as the spread of
COVID-19 is controlled, which will further stimulate demand for air travel. More information on the economic base
for air transportation is contained in Chapter 2.
Air Service and Air Traffic Analysis
Prior to the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, between FY 2012 and FY 2019, total enplaned
passengers at the Airport increased from approximately 10.1 million to approximately 13.1 million, an overall
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 3.7% for this period. The last few months of FY 2020
were significantly impacted by the pandemic and passenger traffic declined precipitously. In March 2020,
passengers were down 49.2% as compared to March 2019 and decreased to a low of 91.9% down in April 2020
as compared to April 2019. In May 2020 and June 2020, enplaned passengers started to recovery as they were
down 85.8% and 75.9%, respectively from the same months in 2019. For the entire FY 2020, enplaned
passengers decreased by 22.9% from FY 2019 to 10.1 million enplaned passengers. In FY 2021, enplaned
passengers are estimated to be approximately 6.7 million, which is about 51% of FY 2019 levels.
While these enplaned passenger decreases are substantial, the Airport has not been as negatively impacted as
the U.S. as a whole. Figure 2 depicts the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic to passenger
checkpoint throughput at both the Airport and for the overall U.S per data from the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). This figure presents the recovery trend for passenger checkpoint throughput indexed to
2019 levels (i.e., 2019 levels equal 100). As shown, during the early days of the pandemic, the impact to the
Airport’s checkpoint throughput tracked closely with the general nationwide trend, but, was slightly better. The
recovery at the Airport has been more pronounced than the nation overall, especially, as we have moved on from
the early days of the pandemic. For the weekly average in early March 2021, the Airport was around 58% of the
2019 throughput compared to about 46% for the U.S.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
viii | Landrum & Brown
Figure 2 Comparison of Airport and U.S. TSA Checkpoint Passengers
Sources: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, accessed March 2021.
Transportation Security Administration, accessed March 2021.
L&B prepared the air traffic activity projections included in this Report. The baseline projection in the Report is
based on a number of assumptions. Most notably, it assumes that the Airport will recover back to FY 2019
enplaned passenger levels in FY 2024 and, thereafter, the underlying economic conditions of the Air Service Area
and a return to historical connecting passenger levels by Delta are expected to be the primary driver for
passenger demand at the Airport. Additional key assumptions are listed below:
Recovery back to “pre-COVID-19” air traffic levels will require (1) a restoration of passenger confidence
from a public health standpoint along with (2) an economic recovery.
The U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will continue its ongoing recovery and will return to 2019 levels
during the first quarter 2022.
Population or herd immunity through ongoing vaccinations and natural immunity will be achieved
sometime in late 2021.
Leisure air travel will recover faster from the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic than
compared to business air travel. With the emergence of video and virtual online technologies over 2020, it
is assumed that a small percentage of business travel will not return over the projection period (about
8%).
The Airport will recover back to historical percentages of O&D and connecting passengers and the Airport
will remain a hub for Delta.
The other major carriers currently serving the Airport will continue to provide air service to support local
demand.
The recovery of trans-oceanic international service is assumed to lag that of domestic traffic.
The return to longer-term national air traffic growth trends will occur by 2024.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21
Enplaned Passengers
Seven-day moving average; Index (2019 = 100)
Salt Lake City International Airport United States
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | ix
Given the uncertainty of the level of impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the duration of the recovery from
such impacts, L&B also prepared a slower recovery enplaned passengers projection. For additional details on the
slower recovery projection scenario, please refer to Section 3.4.5 herein. Table 1 presents the baseline and
slower recovery enplaned passengers projections.
Table 1 Enplaned Passengers Projection [Subject to Change]
Fiscal Year Enplaned Passengers (in thousands)
Baseline Slower Recovery
2019 (actual) 13,090 13,090
2020 (actual) 10,096 10,096
2021 6,692 6,692
2022 11,507 8,246
2023 12,522 11,035
2024 13,070 11,686
2025 13,418 12,002
2026 13,695 12,253
2027 13,953 12,487
2028 14,132 12,650
Compound Annual Growth Rate
2019-20 (22.9%) (22.9%)
2020-21 (33.7%) (33.7%)
2021-28 11.3% 9.5%
2019-28 0.9% (0.4%)
Note: These projections are based on current expectations and information and are not intended as a representation of
facts or guarantee of results.
Sources: Salt Lake City Department of Airports (actual data); L&B (estimated and projected data).
It is important to note that many of the factors affecting air travel demand are not necessarily quantifiable. As a
result, all projections are subject to uncertainty. While the global COVID-19 pandemic is currently ongoing, other
economic disturbances could occur over the projection period. Therefore, these projection scenarios, as with any
projections, should be viewed as a general indication of future aviation activity as opposed to a precise prediction.
Actual future traffic is likely to vary from these projections, and such variances could be material.
Capital Improvement Program
For purposes of this Report, the Department’s current capital program is organized into the following categories,
each of which is discussed in the sections that follow in this chapter of the Report:
The New SLC: The New SLC consists of both the TRP and NCP as described below:
The Terminal Redevelopment Program: The TRP is the major capital program currently under
construction that has completely replaced and rebuilt the Airport’s landside and terminal facilities and is
currently replacing its airside concourse facilities over the next few years in conjunction with the NCP. The
western portion of the airside concourse (Concourse A) was opened in September 2020 and is
operational. The TRP has been funded, in part, with proceeds of the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series
2018 Bonds, and is also intended to be funded, in part, with proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds and
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
x | Landrum & Brown
Additional Bonds along with other funding sources to be described later. The capital and operating costs
associated with the TRP have been included in the financial analysis in this Report and are further
described in Chapter 5.
The North Concourse Program: The NCP is also currently under construction and includes the
development of a midfield airside concourse (Concourse B) to the north of the new airside concourse to
be developed simultaneously with the TRP (i.e., Concourse A). The western portion of Concourse B
opened in October 2020 and is currently operational. The eastern portion of Concourse B is anticipated to
be opened during the fourth quarter of 2024 with full operation of Concourse B by the fourth quarter of
2025. The NCP has been funded, in part, with proceeds of the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018
Bonds, and is also intended to be funded, in part, with proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds and Additional
Bonds along with other funding sources to be described later. The capital and operating costs associated
with the NCP have been included in the financial analysis in this Report and are further described in
Chapter 5.
Other Capital Projects: These projects are in addition to the elements of the New SLC and are the other
Airport System capital projects that currently are anticipated by the Department to be undertaken over the
projection period, or from FY 2022 through FY 2028. Such projects are referred to in this Report as the ‘Other
Capital Projects.’ The estimated capital funding and operating costs, if any, and estimated revenue impacts, if
any, associated with the Other Capital Projects have also been included as part of the financial analysis in
this Report.
The New SLC, including the increased cost for the NCP as described above, is estimated to cost approximately
$4.45 billion, including design, engineering, construction, escalation for inflation, and contingency amounts, but
excluding financing costs. Sources of funding for the New SLC are presented in Exhibit A of this Report.
Approximately $2.84 billion of project costs have already been incurred through March 2021. Proceeds of the
Series 2017 Bonds and Series 2018 Bonds have funded and continue to fund portions of the New SLC and
proceeds of the planned Series 2021 Bonds and proceeds of other future additional bonds are also planned to
fund a portion of the New SLC, as well as, utilizing the Line of Credit as an interim funding source.
Other Capital Projects currently anticipated by the Department to be undertaken and/or completed during the
projection period are also shown in Exhibit A. Preliminary cost estimates for the Other Capital Projects total
approximately $308 million for the period of FY 2021 through FY 2028. It should be noted that certain capital
projects included in Other Capital Projects could potentially be deferred or not otherwise undertaken by the
Department during the projection period depending on circumstances such as aviation demand levels, availability
of project funding, etc.
Financial Analysis
L&B evaluated the ability of the Airport System to generate Net Revenues sufficient to meet the funding
requirements and obligations established by the Master Indenture during the projection period of FY 2022 through
FY 2028. Per our analysis, the Department is projected to produce sufficient Net Revenues, which, together with
Transfers from the Rolling Coverage Account, will at least equal 125% of debt service on the outstanding Bonds,
the Series 2021 Bonds, and projected future additional Bonds.
The Department is projected to meet its requirements and obligations established by the Master Indenture and
maintain airline cost per enplaned passenger (CPE) levels generally in-line with other large hubs in the western
U.S. Table 2 below presents projections of debt service coverage ratios and airline CPE. Please refer to Section
5.10 of this Report for financial results related to the slower recovery enplaned passengers projection.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | xi
Table 2 Debt Service Coverage and Passenger Airline CPE Projections
Fiscal Year Debt Service Coverage Ratio Airline CPE
2022 1.43 $11.59
2023 1.67 $11.12
2024 1.40 $17.13
2025 1.44 $18.05
2026 1.40 $17.32
2027 1.38 $17.55
2028 1.38 $17.74
Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
L&B prepared the aviation activity and financial projections included in this Report along with various underlying
assumptions. In preparing our findings and conclusions, L&B has relied upon the accuracy and completeness of
certain assumptions, financial data, and other data provided to it by the referenced sources, without independent
verification; however, L&B has reviewed the projections and assumptions with the Department and has no reason
to believe such assumptions and data are materially incorrect.
The techniques and methodologies used in preparing this Report are consistent with industry practices for similar
studies in connection with airport revenue bond sales. Although L&B believes that the approach and assumptions
used are reasonable and provide an appropriate basis for the financial projections, any projection is subject to
uncertainties. Inevitably, some assumptions used to derive the projection contained herein will not be realized,
and unforeseeable events may occur. The actual financial results achieved will vary from those projected, and
such variations could be material. We have no responsibility to update this Report for events and/or
circumstances occurring after the date of this Report.
L&B is not registered with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission as a municipal advisor, is not acting as a
municipal advisor, and does not assume any fiduciary duties or provide advisory services as described in Section
15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise. L&B does not make recommendations or advice
regarding any action to be taken by our clients with respect to any prospective, new, or existing municipal
financial products or issuance of municipal securities including with respect to the structure, timing, terms or other
similar matters concerning municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities.
L&B, in association with Airmac LLC, appreciates this opportunity to serve as the Department’s Airport Consultant
for this proposed financing.
Sincerely,
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | i
Contents Page
1 COVID-19 Impacts on the Aviation Industry and the Airport 1
1.1 COVID-19 Response 2
1.1.1 Federal 2
1.1.2 The State 3
1.1.3 The Department 4
1.2 Unique economic Impacts related to the COVID-19 Pandemic 5
1.2.1 Employment 5
1.2.2 Regional Tourism and Visitors 8
1.3 Summary of Aviation Industry and Airport Air Traffic Impacts 10
1.3.1 Passenger Impacts 10
1.3.2 Scheduled Departures and Departing Seats 13
1.3.3 Delta Air Line’s Operations at the Airport 13
1.4 Summary of Airport Capital Program Impacts 17
1.5 Summary of Airport Financial Assistance and Relief Measures 19
1.5.1 CARES Act 19
1.5.2 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation Act 19
1.5.3 American Rescue Plan Act 19
1.5.4 COVID-19 Financial Relief Measures 20
2 Role of the Airport and Economic Base for Air Traffic 21
2.1 Role of the Airport 21
2.1.1 National Role 21
2.1.2 Regional Role 24
2.1.3 Role as Hub for Delta Air Lines 26
2.2 Economic Base for Air Traffic 27
2.2.1 Socioeconomic Trends 28
2.2.2 Employment 32
2.2.3 Income 40
2.2.4 Gross Domestic/Regional Product 42
2.2.5 Regional Tourism and Visitors 44
2.2.6 Summary 46
3 Air Service and Air Traffic Analysis 48
3.1 Air Service at the Airport 48
3.1.1 Airlines Operating at the Airport 48
3.1.2 Delta’s Operations at the Airport 53
3.1.3 Origin and Destination Markets 61
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
ii | Landrum & Brown
3.1.4 Current Nonstop Service 64
3.2 Air Traffic Activity and Trends 64
3.2.1 Enplaned Passengers 64
3.2.2 Aircraft Operations 70
3.2.3 Aircraft Landing Weight 74
3.3 Key Factors Affecting Air Traffic Demand 77
3.3.1 The COVID-19 Pandemic 77
3.3.2 Economic Conditions and Events 79
3.3.3 The U.S. Airline Industry 81
3.3.4 Aviation Fuel 83
3.3.5 Aviation Security 85
3.3.6 National Air Traffic Capacity 86
3.4 Air Traffic Activity Projections 86
3.4.1 Industry Recovery Scenarios 86
3.4.2 Projection Assumptions 89
3.4.3 Enplaned Passengers Projection 92
3.4.4 Aircraft Landed Weight Projection 94
3.4.5 Slower Recovery Enplaned Passengers Projection 94
4 Airport Facilities and Capital Program 96
4.1 Existing Airport Facilities 96
4.1.1 Airport History 97
4.1.2 Airfield Facilities 97
4.1.3 Terminal Facilities 98
4.1.4 Public Parking Facilities 100
4.1.5 Rental Car Facilities 101
4.1.6 Transportation Network Companies 101
4.1.7 Ancillary Facilities 101
4.2 The Auxiliary Airports 102
4.3 Summary of Capital Projects 103
4.4 The New SLC 104
4.4.1 The Terminal Redevelopment Program 106
4.4.2 The North Concourse Program 107
4.4.3 New SLC Aircraft Gate Positions 108
4.4.4 The New SLC Program Management Team 109
4.5 Other Capital Projects 110
4.5.1 Financial Impact for Other Capital Projects 110
4.6 Plan of Finance 111
4.6.1 Federal, State and Other Grants 111
4.6.2 Passenger Facility Charge Revenues 111
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | iii
4.6.3 Department Funds 112
4.6.4 Outstanding Bonds, Series 2021 Bonds, and Future Bonds 112
4.6.5 Customer Facility Charges 112
5 Financial Framework and Analysis 114
5.1 Airport Governing Body 114
5.2 Management Structure 114
5.3 Financial Structure 114
5.3.1 Accounting Structure 115
5.3.2 Master Indenture 116
5.3.3 Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture 120
5.3.4 Airline Use Agreement 122
5.3.5 Other Principal Business Agreements 125
5.3.6 CARES Act Grant Assistance 128
5.3.7 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation Act 128
5.3.8 American Rescue Plan Act 129
5.4 Debt Service 129
5.5 Operating Expenses 131
5.6 Non-Airline Revenues 133
5.6.1 Auto Parking 134
5.6.2 Car Rental 135
5.6.3 Terminal Concessions 136
5.6.4 Other 136
5.7 Airline Revenues 136
5.7.1 Landing Fees 136
5.7.2 Terminal Rents 137
5.7.3 Revenue Share 137
5.7.4 Signatory Airline Cost per Enplaned Passenger 137
5.8 Application of Airport Revenues 137
5.9 Net Revenues and Debt Service Coverage 138
5.10 Slower Recovery Scenario Financial Analysis 138
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
iv | Landrum & Brown
List of Tables Page
TABLE 1-1 ENPLANED PASSENGERS AT THE AIRPORT (FY 2019 – FY 2021 YTD) 12
TABLE 1-2 KEY AIR SERVICE METRICS AT THE AIRPORT BY AIRLINE (MAY 2021 VS MAY
2019) 14
TABLE 1-3 DELTA’S TOP TEN AIRPORTS BASED ON SCHEDULED DEPARTING SEATS (FY
2020 VS FY 2021) 15
TABLE 2-1 U.S. LARGE HUB AIRPORTS ENPLANED PASSENGER RANKINGS (2019) 22
TABLE 2-2 POPULATION GROWTH (2010 –2020) 29
TABLE 2-3 TOP EMPLOYERS IN UTAH (2019) 38
TABLE 3-1 AIRLINES SERVING THE AIRPORT (AS OF MARCH 2021) 49
TABLE 3-2 AIRPORT ENPLANED PASSENGERS AND AIRLINE MARKET SHARE (FY 2016 –
FY 2021 YTD) 51
TABLE 3-3 KEY AIR SERVICE METRICS AT THE AIRPORT BY AIRLINE (MAY 2019 VS MAY
2021) 52
TABLE 3-4 DELTA’S TOP TEN AIRPORTS BASED ON SCHEDULED DEPARTING SEATS (FY
2020 VS FY 2021) 53
TABLE 3-5 DELTA’S TOP TEN DOMESTIC O&D MARKETS BASED ON ESTIMATED
REVENUE (FY 2020) 54
TABLE 3-6 DELTA CONNECTING PASSENGERS BY HUB BY REGION (IN THOUSANDS; FY
2020) 57
TABLE 3-7 DELTA TOP 20 AIRPORTS WITH PASSENGERS CONNECTING AT WEST COAST
HUBS (FY 2020) 60
TABLE 3-8 TOP 25 ORIGIN AND DESTINATION MARKETS AT THE AIRPORT (FY 2020) 62
TABLE 3-9 AIR SERVICE CHANGES AT TOP 25 O&D MARKETS (MAY 2019 VS MAY 2021) 63
TABLE 3-10 HISTORICAL ENPLANED PASSENGERS (IN THOUSANDS; FY 2012 – FY 2020) 68
TABLE 3-11 ENPLANED PASSENGERS AT THE AIRPORT (FY 2019 – FY 2021 YTD) 69
TABLE 3-12 HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS (FY 2012 – FY 2020) 71
TABLE 3-13 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT (FY 2019 – FY 2021 YTD) 73
TABLE 3-14 HISTORICAL LANDED WEIGHT (IN THOUSAND-POUND UNITS; FY 2012 – FY
2020) 75
TABLE 3-15 CHANGE IN MONTHLY AIRCRAFT LANDED WEIGHT AT THE AIRPORT (IN
THOUSAND-POUND UNITS; 2019 VS 2020) 76
TABLE 3-16 INDUSTRY RECOVERY SCENARIO FORECASTS 87
TABLE 3-17 ENPLANED PASSENGERS PROJECTION (FY 2019 – FY 2028) 92
TABLE 3-18 LANDED WEIGHT PROJECTION (FY 2019 – FY 2028) 94
TABLE 3-19 ENPLANED PASSENGERS SLOWER RECOVERY PROJECTION (FY 2019 – FY
2028) 95
TABLE 4-1 AIRCRAFT GATE USE AT THE AIRPORT (AS OF APRIL 2021) 100
TABLE 4-2 TRP PROJECT COSTS BY ELEMENT (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) 106
TABLE 4-3 NCP PROJECT COSTS BY ELEMENT (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) 107
TABLE 4-4 PLANNED AIRCRAFT PARKING POSITIONS DURING THE NEW SLC
CONSTRUCTION 109
TABLE 5-1 SERIES 2021 BONDS ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES (DOLLARS IN
THOUSANDS)1 [TBP] 130
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | v
TABLE 5-2 OUTSTANDING BONDS, SERIES 2021 BONDS AND FUTURE BONDS
ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS) [TBP] 130
TABLE 5-3 ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS AND FUTURE BONDS [TBP] 131
TABLE 5-4 HISTORICAL OPERATING EXPENSES AND CAPITAL OUTLAYS (DOLLARS IN
MILLIONS)1 132
TABLE 5-5 HISTORICAL AIRPORT NON-AIRLINE REVENUES (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS) 134
TABLE 5-6 PUBLIC PARKING RATES AT THE AIRPORT (DAILY MAXIMUM RATES) 135
TABLE 5-7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS: DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE AND AIRLINE
CPE 139
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
vi | Landrum & Brown
List of Figures Page
FIGURE 1-1 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES (NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED FOR JANUARY 2009
– MARCH 2021) 6
FIGURE 1-2 U.S. EMPLOYMENT CHANGE BY INDUSTRY SECTOR (FEBRUARY 2020 –
FEBRUARY 2021) 7
FIGURE 1-3 PARK VISITORS TO THE MIGHTY 5 (JANUARY 2019 – DECEMBER 2020) 9
FIGURE 1-4 RELATIVE IMPACT OF COVID-19 TO THE AVIATION INDUSTRY 10
FIGURE 1-5 COMPARISON OF AIRPORT AND U.S. TSA CHECKPOINT PASSENGERS 11
FIGURE 1-6 DELTA AIR LINES SEATING CAPACITY CHANGE 16
FIGURE 1-7 THE NEW SLC 18
FIGURE 2-1 ENPLANED PASSENGER MARKET SHARE AT THE AIRPORT (FY 2020) 23
FIGURE 2-2 AIR SERVICE AREA AND PROXIMITY TO OTHER AIRPORTS 25
FIGURE 2-3 DELTA AIR LINES CONNECTING PASSENGERS SHARE AT THE AIRPORT
(FY 2011 – FY 2020) 27
FIGURE 2-4 POPULATION GROWTH IN CSAS WITH POPULATION IN EXCESS OF 1.5
MILLION 28
FIGURE 2-5 HISTORICAL AND FORECAST POPULATION TRENDS (2007 – 2027) 30
FIGURE 2-6 AGE DISTRIBUTION (2019) 31
FIGURE 2-7 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (2019) 32
FIGURE 2-8 HISTORICAL EMPLOYMENT TRENDS (2007 – 2019) 33
FIGURE 2-9 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES (NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED FOR JANUARY 2009
– DECEMBER 2020) 34
FIGURE 2-10 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE FORECAST OF UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
(THROUGH 2027 Q4) 35
FIGURE 2-11 U.S. EMPLOYMENT CHANGE BY INDUSTRY SECTOR (FEBRUARY 2020 –
FEBRUARY 2021) 36
FIGURE 2-12 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY SECTOR (2019) 37
FIGURE 2-13 HISTORICAL PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME TRENDS (2007 – 2019) 40
FIGURE 2-14 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2019) 41
FIGURE 2-15 HISTORICAL PER CAPITA GROSS DOMESTIC/REGIONAL PRODUCT TRENDS
(2007 – 2019) 42
FIGURE 2-16 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE FORECAST OF GROSS DOMESTIC
PRODUCT (THROUGH 2027 Q4) 43
FIGURE 2-17 PARK VISITORS TO THE MIGHTY 5 (JANUARY 2019 – DECEMBER 2020) 45
FIGURE 3-1 DELTA’S PERCENT OF O&D ENPLANED PASSENGERS AT INTERIOR
CONNECTING HUBS (FY 2020) 55
FIGURE 3-2 DELTA HUB CONNECTING PASSENGERS BY REGION (FY 2020) 56
FIGURE 3-3 DELTA’S TOP 30 CONNECTING MARKETS AT THE AIRPORT, LAX, AND SEA (FY
2020) 59
FIGURE 3-4 DELTA AIR LINES SEATING CAPACITY CHANGE 61
FIGURE 3-5 DOMESTIC NONSTOP DESTINATIONS AT THE AIRPORT SINCE FEBRUARY
2020 (AS OF MAY 2021) 65
FIGURE 3-6 INTERNATIONAL NONSTOP DESTINATIONS AT THE AIRPORT SINCE
FEBRUARY 2020 (AS OF MAY 2021) 66
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | vii
FIGURE 3-7 FLIGHT DEPARTURES AND CANCELLATIONS AT THE AIRPORT (MARCH 2020
– JANUARY 2021) 72
FIGURE 3-8 COMPARISON OF AIRPORT AND U.S. TSA CHECKPOINT PASSENGERS
(MARCH - MARCH 2021) 78
FIGURE 3-9 U.S. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC 80
FIGURE 3-10 U.S. AVIATION SYSTEM SHOCKS AND RECOVERIES 81
FIGURE 3-11 MAJOR U.S. AIRLINE MERGERS OF THE 21ST CENTURY 84
FIGURE 3-12 JET FUEL PRICES 85
FIGURE 3-13 U.S. GDP COMPARISON DURING RECESSIONS 91
FIGURE 3-14 COMPARISON OF ENPLANED PASSENGER PROJECTIONS 93
FIGURE 4-1 AIRPORT LAYOUT (AS OF NOVEMBER 2020 – SEE NOTE) 96
FIGURE 4-2 SLC TERMINAL COMPLEX 99
FIGURE 4-3 THE NEW SLC 105
FIGURE 5-1 FLOW OF FUNDS 117
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 1
1 COVID-19 Impacts on the Aviation Industry and the
Airport
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory disease caused by a novel strain of coronavirus. The
World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a public health emergency of international
concern on January 30, 2020, and subsequently declared it a pandemic on March 11, 2020. As of March 15,
2021, WHO has reported over 119.6 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and over 2.6 million deaths
worldwide.6 For the United States (U.S.), as of March 15, 2021, WHO reported over 29.1 million confirmed cases
and over 529,000 deaths. In terms of confirmed cases and deaths, the U.S. has been the most impacted country
in the world, representing more than 20% of total global numbers.7 The State of Utah (State) has also been
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 15, 2021, the Utah Department of Health reported that there
were approximately 378,600 cases and 2,027 deaths related to COVID-19 in the State, which represents
approximately 1.3% and 0.38% of the total U.S., respectively.8 The State is just under 1.0% of the total U.S.
population. As of March 15, 2021, the State had approximately 11,802 confirmed COVID-19 cases per 100,000
people as compared to the nationwide average of 8,816 cases per 100,000.9 In terms of COVID-19 deaths per
100,000 people, the State is below the national average of 160 at 63 as of March 15, 2021.10
Since the first reported U.S. cases in January 2020, there has been a focus on containing the disease by
prohibiting non-essential travel, limiting person-to-person contact, and restricting travel into the U.S. of certain
foreign nationals.11 Across the U.S., states and local governments, including the State, initially issued “stay at
home” or “shelter in place” orders designed to restrict movement and limit businesses and activities to essential
functions, which substantially reduced activities that normally engaged or facilitated air travel. While stay at home
orders have generally been lifted in the U.S., air travel has not yet recovered and is generally only about 55% to
60% of 2019 levels as of late April 2021; however, the recovery has accelerated somewhat in recent weeks.
International travel has been more heavily impacted by the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Other countries have effectively closed their borders by restricting entry and exit to only essential travel during the
initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic, and while these restrictions are gradually being lifted, many countries
around the world have restricted entry to U.S. citizens, including the European Union and Canada.
The Salt Lake City International Airport (Airport or SLC), along with all other airports in the U.S. and abroad, has
been acutely impacted by the broad-based economic shutdown resulting from efforts to stop the spread of
COVID-19, including reductions in flights and declines in passenger volumes. The COVID-19 pandemic has
adversely affected domestic and international travel and travel-related industries. Airlines have reported
unprecedented downturns in passenger volumes, which, in turn, have prompted them to significantly reduce
service. A recovery of air travel is underway and the Airport and the nation have been experiencing increases in
air traffic since the low point in April 2020. A full recovery of air traffic to levels experienced in 2019, however, is
not expected to occur for a few years.
6 World Health Organization, WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard, https://covid19.who.int/table, accessed March 2021.
7 Ibid.
8 Utah Department of Health, Overview of COVID-19 Surveillance, https://coronavirus.utah.gov/case-counts/, accessed March 2021.
9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC COVID Data Tracker, https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases, accessed
March 2021.
10 Ibid.
11 President of the U.S. Executive Proclamation, January 31, 2020
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
2 | Landrum & Brown
This purpose of this chapter is to provide a concise summary of how the State, Salt Lake City metropolitan region,
and the Airport have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to the overall U.S. and identify factors
and trends that appear unique to the region. As described in this chapter and in the Report, overall the Salt Lake
City metropolitan region and the Airport have not been as negatively affected as the nation as a whole by the
COVID-19 pandemic. While the Report is intended to be read in its entirety for the full context of the impacts
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, this chapter summarizes the following areas on how the region,
Department, and the Airport have been impacted and how such impacts appear to be somewhat unique from
national trends.
Background on the national, State, and Department COVID-19 responses;
unique economic impacts;
aviation industry and air traffic activity impacts;
impacts to the Department’s capital program; and
a summary of Airport financial assistance and relief measures.
It should be noted that impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are still emerging at this time and Landrum &
Brown, Incorporated (L&B) is unable to fully quantify the effect that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on
the region’s economic base and the Airport and the length of time over which this effect will occur. The
historical financial information and operating data set forth in this Report for the dates as of which such
information and data are set forth and for the periods that occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic and
the measures instituted to control such pandemic may not be indicative of future results or performance
due to these and other factors. For a description of the Salt Lake City Department of Airport’s
(Department’s) ongoing response to COVID-19 and related financial and operating effects on the
Department and the Airport, see the section in the Official Statement titled “IMPACT OF COVID-19
PANDEMIC ON THE AIRPORT.”
1.1 COVID-19 Response
1.1.1 Federal
The Federal Reserve Bank acted in March 2020 after stock market indices dropped precipitously and credit
markets began to freeze. Federal Reserve Chair Powell called an emergency meeting of the Federal Reserve, cut
interest rates to near zero, and, with the U.S. Treasury, offered $3 trillion in lending to banks, businesses, cities,
and states. With that assurance, the credit markets began to function again. Congress passed $2.4 trillion in
coronavirus relief packages in March and April 2020, a second package of a $900 billion coronavirus relief bill in
December 2020, and a third package of $1.9 trillion in March 2021 aimed at mitigating the continuing effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The COVID-19 crisis is different from the 2008 Great Recession since it is a public health emergency and not
caused by fundamental economic imbalances. The Federal Reserve and Congress have taken measures to
mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 and, when the virus outbreak is under control, it is assumed that the
economy should be able to substantially recover. However, many economic activities will be in a state of
suspension until COVID-19 vaccines are more widely available and states relax local stay-at-home mandates.
In early February 2021, the federal government invoked the Defense Production Act to assist vaccine makers
Pfizer and BioNTech to scale up production. The federal government had contracts in place for 600 million
vaccine doses in the first half of the year (sufficient for 300 million people under a two-dose protocol).
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 3
Pfizer announced that it expects to deliver 200 million vaccine doses to the U.S. by May 2021 (two months earlier
than its July 2021 target); its global estimate is two billion doses by December 2021, up from 1.3 billion doses.
Moderna raised its vaccine production estimate to 600 million doses in 2021, 100 million more than its initial
estimate. Johnson & Johnson’s Ad26.COV2.S single-shot vaccine was also authorized by the U.S. FDA. With
assistance from Merck & Co., Johnson & Johnson was originally expected to ship 100 million doses in the first
half of 2021. However, on April 13, 2021, use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was halted as federal health
agencies called for a pause in the vaccine’s use to examine cases of a rare blood-clotting disorder. The pause
was lifted in April 2021. Two other vaccines from Novavax and AstraZeneca are expected to be available in 2021
if they receive Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. 12 As of February 16, 2021, more than 70.0
million doses have been distributed with nearly 52.9 million people receiving the first dose and nearly 14.1 million
receiving the second dose.13 This equates a little more than four percent of Americans are completely vaccinated
with 16.0% awaiting the second doses.
1.1.2 The State
The former Governor of the State, Gary Herbert, declared a state of emergency to facilitate the State’s response
to COVID-19 on March 6, 2020 the same day the first active case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Utah in Davis
County.14 On March 17, 2020, former Governor Herbert ordered restaurants and bars to suspend dine-in service,
and limit group gatherings to 10 people to stem the spread of COVID-19 in the State.15 On March 18, 2020, a 5.7
Magnitude earthquake struck the Salt Lake City metropolitan area.16 The earthquake caused power outages,
damage to buildings in the area, and temporarily caused the Airport to close; however, no serious injuries to
people in the region were reported.17 No significant damage was experienced at the Airport. At that time the State
was responding to two major issues. On March 29, 2020, former Governor Herbert issued the “Stay Safe, Stay
Home” directive to reduce risk of COVID-19 transmission and minimize the impact on local hospitals.18 This
executive order was similar in nature to the “stay at home” orders implemented in states across the U.S. to
mitigate the spread of COVID-19.On April 9, 2020, former Governor Herbert issued an Executive Order that
individuals entering the State fill out a travel form. This applied to individuals entering via road as well as the
Airport.19 As the country and region continues to recover and people become vaccinated, the State has relaxed
and removed these early executive orders that initially restricted the movement of people and dine-in restaurant
service. Such activities are guided by the public health order described below.
12 “Biden Harnesses Defense Production Act to Speed Vaccinations and Production of Protective Equipment,” Washington Post, 5
February 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/05/biden-vaccines-tests-gloves; "How New Vaccine News Gives
Hope for Spring, if Enough People Get the Shots," The New York Times, 3 February 2021,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/health/covid-vac cines.html; "Covid-19 Vaccine Makers Take Aim at Dangerous New Strains,"
The Wall Street Journal, 4 February 2021, https://www. wsj.com/articles/covid-19-vaccine-makers-take-aim-at-dangerous-new-
strains-11612357201; "Moderna Raises Covid-19 Vaccine Production Estimate," The Wall Street Journal, 5 January 2021,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/moderna-raises-covid-19-vaccine-production-estimate-11609861657; “Pfizer, BioNTech Boost Vaccine
Production Goal To 2 Billion Doses In 2021," Forbes, 12 January 2021, https://www.forbes. com/
sites/katiejennings/2021/01/12/pfizer-biontech-boost-vaccine-production-goal-to-2-billion-doses-in-2021/?sh=21c46c6a48a5,
accessed February 2021.
13 CDC COVID Data Tracker accessed at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations
14 “Utah COVID-19 Response Storymap”, State of Utah,
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/caf8b840306d4307a826ea7c19844464?item=2, accessed March 2021.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 “Utah’s big earthquake: Buildings damaged, but no major injuries, as state braces for days of aftershocks”, Salt Lake City Tribune,
March 18, 2020, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/03/18/earthquake-hits-utahs/, accessed March 2021.
18 “Utah COVID-19 Response Storymap”, State of Utah,
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/caf8b840306d4307a826ea7c19844464?item=2, accessed March 2021.
19 Ibid
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
4 | Landrum & Brown
Effective February 24, 2021, the Utah Department of Heath issued State Public Health Order 2021-7 to update
the statewide COVID-19 restrictions. Under this order, the State moved to new transmission index-based
requirements for individuals and businesses. The transmission index clarifies the public health metrics used to
determine which counties are placed in which transmission level. Counties will be placed in one of three
transmission levels: High, Moderate, or Low. A transmission level is determined if a county has two of the three
metrics, as follows.20
High:
– 7-day average percent positivity over 10%
– 14-day case rate per 100,000 population over 325
– 7-day average statewide ICU utilization over 72%, and COVID-19 ICU utilization greater than or equal
to 15%
Moderate:
– 7-day average percent positivity between 5.1% and 9.9%
– 14-day case rate per 100,000 population between 101 and 324
– 7-day average statewide ICU utilization between 69% and 71.9%, and COVID-19 ICU utilization
between 6% and 14.9%
Low:
– 7-day average percent positivity under 5%
– 14-day case rate per 100,000 population less than or equal to 100
– 7-day average statewide ICU utilization under 68.9% and COVID-19 ICU utilization less than or equal
to 5.9%
These levels correspond directly to case rates, positivity rates, and intensive care unit (ICU) utilization. Data is
analyzed weekly, and counties are placed into a transmission level depending solely on what their data show.
Changes from a lower level to a higher level may occur weekly.21 Specific recommendations are provided for
social gatherings, restaurants, bars, workout gyms, public gatherings, organized sports and activities, and schools
based on the transmission index for the applicable county. As of April 22, 2021, one county was in the High level,
15 counties in the Moderate levels, and 13 counties in the Low level. Most of the counties in the Salt Lake City
region are currently in the Moderate level, with the exception of Juab County which is in the Low level of
transmission.22
1.1.3 The Department
Specifically related to the Airport, the Department implemented several efforts and processes to help prevent the
spread of COVID-19 to help ensure the health safety of airline passengers, employees, and others working at the
Airport.23 To promote health and safety, the Department through its ‘SLC Fly Healthy Promise’ has implemented
the following:
Enhanced efforts to clean facilities with increased sanitization and disinfecting of high touch areas
throughout the Airport;
Added hand sanitizer stations, installed handrail cleaning systems, placed plexi-guard shields in key
locations, and implemented misting/fogging in seating areas;
Practiced physical distancing throughout the Airport;
20 “COVID-19 Transmission Index”, Utah Department of Health, Coronavirus Utah.gov, https://coronavirus.utah.gov/utah-health-
guidance-levels/#, accessed April 2021.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 “SLC Fly Healthy Promise”, Salt Lake City Department of Airports, https://slcairport.com/customer-assistance/travel-advisory-2/,
accessed March 2021.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 5
Required that face coverings be worn by all Airport workers and anyone entering the terminal;
Added touchless fixtures to all restrooms;
Allowed only individuals with an airline ticket, Airport badge or Airport authorization in the public areas of
the Airport;
Required that all drop-offs and pick-ups of passengers be done curbside in designated locations or in the
parking garage; and
Allowed one individual to accompany a ticketed passenger if that passenger needs assistance.
The New SLC (defined herein) implementation teams recognized at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that
measures needed to be quickly put in place to ensure the health of the trade workers onsite. Written COVID-19
procedures were published in early March 2020 and processes were immediately put in place that included
temperature checks at all points of entry to the construction sites, mandatory mask requirements, additional hand-
washing/sanitizing stations/boot-washing stations, additional building-cleaning and sanitizing, reporting
requirements, daily electronic educational newsletters, and jobsite signage. The measures put in place and
reinforced on a daily basis allowed the construction to remain open, to receive high marks on three different
county health department inspections, to peak at 1,950 trade workers, and to remain on schedule for the initial
phase openings in September 2020 and October 2020.
1.2 Unique economic Impacts related to the COVID-19 Pandemic
This section describes two main areas where the region’s economic impacts associated with the COVID-19
pandemic have differed somewhat from national trends. For more detailed information on these, please refer to
Chapter 2 of this Report.
1.2.1 Employment
The Salt Lake City metropolitan region has, historically, exhibited stronger employment trends than the nation as
a whole as described in Section 2.2.2 of this Report. However, employment for both the nation and the Air Service
Area 24 was severely affected by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Jobless claims across the U.S., including
in the State, increased dramatically in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 16, 2020, the Utah
Department of Health issued a public health emergency and limited some services and businesses, including
requiring restaurants and bars to close for dine-in customers.
Figure 1-1 presents the historical unemployment rates for the Air Service Area, the State, and the U.S. As shown,
from 2009 through 2019, unemployment rates in the Air Service Area trended similarly to the national average but
at a consistently more favorable rate. During the Great Recession, unemployment for the Air Service Area peaked
at 8.1% in January 2010 as compared to the national unemployment peak of 10.6% in the same month. Total
employment during 2019 increased at a faster rate than population since the end of the Great Recession,
resulting in significant declines in unemployment rates during that time. However, since the impacts associated
with the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in the U.S. starting in March 2020, unemployment rates increased to
historic levels as a result of stay-at-home orders and companies reducing costs to minimize potential losses. In
April 2020, the unemployment rate for the Air Service Area reached 10.3% compared to the national rate of
14.4%. While the national unemployment rate has begun a slow decline, the unemployment rate in the Air Service
Area declined significantly to rates seen at recently as mid-2018. In March 2021, the unemployment rate for the
Air Service Area was 2.8%, which was significantly lower than that of the U.S. at 6.2%.
24 For the purposes of this Report, the Air Service Areas is defined as the Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem Combined Statistical Area, which
includes the following ten counties in Utah: Box Elder, Davis, Juab, Morgan, Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
6 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 1-1 Unemployment Rates (Not Seasonally Adjusted for January 2009 – March 2021)
Month
Unemployment Rate
United States Utah Air Service Area
January 2020 4.0% 2.8% 2.6%
February 2020 3.8% 2.8% 2.7%
March 2020 4.5% 4.1% 3.9%
April 2020 14.4% 10.4% 10.3%
May 2020 13.0% 8.5% 8.5%
June 2020 11.2% 5.7% 5.7%
July 2020 10.5% 4.6% 4.6%
August 2020 8.5% 4.2% 4.2%
September 2020 7.7% 4.7% 4.7%
October 2020 6.6% 3.7% 3.7%
November 2020 6.4% 3.9% 3.8%
December 2020 6.5% 3.3% 3.2%
January 2021 6.8% 3.5% 3.3%
February 2021 6.6% 3.6% 3.5%
March 2021 6.2% 2.9% 2.8%
Sources: U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,
May 2021.
National unemployment
rates originally peaked
in late 2009, early 2010
in the months following
the recession
Unemployment rates
reach historic levels as
COVID-19 results in
the shutdown of
businesses on a
national level
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Ja
n
-
0
9
Ap
r
-
0
9
Ju
l
-
0
9
Oc
t
-
0
9
Ja
n
-
1
0
Ap
r
-
1
0
Ju
l
-
1
0
Oc
t
-
1
0
Ja
n
-
1
1
Ap
r
-
1
1
Ju
l
-
1
1
Oc
t
-
1
1
Ja
n
-
1
2
Ap
r
-
1
2
Ju
l
-
1
2
Oc
t
-
1
2
Ja
n
-
1
3
Ap
r
-
1
3
Ju
l
-
1
3
Oc
t
-
1
3
Ja
n
-
1
4
Ap
r
-
1
4
Ju
l
-
1
4
Oc
t
-
1
4
Ja
n
-
1
5
Ap
r
-
1
5
Ju
l
-
1
5
Oc
t
-
1
5
Ja
n
-
1
6
Ap
r
-
1
6
Ju
l
-
1
6
Oc
t
-
1
6
Ja
n
-
1
7
Ap
r
-
1
7
Ju
l
-
1
7
Oc
t
-
1
7
Ja
n
-
1
8
Ap
r
-
1
8
Ju
l
-
1
8
Oc
t
-
1
8
Ja
n
-
1
9
Ap
r
-
1
9
Ju
l
-
1
9
Oc
t
-
1
9
Ja
n
-
2
0
Ap
r
-
2
0
Ju
l
-
2
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
Ja
n
-
2
1
Labor Force
Percent Unemployed
Air Service Area United States
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 7
From February 2020 to April 2020, there were 22.2 million jobs lost in the U.S. Certain job sectors were more
affected than others. Service-providing industries have been severely impacted, accounting for 90.6% of job
losses in the first two months of the pandemic, compared to 9.4% for goods-producing sectors, which include
manufacturing, construction, and mining and logging. Within the service-providing industry, the leisure and
hospitability sector has been the most impacted sector during the pandemic with 8.3 million job losses in the first
two months (a loss of 49.3% of all leisure and hospitality jobs), accounting for 37.5% of the total non-farm industry
losses. As of February 2021, more than half of the jobs have been recovered. However, not all sectors have been
recovering at the same rate. Transportation and warehousing exhibited the fastest recovery with more than 95%
of the initial job losses recovered by February 2021. By February 2021, the leisure and hospitality sector
recovered 56.1% of the initial job losses from April 2020 but remains the largest sector for job losses (36.1% of
the total job losses). Figure 1-2 presents the job losses for the most affected sectors in the U.S. for February
2020 through February 2021.
Figure 1-2 U.S. Employment Change by Industry Sector (February 2020 – February 2021)
Source: U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics - CES (National)
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21
Change in Total Jobs Relative to February 2020
in millions
Leisure and Hospitality Education and Health Services
Professional and Business Services Retail Trade
Government Wholesale Trade
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
8 | Landrum & Brown
Indicative of the more favorable unemployment rate in the Air Service Area as compared to the U.S., its
employment in the leisure and hospitality sector has recovered more rapidly than that of the U.S. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were approximately 156,100 employees in the leisure and hospitality sectors in
Utah during February 2020. The number of employees dropped to a low of around 92,600 in April 2020, indicating
63,500 lost jobs due to the pandemic. As of February 2021, there were about 141,900 employees in the leisure
and hospitality sector, still 14,200 fewer jobs than pre-pandemic levels. This indicates that 77.6% of lost jobs in
the leisure and hospitality sector have been recovered in Utah compared to just 56.1% in the U.S.
1.2.2 Regional Tourism and Visitors
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the tourism industry across the U.S. has been dramatically impacted
as travel and vacations have been cancelled or deferred. Tourism is a major industry in the Air Service Area. In
2019, travelers directly spent $10.1 billion in Utah. Nonresident visitors spent 85.6% of the total spending with a
majority of those visitors traveling for leisure purposes.25 However, impacts associated with the COVID-19
pandemic have caused a significant decline in travel in Utah. According to a recent study, it is estimated that total
2020 travel and tourism jobs were down around 15% from 2019.26
Outdoor tourism is a major industry in the Air Service Area and for the surrounding region and the State. In
general, outdoor tourism consists of two main seasons: summer and winter. However, it is not uncommon to find
outdoor tourists in all months. In the summer season, the main driver for outdoor tourism are the national and
State parks. In the winter, it is primarily the numerous ski resorts throughout the region. It is important to point out
that while tourism in general has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, outdoor activities that
offer access to open spaces and that are more conducive to physical distancing (e.g., parks, ski areas, beaches,
etc.) have been more popular as described below.
Utah is home to five national parks, nicknamed ‘The Mighty 5’, which combined for 10.7 million recreation visits in
2019. There are also 11 national places including the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and the Golden
Spike National Monument. The COVID-19 pandemic initially caused the temporary closure of all the national
parks in Utah by early April. According to data from the National Park Service, the Mighty 5 had 7.8 million
recreation visits in 2020, a decline of 27.4%. The parks began to reopen in May 2020. Figure 1-3 presents the
monthly visits to the Mighty 5 from January 2019 through December 2020. As shown, there was a significant drop
in visitors beginning in March 2020. However, visitor traffic was relatively robust in the late summer and early fall
of 2020, considering much of the tourism in the U.S. was still severely impacted as a result of the pandemic. In
fact, October, November, and December visitors in 2020 exceeded those of the same months in 2019.
In addition to the Mighty 5 national parks, Utah has 44 state parks. In 2019, state park visits increased 10.6%
from 6.7 million to 7.4 million people. Unlike the national parks, Utah’s state parks saw significant growth in 2020,
receiving over 10 million visits. This increase in visitors is likely because of other tourist destinations not being
open during the COVID-19 pandemic. As mentioned, both the national parks and the state parks offer visitors
open spaces and outdoor activities that are more conducive to activity restrictions during a pandemic.
25 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, The State of Utah’s Travel and Tourism Industry 2019, September 2020.
26 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, A “Tourism Trifold”, January 2021.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 9
The ski industry is another major driver for tourism in Utah. For the 2018-19 season which runs from mid-
November through to April, there were 5.1 million skier days 27 in Utah, the most on record. However, the 2019-20
season was shut down early because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the shortened season,
Utah’s ski resorts still saw its 4th best season on record.28 All 15 of Utah’s ski areas were open for the 2020-21
season with safety protocols in place.
Figure 1-3 Park Visitors to the Mighty 5 (January 2019 – December 2020)
Source: National Parks Service, National Reports, April 2021.
27 A skier day is defined as one person visiting a ski area for all or part of a day or night for skiing or snowboarding.
28 Ski Utah, Utah Skier Numbers Remain Promising Despite an Abrupt End to the 2019-20 Season, accessed online at
https://www.skiutah.com/news/authors/pr/utah-skier-numbers-remain
0.2 0.2
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.5 1.4
1.3 1.4
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.2 0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Park Visitors
In milions
2019 2020
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
10 | Landrum & Brown
1.3 Summary of Aviation Industry and Airport Air Traffic Impacts
This section describes a summary of key aviation industry and Airport air traffic impacts associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic on a national level and at the Airport and identifies unique factors at the Airport in this
regard. In general, the Airport has been impacted less negatively than the U.S., as described below. For more
detailed information, please refer to Chapter 3 of this Report.
1.3.1 Passenger Impacts
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a 95% decrease of total passengers being screened at the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) security checkpoints in the U.S. in early-to-mid April 2020 that has since improved
somewhat to about 50% in mid-March 2021, as compared to the same period in 2019. In response to the
dramatic decrease in passengers, airlines reduced their scheduled flights and seat capacity starting in late March
2020. Figure 1-4 below presents the relative effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on annual U.S. passenger
volumes. As presented, the associated impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in the largest
passenger declines in aviation history.
Figure 1-4 Relative impact of COVID-19 to the Aviation Industry
Note: Excludes non-revenue enplaned passengers.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Air Carrier Traffic Statistics; National Bureau of Economic
Research, U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions.
COVID-19
Impact
PATCO Strike
Pan Am Flight 103
Gulf War
WTC Bombing
9/11 Attack
Iraq War
COVID-19 Pandemic
SARS Outbreak
Avian Flu
19
7
3
-75
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
8
0
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
8
1
-82
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
9
0
-91
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
20
0
1
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
Gr
e
a
t
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
CO
V
I
D
-19
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
United States Enplaned Passengers
12-month rolling; In millions
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 11
In March 2020, the enplaned passengers throughout the nation and at the Airport decreased dramatically
primarily due to the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. These impacts included international travel
restrictions and stay-at-home orders throughout the U.S. While these enplaned passenger decreases have been
substantial, the Airport has not been as negatively impacted as the U.S. as a whole. Figure 1-5 depicts the
impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic to checkpoint throughput at both the Airport and for the overall
U.S per data from the TSA. This figure presents the recovery trend for checkpoint throughput indexed to 2019
levels (i.e., 2019 levels equal 100). As shown during the early days of the pandemic, the impact to the Airport’s
checkpoint throughput tracked closely with the general nationwide trend; however, as time passed, the Airport’s
throughput was slightly better than the U.S. as a whole. The recovery at the Airport has been more pronounced
than the nation, especially, as we have moved on from the early days of the pandemic. For the weekly average in
early March 2021, the Airport was around 58% of the 2019 throughput compared to about 46% for the U.S.
Figure 1-5 Comparison of Airport and U.S. TSA Checkpoint Passengers
Sources: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, accessed March 2021.
Transportation Security Administration, accessed March 2021.
Table 1-1 presents the monthly enplaned passengers at the Airport for FY 2020 and FY 2021 compared to FY
2019. As shown, in March 2020, enplaned passengers decreased by approximately 49.2% from March 2019. The
decline continued into April when enplaned passengers were 91.9% lower than April 2019. Since April 2020,
enplaned passengers at the Airport have slowly started to recover on a monthly basis. The recovery in enplaned
passengers at the Airport plateaued in November 2020 through February 2021 with monthly totals being down
around 50% as compared to the same months in the prior year. In March 2021, enplaned passengers at the
Airport exceeded levels in March 2020 by 22.9%. March 2020 was the first month significantly impacted by the
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21
Enplaned Passengers
Seven-day moving average; Index (2019 = 100)
Salt Lake City International Airport United States
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
12 | Landrum & Brown
COVID-19 pandemic. March 2021 enplaned passengers are still down from March 2019 levels by 37.6%;
however, March 2021 enplaned passenger levels show recovery as the past four months were down
approximately 50% from pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.
Table 1-1 Enplaned Passengers at the Airport (FY 2019 – FY 2021 YTD)
Month Enplaned Passengers Percent Change from Prior Year
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2021
July 1,196,325 1,239,067 438,268 3.6% -64.6%
August 1,201,689 1,220,698 507,906 1.6% -58.4%
September 1,050,274 1,098,626 491,647 4.6% -55.2%
October 1,077,840 1,177,796 548,370 9.3% -53.4%
November 1,000,320 996,598 494,175 -0.4% -50.4%
December 1,000,259 1,098,032 540,171 9.8% -50.8%
January 1,005,577 1,078,161 531,994 7.2% -50.7%
February 954,196 1,037,793 530,106 8.8% -48.9%
March 1,206,454 612,882 752,949 -49.2% 22.9%
April 1,075,360 87,557 -91.9%
May 1,131,368 161,192 -85.8%
June 1,190,471 287,330 -75.9%
Total 13,090,133 10,095,732 4,835,586 -22.9%
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Enplaned Passengers
In millions
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Travel ban
and stay at
home orders
began in
March.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 13
1.3.2 Scheduled Departures and Departing Seats
To further illustrate the continued recovery of the Airport’s air traffic from the impacts associated with the COVID-
19 pandemic, a review of scheduled aircraft departures and seat capacity was performed by L&B. Table 1-2
compares key air service metrics at the Airport for May 2020 versus May 2021 by airline. Total departures are
relatively flat and scheduled departing seats are actually up in May 2021 by approximately 4.3% as compared to
May 2019. As shown in the table, foreign flag airlines are not operating at the Airport. Because of the restrictions
put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic, all foreign flag airlines had suspended service at the Airport by
May 2020. As of March 2021, none of the foreign flag airlines are scheduled to resume service at the Airport by
May 2021.
While passenger counts are still recovering back to levels experienced in 2019, May is the first month where
scheduled departing seats are above 2019 levels. This is an encouraging sign for air traffic recovery at the
Airport. On the national level, seat capacity is still down as compared to 2019 levels.
1.3.3 Delta Air Line’s Operations at the Airport
Delta Air Lines (Delta) is the dominant airline at the Airport, historically accounting for around 70% of the Airport’s
enplaned passengers. The Airport is one Delta’s primary connecting hubs along with Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport (ATL), Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne
County Airport (DTW). Table 1-3 provides the scheduled departing seats for Delta’s top ten airports in the U.S for
FY 2021 versus FY 2020. As shown, the Airport had approximately 9.4 million scheduled departing seats during
FY 2020, which ranked it as Delta’s 4th largest airport in the U.S. In FY 2021, the Airport maintains its number four
ranking; however, it has moved closer to the top three airports. Departing seats at the Airport are scheduled to
reach almost 10.1 million in FY 2021, resulting in an increase of 7.2% over FY 2020. The Airport is the only U.S.
airport in Delta’s top 10 for departing seats with positive growth in FY 2021, and only one of five U.S. airports
ranked in Delta’s top 30 with positive growth in FY 2021.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
14 | Landrum & Brown
Table 1-2 Key Air Service Metrics at the Airport by Airline (May 2021 vs May 2019)
Airline
Departures Scheduled Departing Seats Nonstop Markets Served
May
2019
May
2021
Percent
Change
May
2019
May
2021
Percent
Change
May
2019
May
2021 Change
Delta Air Lines 7,784 7,927 1.8% 910,097 976,146 7.3% 95 90 -5
Southwest
Airlines 899 750 -16.6% 134,317 123,122 -8.3% 12 14 2
United Airlines 605 572 -5.5% 48,234 47,782 -0.9% 6 6 0
American
Airlines 520 577 11.0% 69,154 79,681 15.2% 5 6 1
Alaska Airlines 273 341 24.9% 29,585 31,412 6.2% 5 5 0
JetBlue Airways 238 141 -40.8% 35,952 22,644 -37.0% 5 5 0
Frontier Airlines 109 157 44.0% 21,014 29,160 38.8% 4 4 0
Aeroméxico 31 0 -100.0% 3,060 0 -100.0% 1 0 -1
KLM 14 0 -100.0% 4,116 0 -100.0% 1 0 -1
Total 10,473 10,465 -0.1% 1,255,529 1,309,947 4.3%
Notes: Data includes regional affiliates, as applicable.
As of April 2021, Aeroméxico and KLM are not scheduled to resume service at the Airport.
Nonstop markets served total do not sum as there is overlap in markets by carriers.
Source: Diio Mi, Schedule – Dynamic Table, accessed April 2021.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 15
Table 1-3 Delta’s Top Ten Airports Based on Scheduled Departing Seats (FY 2020 vs FY 2021)
Rank Airport Code Departing Seats Year-Over-Year
Percent Change FY 2020 FY 2021
1 Atlanta ATL 39,841,093 33,727,290 -15.3%
2 Minneapolis MSP 13,246,811 10,819,068 -18.3%
3 Detroit DTW 13,560,175 10,705,191 -21.1%
4 Salt Lake City SLC 9,354,801 10,026,526 7.2%
5 Los Angeles LAX 6,710,041 5,794,301 -13.6%
6 New York-JFK JFK 8,261,986 5,464,329 -33.9%
7 Seattle SEA 6,087,947 5,145,818 -15.5%
8 New York-LGA LGA 6,336,910 3,066,756 -51.6%
9 Orlando MCO 2,889,151 2,666,352 -7.7%
10 Boston BOS 4,078,316 2,339,968 -42.6%
Source: Diio Mi Innovate Schedules, Accessed March 2021
For the twelve months ended February 2021 as compared to the prior same twelve-month period, Delta’s
scheduled seat capacity declined 50.6% year-over-year throughout its system network. But at the Airport,
comparing the same time periods, Delta’s scheduled seat capacity only declined 24.6%, or less than half as much
as it did over Delta’s system. Of Delta’s 30 largest airports in the U.S., Delta’s overall seat capacity at the Airport
declined less than any other airport. Figure 1-6 presents the change in seating capacity at the Airport versus the
weighted average for the top 30 airports in Delta’s network. Furthermore, the Airport’s return to pre-pandemic
levels has been much faster as compared to most of the U.S. Delta’s seat capacity as the Airport essentially
returned to pre-pandemic levels in November 2020, as scheduled seat capacity was down less than 1% as
compared to November 2019. Delta’s May seat capacity at the Airport is up 7.3% versus May 2019. For all
airlines, the Airport is up 4.3% in seat capacity when comparing May 2021 to May 2019. The Airport appears to
be positioned well for recovery from the impacts associated with the pandemic as compared to other airports.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
16 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 1-6 Delta Air Lines Seating Capacity Change
Source: Innovata (via Diio), Schedule files, accessed March 2021.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a general industry trend of growth in travel to “secondary leisure”
destinations, as opposed to more mature destination markets such as Las Vegas and Orlando. This trend was
driven by a desire for new or unique travel experiences, driven in-part by younger travelers. This mix of
destinations typically included lesser traveled beach markets, wine country and/or markets with select outdoor-
driven activities. The result was that the fastest growing air travel markets over the past few years have included
smaller Carolina coastal markets, northwestern Florida, smaller markets on the west coast and select mountain
region markets. The impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic magnified these travel themes that were
firmly in place before the pandemic as these types of markets are more conducive to outdoor activities and
physical distancing.
The result has been that since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, travel to these markets with unique, mostly
outdoor, activities has increased further, while leisure travel to major destination markets and particularly large
cities like Chicago and New York City has decreased. While it is likely that travel to major destination markets will
recover, it is more questionable how long it will take for travel to major cities to recover. However, it is likely that
travel growth to secondary leisure destinations will continue over the foreseeable future. The Airport has
historically been Delta’s link to the mountain region of the U.S., in many cases being the only Delta hub that offers
flights to these markets. In May 2021, the Airport is the only Delta option to twenty markets. Almost all of these
are in the states of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah.
2.
7
%
-53
.
2
%
-66
.
3
%
-55
.
8
%
-33
.
6
%
-20
.
3
%
-14
.
5
%
-10
.
9
%
-0.
7
%
-5.
2
%
-1.
2
%
-2.
4
%
-5.
3
%
0.
9
%
7.
3
%
-2.
4
%
-72
.
1
%
-82
.
0
%
-76
.
8
%
-60
.
0
%
-48
.
6
%
-45
.
3
%
-42
.
6
%
-34
.
2
%
-33
.
4
%
-41
.
1
%
-42
.
9
%
-47
.
8
%
-50
.
7
%
-46
.
9
%
-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Mar
2020
Apr
2020
May
2020
Jun
2020
Jul
2020
Aug
2020
Sep
2020
Oct
2020
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Seating Capacity Change
Percent change from comparable month in 2019
SLC Top 30 Weighted Average
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 17
1.4 Summary of Airport Capital Program Impacts
For the past several years, the Airport has been undertaking a major capital development program known as the
New SLC (formerly referred to as the Airport Redevelopment Program). The New SLC is a comprehensive capital
program to completely redevelop and replace the existing landside and terminal complex of the Airport. The New
SLC is comprised of two major capital programs known as the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) (X%
complete) and the North Concourse Program (NCP) (X% complete) and, in total, is currently estimated to cost
approximately $4.45 billion. A significant portion of the New SLC has been completed and is currently operational.
Remaining portions of the New SLC currently under construction primarily consist of airside concourse
development, connecting tunnel, and associated airside improvements. Figure 1-7 illustrates the New SLC and
shows the facilities that are complete and in operation and the future airside concourse elements currently under
construction.
Because the Department was nearing completion of the first major phase of the New SLC when the impacts
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic started to occur in March 2020, the Department continued to move
forward with its construction. By the fall of 2020, the Department had completely redeveloped the Airport’s
landside and terminal facilities and had completed the initial phase of its new airside concourses. Those elements
are shown as existing facilities in operation in Figure 1-7.
Future phases of the new airside concourse development as part of the New SLC are planned to be completed by
2025. Because of the substantial decreases in air traffic resulting from the impacts associated with the COVID -19
pandemic that have temporarily reduced the need for aircraft gates, the Department was able to accelerate the
demolition of its former airside concourses. The demolition of these former airside concourses has essentially
cleared the site for the development of the New SLC and simplified its construction phasing. The demolition of the
former facilities has accelerated the planned opening of all the aircraft gates planned as part of the New SLC by
nearly two years.
More details on the New SLC and its two components, the TRP and NCP, are contained in Chapter 4 of this
Report.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
18 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 1-7 The New SLC
Source: Airport management records, April 2021.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 19
1.5 Summary of Airport Financial Assistance and Relief Measures
This section describes a summary of key financial assistance provided to U.S. airports as a result of air traffic
impacts at the Airport associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and how the Department has applied or is
planning to apply such federal assistance. In addition, the Department provided short-term relief to is tenants
shortly after the onset of the pandemic. This section also describes relief provided to the Airport’s airline and non-
airline tenants. For more detailed information, please refer to Chapter 5 of this Report.
1.5.1 CARES Act
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (H.R. 748, Public Law 116-136) was approved
by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President on March 27, 2020. It is one of the legislative actions taken to
address the crisis associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and includes among its relief measures direct aid in
the form of grants for U.S. airports, as well as direct aid, loans and loan guarantees for passenger and cargo
airlines. The CARES Act provides $10 billion of grant assistance to airports.
The FAA announced in April 2020 that it had allocated approximately $82.5 million to the Department for the
Airport System. The Department used approximately $3.9 million of CARES Act funds in FY 2020 for the
reimbursement of Operating Expenses. For FY 2021, the Department is planning on using $66 million of CARES
Act funds for the reimbursement of Operating Expenses. The Department intends to apply its remaining balance
of CARES Act funds or approximately $12.6 million in FY 2022 for approved uses.
1.5.2 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation Act
On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 was signed by the President. Division M of
that Act is the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation Act, 2021 (CRRSAA). Title IV of
CRRSAA provides approximately $2 billion in economic relief to airports to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
the COVID-19 public health emergency, including relief from rent and minimum annual guarantees (MAGs) for
eligible airport concessions at primary airports.
The FAA announced on February 12, 2021 that it had allocated approximately $23.4 million to the Department. Of
that amount, approximately $2.8 million must be used for concessionaire relief. The Department is planning to
apply all of this funding except for the amounts obligated to concession relief for the reimbursement of Operating
Expenses in FY 2022 (approximately $20.6 million).
1.5.3 American Rescue Plan Act
On March 11, 2021, the President signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), a $1.9 trillion economic
stimulus package designed to help the United States’ economy recover from the adverse impacts of the COVID-
19 pandemic. In addition to other economic relief, ARPA includes financial relief for certain eligible airports. For
eligible airports, ARPA appropriates $8 billion to assist such airports to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
COVID-19, and such amounts remain available until September 30, 2024.
The allocation of amounts appropriated pursuant to ARPA have not yet been announced, and the Department is
not yet aware of the amount of funding the Airport will receive pursuant to ARPA at this time. [to be updated]
It is important to note that the amounts and allocations by FY described above for the CARES Act, CRSSAA, and
ARPA are still preliminary at this time and are subject to change. The Department will continue to monitor its
budgeted plan and may, ultimately, apply different amounts of such funding at the Department’s discretion.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
20 | Landrum & Brown
1.5.4 COVID-19 Financial Relief Measures
1.5.4.1 Airline
The significant declines in passenger traffic associated with the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative financial
impact on the airline industry, as presented previously. The Department received requests for financial relief from
the airlines at the Airport early on during the COVID-19 pandemic. At its discretion to provide some relief to the
airlines, the Department deferred airline landing fees and terminal rents for April 2020, May 2020, and June 2020.
The repayment terms associated with the Department’s deferral of airline rentals and fees were 50% of the
balance in July 2020, and the remaining 50% in August 2020. The Department has received all outstanding
balances from the airlines under this deferral program. The Department also provided short-term financing to build
out space in new facilities.
1.5.4.2 Non-Airline Tenants
The significant declines in passenger traffic associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has also had a negative
financial impact on non-airline businesses at the Airport. In March 2020, former Governor Herbert ordered
restaurants and bars to suspend dine-in service. This order negatively affected full-service dine-in restaurants at
the Airport. Early in the pandemic, many concessionaires closed or reduced operations at the Airport.
The Department received requests for financial relief from Airport concessionaires, rental car companies, and
other non-airline tenants at the Airport. A summary of the measures the Department implemented are as follows:
In-Terminal Concessions:
Deferral of food and beverage and retail MAGs from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020 for
existing concession contracts expiring September 14, 2020 and October 26, 2020 when the former
terminals and airside concourses closed
Percent rent only was charged during the above deferral period; however, the annual settlement was
based on actual contract terms that contain MAG abatement provisions
Allowing new food and beverage and retail concession contracts that start on September 15, 2020 and
October 27, 2020 to pay percentage of rent (MAG deferral) until the Airport achieves 90% of 2019
enplaned passenger levels for three consecutive months or July 1, 2023, whichever occurs first
Extended terms of concession agreements to commence upon achieving 90% of 2019 enplaned
passengers levels over three consecutive months or July 1, 2023, whichever occurs first
Allowed concessionaires to complete build-outs of locations as the pandemic subsides and traffic returns
to pre-pandemic levels
Allowing temporary closures, reduced operating hours, and scaled back menus of concessionaires
without penalty
Provided short-term financing for the build-out of space in new facilities
Rental Cars:
Deferral of MAG from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020
Percent rent only was charged during the deferral period; however, the annual settlement was based on
actual contract terms that contain MAG abatement provisions
Provided additional overflow parking from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020
Provided short-term financing for the build-out of space in new facilities
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 21
2 Role of the Airport and Economic Base for Air Traffic
This chapter introduces the Salt Lake City International Airport and summarizes the role the Airport serves in
accommodating air traffic for the nation, the region, and as a primary connecting hub in the network of Delta. This
chapter also describes the Salt Lake City region’s economic base and its ability to continue to support demand for
air transportation.
2.1 Role of the Airport
The Airport is owned and operated by Salt Lake City, Utah (the City), with support and advice of the Salt Lake
City Airport Board (Airport Advisory Board). The Department, a department of the City, is charged with operating
the Airport System defined herein. The Airport serves as the principal commercial service airport for the Salt Lake
City metropolitan region, the State, and portions of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming.
2.1.1 National Role
The Airport has historically been one of the busiest commercial passenger airports in the U.S. In CY 2019, the
Airport had 12.8 million enplaned passengers which was an increase of approximately 5.0% based on Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) data from CY 2018. For CY 2019, the Airport was ranked the 23rd busiest airport in
the U.S. in terms of passenger traffic. Since the Airport enplaned at least one percent of U.S. enplaned
passengers in CY 2019, it has been designated as a Large Hub airport by the FAA. Table 2-1 provides the
rankings of the U.S. Large Hub airports in terms of total enplaned passengers per the FAA for CY 2019 (the latest
data available).
The Airport has a diverse, stable base of air carriers. The Airport’s largest carrier in terms of passenger traffic,
Delta, operates a major connecting hub at the Airport. Delta’s enplaned passenger market share, including its
regional affiliate or connection carriers (Delta Connection Carriers), comprised approximately 73.0% of enplaned
passengers at the Airport in FY 2020. Delta’s enplaned passenger market share increased by about 0.8
percentage points at the Airport from its 2019 market share of 72.1%. The Airport predominantly serves domestic
traffic, which comprised approximately 96.1% of the Airport’s enplaned passenger traffic in FY 2020. International
enplaned passengers accounted for approximately 3.9% of the Airport’s passengers. Figure 2-1 presents the
Airport’s enplaned passenger market share by airline for FY 2020.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
22 | Landrum & Brown
Table 2-1 U.S. Large Hub Airports Enplaned Passenger Rankings (2019)
Rank Code Airport Enplaned Passengers
(in thousands)
1 ATL Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International 53,506
2 LAX Los Angeles International 42,939
3 ORD Chicago O'Hare International 40,871
4 DFW Dallas-Fort Worth International 35,779
5 DEN Denver International 33,593
6 JFK John F Kennedy International 31,037
7 SFO San Francisco International 27,779
8 SEA Seattle-Tacoma International 25,002
9 LAS McCarran International (Las Vegas) 24,728
10 MCO Orlando International 24,562
11 CLT Charlotte/Douglas International 24,200
12 EWR Newark Liberty International 23,161
13 PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International 22,434
14 IAH George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 21,905
15 MIA Miami International 21,421
16 BOS General Edward Lawrence Logan International 20,699
17 MSP Minneapolis-St Paul International 19,193
18 DTW Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 18,143
19 FLL Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International 17,951
20 PHL Philadelphia International 16,006
21 LGA LaGuardia 15,394
22 BWI Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall 13,285
23 SLC Salt Lake City International 12,841
24 SAN San Diego International 12,649
25 IAD Washington Dulles International 11,884
26 DCA Ronald Reagan Washington National 11,595
27 TPA Tampa International 10,979
28 MDW Chicago Midway International 10,082
29 HNL Daniel K Inouye International (Honolulu) 9,989
30 PDX Portland International 9,797
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Air Carrier Activity Information System, October 29, 2020.
Compiled by Landrum & Brown, Inc.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 23
Figure 2-1 Enplaned Passenger Market Share at the Airport (FY 2020)
Notes: Regional affiliates, as applicable, have been included with their appropriate network partner. Amounts may not
add because of rounding.
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics, accessed at https://slcairport.com/about-the-
airport/airport-overview/air-traffic-statistics/
The Airport’s total aircraft operations rankings were generally consistent with its level of passenger traffic. Airport
Council International-North America (ACI-NA) data indicated that the Airport had 344,625 aircraft operations 29 in
CY 2019 (including all-cargo carrier operations), which ranked the Airport as the 23rd busiest airport in the U.S.30
In addition to passenger traffic, there is a significant amount of air cargo processed at the Airport. According to the
ACI-NA, 201,177 metric tons of air cargo, including both freight and mail, were loaded and unloaded at the Airport
in CY 2019.31 Based on this data from ACI-NA, the Airport ranked as the 31st busiest airport for cargo in the U.S.
for this period.
29 An aircraft operation includes the landing, takeoff, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on the runway at an airport.
30 Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), North American Airport Traffic Report, accessed online at
https://airportscouncil.org/intelligence/north-american-airport-traffic-reports/
31 Ibid
73.0%
9.7%
5.5%
4.7%
2.7%
2.5%
1.9%
< 0.1%
Delta Mainline
55.3%
Delta Connection
17.6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Delta Air Lines
Southwest Airlines
American Airlines
United Airlines
JetBlue Airways
Alaska Air
Frontier
Other
Share of Enplaned Passengers
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
24 | Landrum & Brown
2.1.2 Regional Role
The Airport serves as the primary commercial service airport for the Salt Lake City metropolitan area and the
surrounding area. Origin and destination (O&D) passengers, or those that begin or end their travel at the Airport,
accounted for approximately 58.1% of passenger traffic at the Airport in FY 2020.32
The geographic region that serves as an airport’s primary catchment area is referred to as its “Air Service Area”.
For the purposes of this report, the Airport’s Air Service Area is defined as the Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem
Combined Statistical Area (CSA), which includes the following ten counties in Utah: Box Elder, Davis, Juab,
Morgan, Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber.33 The Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem CSA was the
22nd most populous CSA in the nation in CY 2020 with approximately 2.3 million people and accounted for
approximately 82.4% of the entire population of Utah.
In many cases, an airport’s air service area can extend beyond its ‘primary’ Air Service Area depending on the
location of other population centers and availability of other commercial service airports. However, it is generally
the economic strength of the primary air service area that provides the principal demand for supporting O&D air
travel. In the case of the Airport, its secondary air service area generally consists of the remainder of the State
and portions of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming within about 300 driving miles from the Airport.
The Air Service Area is largely isolated from competing airport facilities and, hence, the Airport has limited, if any,
competition for air service. Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS) is the closest Large Hub airport and is
over 400 (driving) miles from the Airport. Denver International Airport (DEN), the next closest Large Hub, is over
500 driving miles from the Airport. Boise Airport in Idaho is over 300 driving miles from the Airport; however, it is a
much smaller facility and classified as a Small Hub by the FAA.34 Figure 2-2 illustrates the Airport’s location in
relation to its Air Service Area as well as the other airports within the region.
32 Data used to estimate an airport’s share of O&D passengers is from the USDOT. These data are a random 10% sample of tickets
either ticketed by a U.S. carrier or where a U.S. carrier operated at least one flight in the ticket's itinerary.
33 Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget, Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and
Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas, March 6, 2020.
34 The FAA classifies Small Hub airports as those serving at least 0.05% but less than 0.25% of annual U.S. passenger boardings.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 25
Figure 2-2 Air Service Area and Proximity to Other Airports
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
26 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 2-2 Air Service Area and Proximity to Other Airports (Continued)
Airport Code FAA Airport
Category
Driving Distance
from Downtown Salt
Lake City
CY 2019
Enplaned Passengers
(in thousands)
Salt Lake City International
Airport SLC Large 8 miles 12,227
Boise Airport BOI Small 337 miles 1,943
McCarran International
Airport LAS Large 428 miles 23,795
Reno-Tahoe International
Airport RNO Small 520 miles 2,048
Denver International Airport DEN Large 524 miles 31,363
Albuquerque International
Sunport ABQ Medium 602 miles 2,647
Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport PHX Large 666 miles 21,623
Sources: Federal Aviation Administration, Air Carrier Activity Information System, October 29, 2020; Executive Office of the
President: Office of Management and Budget, Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and
Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of These Areas.
2.1.3 Role as Hub for Delta Air Lines
The Airport has served as a hub for Delta for many decades. Prior to the impacts associated with the global
COVID-19 pandemic, Delta’s enplaned passengers increased over the years, averaging 2.2% growth per annum
from FY 2011 through FY 2019. Delta is the largest carrier at the Airport with approximately 73.0% of the total
enplaned passengers in FY 2020. A significant portion of Delta’s traffic is connecting passengers, or passengers
that have a scheduled stop at the Airport and transfer to another flight. In recent years, prior to the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the share of connecting traffic has declined. This decrease in connecting passengers over
this period, or a corresponding increase in O&D passengers, can be partly attributed to the ongoing economic
growth of the Air Service Area as local demand for air travel increased prior to the pandemic. Figure 2-3 presents
the share of connecting passengers at the Airport on Delta since FY 2010 and through FY 2020 (data for full FY
2021 is not yet available). Delta’s operations at the Airport are described in more detail in Section 3.1.2 herein.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 27
Figure 2-3 Delta Air Lines Connecting Passengers Share at the Airport (FY 2011 – FY 2020)
Source: Diio Mi, US DOT Reports DB1A; US DOT T100 Report, accessed March 2021.
2.2 Economic Base for Air Traffic
Historically, air travel demand at an airport is largely correlated with the demographic and economic
characteristics of the surrounding region. Following a recovery of the aviation industry from the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the demographic and economic strength of the region is expected to once again drive
growth at the Airport. The economic strength of the Air Service Area has historically had a major impact on the
aviation activity at the Airport since the majority of the Airport’s passenger demand is O&D activity. The following
sections review current economic trends and conditions of the Airport’s Air Service Area and present data
indicative of the Air Service Area’s capability to generate demand for air transportation through the next several
years.
This section also addresses the estimated impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic using data
and information available to date. It should be noted, however, that impacts are still emerging and at this
time L&B is unable to fully quantify the effect and length of time that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on
the region’s economic base and the length of time over which this effect will occur. No assurance can be
given that the future results discussed herein will be achieved, and actual results may differ materially
from the projections described herein. In this respect, the words “estimate,” “forecast,” “projected,”
“anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-
looking statements. The forward-looking statements in this Report are subject to risks and uncertainties
that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by such statements.
All estimates, projections, forecasts, assumptions and other forward-looking statements are expressly
qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements set forth in this Report and the Official Statement.
64.3%63.3%62.1%60.7%62.7%62.1%59.8%57.4%54.6%54.2%52.9%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Delta Air Lines Share of Connecting Passsengers
Percent of Total Enplanements
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
28 | Landrum & Brown
2.2.1 Socioeconomic Trends
There are 38 CSAs in the U.S. with a population in excess of 1.5 million people, including the Salt Lake City CSA.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, population in the Salt Lake City CSA or Air Service Area has increased
from 2.3 million in 2010 to an estimated 2.6 million in 2019. This relatively rapid growth ranked the Salt Lake City
CSA as the 11th fastest growing CSA with a population in excess of 1.5 million people. Figure 2-4 presents the
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2010 and 2019 (the latest data available) for population for the
nation’s 38 CSAs with populations in excess of 1.5 million.
Figure 2-4 Population Growth in CSAs with Population in Excess of 1.5 Million
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of Resident Population, accessed via American FactFinder.
Table 2-2 provides population data from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. for the Air Service Area, the State, and
the U.S. for 2010 and 2020 (estimated). Between 2010 and 2020 (estimated), the population of the Air Service
Area increased at 1.6% per annum from just under 2.3 million to 2.6 million. During the same period, the U.S.
population increased at 0.7% per annum.
Salt Lake City CSA
11th Fasted Growing CSA in the U.S.
Or
l
a
n
d
o
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
-Du
r
h
a
m
Sa
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Ho
u
s
t
o
n
Da
l
l
a
s
-Ft
.
W
o
r
t
h
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
Na
s
h
v
i
l
l
e
De
n
v
e
r
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
La
s
V
e
g
a
s
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
v
i
l
l
e
Se
a
t
t
l
e
At
l
a
n
t
a
Po
r
t
l
a
n
d
Mi
a
m
i
Co
l
u
m
b
u
s
Sa
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
Mi
n
n
e
a
p
o
l
i
s
-St
.
P
a
u
l
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
Sa
n
J
o
s
e
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
C
Ka
n
s
a
s
C
i
t
y
Ne
w
O
r
l
e
a
n
s
Gr
e
e
n
s
b
o
r
o
Bo
s
t
o
n
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
Ci
n
c
i
n
n
a
t
i
Vi
r
g
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
Ph
i
l
a
d
e
l
p
h
i
a
Ne
w
Y
o
r
k
Mi
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
De
t
r
o
i
t
St
.
L
o
u
i
s
Ch
i
c
a
g
o
Cl
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
Pi
t
t
s
b
u
r
g
h
Sa
n
J
u
a
n
-2.0%
-1.5%
-1.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
Population Growth
Compound Annual Growth Rate from CY 2010 through CY 2019
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 29
Table 2-2 Population Growth (2010 –2020)
Region Population CAGR
2010 2020 2010-20
Salt Lake County, UT 1,032,979 1,165,031 1.3%
Utah County, UT 519,994 633,415 2.2%
Davis County, UT 307,906 356,663 1.6%
Weber County, UT 232,139 258,806 1.2%
Tooele County, UT 58,501 70,930 2.2%
Box Elder County, UT 50,170 55,356 1.1%
Summit County, UT 36,500 42,514 1.7%
Wasatch County, UT 23,644 33,987 4.1%
Morgan County, UT 9,522 12,231 2.8%
Juab County, UT 10,263 11,672 1.4%
Air Service Area 2,281,618 2,640,605 1.6%
United States 309,326,026 329,308,907 0.7%
Utah 2,775,334 3,201,975 1.6%
Notes: CAGR = Compound annual growth rate. Population for 2020 is estimated.
Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2020 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, April 2020.
Figure 2-5 depicts historical and forecast year-over-year growth of population for the Air Service Area and the
U.S. as a whole. Population growth in the Air Service Area has continually outpaced the nation as a whole.
According to Woods & Poole, population in the Air Service Area is forecast to increase from 2.6 million in 2020
(estimated) to 2.9 million in 2027, resulting in a CAGR of 1.3%, which is more than double the rate forecast for
national population.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
30 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 2-5 Historical and Forecast Population Trends (2007 – 2027)
Note: The forecasted year-over-year growth rates were developed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and may not reflect
changes resulting from the pandemic.
Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2019 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, April 2020.
2.2.1.1 Age Distribution
Demand for air travel varies by age group. People of working ages 35 from 25 to 64 have, historically, accounted
for a higher share of air travel than older or younger people as they often traveled for business purposes and
have more disposable income available for leisure trips. Figure 2-6 presents the distribution of age groups among
the population for the Air Service Area and the U.S. Overall, the median age of the population for the Air Service
Area (30.8) is significantly lower than nationally (38.4). The Air Service Area’s share of population between the
working ages of 25 and 64 is currently lower than that of the U.S. Persons within the Air Service Area between the
ages of 25 and 64 accounted for 48.9% of the population as compared to 52.1% for the U.S., While the share of
working age population in the Air Service Area is somewhat lower than that of the U.S., it does have a higher
proportion of population in the younger working age range or ages 24 to 46. This provides an opportunity for the
Air Service Area to maintain a robust working age population for years to come as the population ages.
35 Commonly, working age is defined at those people aged 15 to 64. However, for the purposes of this Report, a narrower age range
of 25 to 64 has been used to reflect the group of people most likely beyond secondary education and more likely to be employed on
a full-time basis.
Forecast ►
Growth in the Air
Service Area has
historically outpaced
the nation as a whole,
a trend that is expected
to continue
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
Population
Year-Over-Year Growth Rates
Air Service Area United States
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 31
Figure 2-6 Age Distribution (2019)
Note: Commonly, working age is defined at those people aged 15 to 64. However, for the purposes of this Report, a
narrower age range of 25 to 64 has been used to reflect the group of people most likely beyond secondary
education and more likely to be employed on a full-time basis.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2019: ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles.
2.2.1.2 Educational Attainment
People with a college degree have, historically, generated a higher percentage of expenditures on air travel.
Figure 2-7 presents the share of educational attainment for persons aged 25 or older within the Air Service Area
and the U.S. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 45.9% of the population aged 25 or older in the Air Service
Area have a college degree or higher. By comparison, only 41.7% of the population aged 25 or older in the U.S.
have a college degree or higher.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
<5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+
Young Age Working Age Seniors
Age Groups
Share of Persons of Total Population
Air Service Area United States
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
32 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 2-7 Educational Attainment (2019)
Source: US Census Bureau, 2019: ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles.
2.2.2 Employment
Growth in employment is an important indicator of the overall health of the local economy. Historically, changes in
population and employment tend to be closely correlated as people migrate in and out of areas largely depending
on their ability to find work. Figure 2-8 presents annual growth rates for employment in the Air Service Area and
the U.S. from 2007 through 2019 (before the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic). Between December 2007 and
June 2009, a major financial recession occurred. The recession, often referred to as the ‘Great Recession’, was
the longest recession since the airline industry was deregulated. As shown, from 2008 through 2010 there was a
sharp decline in employment in each geographic region. From 2010 through 2019, employment in the Air Service
Area increased at a CAGR of 3.1% compared to 1.9% for U.S. as a whole.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Air Service Area
United States
Percent of People 25 Years or Older
Advanced Degree Bachelor's Degree Associate Degree
Some College, No Degree High School Diploma or Equivalent Not a High School Graduate
45.9% of population with a college degree or higher in the Air
Service Area as compared to 41.7% for the United States
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 33
Figure 2-8 Historical Employment Trends (2007 – 2019)
Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2020 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, April 2020.
2.2.2.1 Labor Force & Unemployment Rates
Unemployment rates are also an indicator of economic health as rates usually decrease as economic activity in
the region grows. Figure 2-9 presents the historical unemployment rates for the Air Service Area, the State, and
the U.S. As shown, from 2009 through 2019, unemployment rates in the Air Service Area trended similar to the
national average but at a consistently more favorable rate. During the Great Recession, unemployment for the Air
Service Area peaked at 8.1% in January 2010 as compared to the national unemployment peak of 10.6% in the
same month. Total employment during 2019 increased at a faster rate than population since the end of the Great
Recession, resulting in significant declines in unemployment rates during that time. However, since the impacts
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in the U.S. starting in March 2020, unemployment rates
increased to historic levels as a result of stay-at-home orders and companies hedging for potential losses. In April
2020, the unemployment rate for the Air Service Area reached 10.3% compared to the national rate of 14.4%.
While the national unemployment rate has begun a slow decline, the unemployment rate in the Air Service Area
declined significantly to rates seen at recently as mid-2018. In March 2021, the unemployment rate for the Air
Service Area was 2.8%, which was significantly lower than that of the U.S. at 6.2%.
A significant decline in
employment coinciding
with the economic
recession-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Employment
Year-Over-Year Growth Rates
Air Service Area United States
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
34 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 2-9 Unemployment Rates (Not Seasonally Adjusted for January 2009 – December 2020)
Month Unemployment Rate
United States Utah Air Service Area
January 2020 4.0% 2.8% 2.6%
February 2020 3.8% 2.8% 2.7%
March 2020 4.5% 4.1% 3.9%
April 2020 14.4% 10.4% 10.3%
May 2020 13.0% 8.5% 8.5%
June 2020 11.2% 5.7% 5.7%
July 2020 10.5% 4.6% 4.6%
August 2020 8.5% 4.2% 4.2%
September 2020 7.7% 4.7% 4.7%
October 2020 6.6% 3.7% 3.7%
November 2020 6.4% 3.9% 3.8%
December 2020 6.5% 3.3% 3.2%
January 2021 6.8% 3.5% 3.3%
February 2021 6.6% 3.6% 3.5%
March 2021 6.2% 2.9% 2.8%
Sources: U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,
January 2021.
National unemployment
rates originally peaked
in late 2009, early 2010
in the months following
the recession
Unemployment rates
reach historic levels as
COVID-19 results in
the shutdown of
businesses on a
national level
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Ja
n
-
0
9
Ap
r
-
0
9
Ju
l
-
0
9
Oc
t
-
0
9
Ja
n
-
1
0
Ap
r
-
1
0
Ju
l
-
1
0
Oc
t
-
1
0
Ja
n
-
1
1
Ap
r
-
1
1
Ju
l
-
1
1
Oc
t
-
1
1
Ja
n
-
1
2
Ap
r
-
1
2
Ju
l
-
1
2
Oc
t
-
1
2
Ja
n
-
1
3
Ap
r
-
1
3
Ju
l
-
1
3
Oc
t
-
1
3
Ja
n
-
1
4
Ap
r
-
1
4
Ju
l
-
1
4
Oc
t
-
1
4
Ja
n
-
1
5
Ap
r
-
1
5
Ju
l
-
1
5
Oc
t
-
1
5
Ja
n
-
1
6
Ap
r
-
1
6
Ju
l
-
1
6
Oc
t
-
1
6
Ja
n
-
1
7
Ap
r
-
1
7
Ju
l
-
1
7
Oc
t
-
1
7
Ja
n
-
1
8
Ap
r
-
1
8
Ju
l
-
1
8
Oc
t
-
1
8
Ja
n
-
1
9
Ap
r
-
1
9
Ju
l
-
1
9
Oc
t
-
1
9
Ja
n
-
2
0
Ap
r
-
2
0
Ju
l
-
2
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
Ja
n
-
2
1
Labor Force
Percent Unemployed
Air Service Area United States
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 35
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) currently forecasts that the national unemployment rate will continue to
decline and reach approximately 5.3% in the fourth quarter of 2021, with a slower estimated recovery,
thereafter.36 Figure 2-10 presents the CBO’s long-term forecast for the unemployment rate in the U.S. Per the
CBO, unemployment rates are not expected to reach levels experienced prior to the impacts associated the
COVID-19 pandemic over the forecast period.
Figure 2-10 Congressional Budget Office Forecast of Unemployment Rates (through 2027 Q4)
Source: Congressional Budget Office, An Overview of the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031, February 2021.
2.2.2.2 Industry Sectors
As shown above, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic effect on employment nationally. From February
2020 to April 2020, there were 22.2 million jobs lost in the U.S. Certain job sectors were more affected than
others. Service-providing industries have been severely impacted, accounting for 90.6% of job losses in the first
two months of the pandemic, compared to 9.4% for goods-producing sectors, which include manufacturing,
construction, and mining and logging. Within the service-providing industry, the leisure and hospitality sector has
been the most impacted sector during the pandemic with 8.3 million job losses in the first two months (a loss of
49.3% of all leisure and hospitality jobs), accounting for 37.5% of the total non-farm industry losses. As of
February 2021, more than half of the jobs have been recovered. However, not all sectors have been recovering at
the same rate. Transportation and warehousing exhibited the fastest recovery with more than 95% of the initial job
36 Congressional Budget Office, An Overview of the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031, February 2021.
Forecast ►
CBO is projecting a
significant recovery
through 2021 and
unemployment will dip
below 4.0% by 2026
Q1
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Labor Forecast
Percent Unemployed
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
36 | Landrum & Brown
losses recovered by February 2021. By February 2021, the leisure and hospitality sector recovered 56.1% of the
initial job losses from April 2020 but remains the largest sector for job losses (36.1% of the total job losses).
Figure 2-11 presents the job losses for the most affected sectors in the U.S. for February 2020 through February
2021.
Figure 2-11 U.S. Employment Change by Industry Sector (February 2020 – February 2021)
Source: U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics - CES (National)
Figure 2-12 presents employment by industry sector for the Air Service Area and the U.S for 2019, which is prior
to the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Historically, those industry sectors that have been highly
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., professional services, education and health, and leisure and hospitality)
comprise a similar share of the jobs in the Air Service Area than that of the nation. As shown, the goods-
producing sectors account for 7.9% of the jobs in the Air Service Area while nationally they account for 8.3%. The
highly impacted service sectors described above account for 39.4% of the jobs in the Air Service Area compared
to 39.2% nationally.
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21
Change in Total Jobs Relative to February 2020
in millions
Leisure and Hospitality Education and Health Services
Professional and Business Services Retail Trade
Government Wholesale Trade
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 37
Figure 2-12 Employment by Industry Sector (2019)
Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2020 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, April 2020.
Indicative of the more favorable unemployment rate in the Air Service Area as compared to the U.S., its
employment in the leisure and hospitality sector has recovered more rapidly than that of the U.S. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were approximately 156,100 employees in the leisure and hospitality sectors in
Utah during February 2020. The number of employees dropped to a low of around 92,600 in April 2020, indicating
63,500 lost jobs due to the pandemic. As of February 2021, there were about 141,900 employees in the leisure
and hospitality sector, still 14,200 fewer jobs than pre-pandemic levels. This indicates that 77.6% of lost jobs in
the leisure and hospitality sector have been recovered in Utah compared to just 56.1% in the U.S.
2.2.2.3 Major Employers
The top 25 employers in the Air Service Area for 2019 are shown in Table 2-3. These employers serve a diverse
range of industries including but not limited to health care, education, government, retail, electronics, and banking
institutions.
8.3%7.9%
Leisure and
Hospitality
15.1%
Leisure and
Hospitality
11.7%
Education and Health
9.5%Education and Health
10.7%
Professional Services
14.6%Professional Services
17.0%
Trade,
Transportation, and
Utilities
22.5%
Trade,
Transportation, and
Utilities
22.8%
Other Services
30.1%
Other Services
29.8%
39.2% of
jobs are
in the
highly
impacted
services
39.4% of
jobs are
in the
highly
impacted
services
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Goods-Producing Highly Impacted
Services
Lower-Impacted
Services
Goods-Producing Highly Impacted
Services
Lower-Impacted
Services
Employed Persons
Share of Persons
Air Service AreaUnited States
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
38 | Landrum & Brown
Table 2-3 Top Employers in Utah (2019)
Rank Company Name Industry Employment
Range
1 Intermountain Healthcare Health Care 20,000 +
2 University of Utah Higher Education 20,000 +
3 State of Utah State Government 20,000 +
4 Brigham Young University Higher Education 15,000-19,999
5 Wal-Mart Associates Warehouse Clubs/Supercenters 15,000-19,999
6 Hill Air Force Base Federal Government 10,000-14,999
7 Amazon.com Services Courier/Express Delivery Service 10,000-14,999
8 Davis County School District Public Education 7,000-9,999
9 Utah State University Higher Education 7,000-9,999
10 Smith's Food and Drug Centers Grocery Stores 7,000-9,999
11 Granite School District Public Education 7,000-9,999
12 Alpine School District Public Education 7,000-9,999
13 Jordan School District Public Education 7,000-9,999
14 Salt Lake County Local Government 5,000-6,999
15 Utah Valley University Higher Education 5,000-6,999
16 U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Government 5,000-6,999
17 U.S. Postal Service Federal Government 5,000-6,999
18 The Canyons School District Public Education 5,000-6,999
19 Delta Air Lines Air Transportation 4,000-4,999
20 The Home Depot Home Centers 4,000-4,999
21 United Parcel Service Courier/Express Delivery Service 4,000-4,999
22 Weber County School District Public Education 4,000-4,999
23 Zions Bancorporation Banking 4,000-4,999
24 Autoliv Motor Vehicle Equipment Manufacturing 3,000-3,999
25 ARUP Laboratories, Inc. Medical Laboratory 3,000-3,999
26 ATK Launch/Space Systems Aerospace 3,000-3,999
27 Vivint Electrical Contractors 3,000-3,999
28 Wells Fargo Bank Banking 3,000-3,999
29 VA Hospital Health Care 3,000-3,999
30 Macy’s Department Stores 3,000-3,999
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 39
Table 2-4 Top Employers in Utah (2019) Continued
Rank Company Name Industry Employment
Range
31 Discover Products, Inc. Consumer Loans 3,000-3,999
32 Costco Warehouse Clubs/Supercenters 3,000-3,999
31 Nebo School District Public Education 3,000-3,999
32 Salt Lake City School District Public Education 3,000-3,999
33 Washington County School District Public Education 3,000-3,999
34 Weber State University Higher Education 3,000-3,999
35 Salt Lake City Corporation Local Government 3,000-3,999
36 Harmons Grocery Stores 3,000-3,999
37 L3 Technologies Electronics Manufacturing 3,000-3,999
38 SkyWest Airlines Air Transportation 3,000-3,999
39 America First Credit Union Banking 3,000-3,999
40 Salt Lake Community College Higher Education 2,000-2,999
41 Maverick Country Stores Convenience Stores 2,000-2,999
42 Deseret Industries Vocational Rehabilitation Services 2,000-2,999
43 DoTERRA International Direct Selling 2,000-2,999
44 Utah Transit Authority Public Transportation 2,000-2,999
45 Goldman Sachs Banking/Investments 2,000-2,999
46 Cache County School District Public Education 2,000-2,999
47 Target Corporation Supercenters 2,000-2,999
48 Sizzling Platter, LLC Restaurants 2,000-2,999
49 Lowe's Home Center Home Centers 2,000-2,999
50 C.R. England Trucking Truck Transportation 2,000-2,999
51 Merit Medical Systems Medical Manufacturing 2,000-2,999
52 Mountain America Credit Union Banking 2,000-2,999
53 R1 RMC Financial Services 2,000-2,999
54 JetBlue Airways Corporation Air Transportation 2,000-2,999
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Major Employers 2019: State of Utah.
Annually, Fortune magazine publishes a listing of the largest companies in the U.S. based on revenue. There are
three Fortune 1000® companies headquartered in the Air Service Area: Zions Bancorp (#740), SkyWest (#788),
and Nu Skin Enterprises (#884). The three Fortune 1000® companies headquartered in the Air Service Area, had
a combined revenue of $1.3 billion and employed nearly 49,000 people worldwide in 2019.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
40 | Landrum & Brown
2.2.3 Income
Income statistics are broad indicators of the relative earning power and wealth of an area and provide a measure
of the relative affluence of a region’s residents and, consequently, of their ability to afford air travel. Income data
presented herein provides a general indication of historical trends prior to the impacts associated with the COVID-
19 pandemic. Income data since the COVID-19 pandemic is not available at the time of this Report.
2.2.3.1 Per Capita Personal Income
Per capita personal income (PCPI) corresponds to the income per resident (total income divided by total
population). Figure 2-13 provides the historical PCPI for the Air Service Area and the U.S. from 2007 through
2019 before the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2007, PCPI in the Air Service Area was $42,819, which
was lower than the national average of $49,240. PCPI for the nation, including the Air Service Area, declined
during the Great Recession, recovered between 2010 and 2012, and then decreased slightly in 2013. Since 2013,
PCPI in the Air Service Area has increased at a CAGR of 3.2% as compared to a 2.5% CAGR for the U.S.
However, the PCPI in the Air Service Area reached an estimated $51,456 in 2019 which was $6,539 lower than
the national average. It is generally assumed that the Air Service Area’s lower share of working age population as
compared to the U.S. contributes to PCPI being lower.
Figure 2-13 Historical Per Capita Personal Income Trends (2007 – 2019)
Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2020 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, April 2020.
In 2019, PCPI in the air
service area was
$6,539 lower than the
nation
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Per Capita Personal Income
In thousands
Air Service Area United States
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 41
2.2.3.2 Household Income
While PCPI may be lower for the Air Service Area than the U.S., household income compares more favorably. To
understand the distribution of income within the region, households within the Air Service Area were segmented
into three categories: higher income households (those earning $100,000 or more per year), middle-income
households (those earning $45,000 or more but less than $100,000 per year), and lower-income households
(those earning less than $45,000 per year). Households in the middle and higher-income brackets typically have
individuals whose jobs require travel when compared to lower-income households. Additionally, higher-income
households generally have more disposable income and can therefore afford more leisure travel than households
in other income brackets.
Figure 2-14 presents the percentage of households within each income bracket for the Air Service Area as
compared to the U.S. for 2019. As shown, 24.4% of households in the Air Service Area were considered higher
income, which is above the national average of 21.9%.
Figure 2-14 Distribution of Household Income (2019)
Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2020 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, April 2020.
21.9%
36.3%
41.8%
24.4%
43.3%
32.2%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%
$100K or more
$45K to $99K
Less than $45K
Percent of Households
Household Income
Air Service Area United States
The Air Service
Area has a higher
proportion of
households with
income greater than
$100K than the
state or nation
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
42 | Landrum & Brown
2.2.4 Gross Domestic/Regional Product
Gross domestic product (GDP) and gross regional product (GRP) are measures of the value of all final goods and
services produced within a geographic area. These measures are general indicators of the economic health of a
geographic area and, consequently, of the area’s potential demand for air transportation services. Figure 2-15
presents the historical GDP for the U.S. and the GRP for the Air Service Area on a per capita basis from 2007
through 2019 (the latest data available). During the Great Recession, the national economy contracted for three
consecutive years. Over the period shown, GRP for the Air Service Area on a per capita basis has consistently
been lower than that of the U.S. As with PCPI, it is generally assumed that the Air Service Area’s lower share of
working age population as compared to the U.S. contributes to GRP per capita being lower; however, it generally
trends with that of the U.S.
Figure 2-15 Historical Per Capita Gross Domestic/Regional Product Trends (2007 – 2019)
Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2020 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, April 2020.
GRP for the air service
area on a per capita
basis has consistently
been lower than that of
the United States
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Per Capita Gross Domestic/Regional Product
In thousands
Air Service Area United States
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 43
Biannually, the CBO provides 10-year economic projections which includes output, prices, labor market
measures, interest rates, and income. Part of this work includes projections of potential GDP. In July 2020, the
CBO released the first update to these projections since the beginning of the pandemic. At the time, the CBO
forecast that real U.S. GDP contracted by 10.1% in the second quarter of 2020, which is equivalent to a decline of
34.6%, followed by a 17.0% recovery in the third quarter. The CBO projected that GDP would recover to fourth
quarter of 2019 levels by the third quarter of 2022, making the recession the second longest U.S. recession since
1947.
However, when actual results became available, the real U.S. GDP contracted by 8.9% in the second quarter of
2020, which is equivalent to an annual decline of 31.4%, before rebounding by 6.7% in the third quarter of 2020.
According to the most recent release of 10-year projections released early February 2021, the U.S. GDP is
estimated to continue rebounding during the fourth quarter of 2020 as concerns about the pandemic diminish and
as state and local governments ease stay-at-home orders, bans on public gatherings, and other measures to limit
the spread of COVID-19. On an annual basis, the CBO estimates that the U.S. GDP decreased by 3.4% in 2020
and forecasts that GDP will increase by 4.6% in 2021. The February release projects that GDP would recover to
fourth quarter of 2019 levels by the third quarter of 2021. Figure 2-16 presents the latest CBO’s forecast of the
U.S. GDP.
Figure 2-16 Congressional Budget Office Forecast of Gross Domestic Product (through 2027 Q4)
Source: Congressional Budget Office, An Overview of the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031, February 2021.
Forecast ►
CBO is projecting a
significant recovery
through 2021 and GDP
will return to pre-
COVID-19 levels by
2021 Q3
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Gross Domestic Product
Index 2019 Q4 = 100
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
44 | Landrum & Brown
2.2.5 Regional Tourism and Visitors
In 2019, travelers directly spent $10.1 billion in Utah, supporting approximately 141,500 total jobs. Nonresident
visitors spent 85.6% of the total spending with a majority of those visitors traveling for leisure purposes.37
However, impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have caused a significant decline in travel in Utah.
According to a recent study, it is estimated that total 2020 travel and tourism jobs was down around 15% from
2019.38
Outdoor tourism is a major industry in the Air Service Area and for the State and surrounding region. In general,
the outdoor tourism consists of two main seasons: summer and winter. However, it is not uncommon to find
outdoor tourists in all months. In the summer season, the main driver for outdoor tourism are the national and
State parks. In the winter, it is primarily the numerous ski resorts throughout the region. It is important to point out
that while tourism in general has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, outdoor activities that
offer access to open spaces and that is more conducive to physical distancing (e.g., parks, ski areas, beaches,
etc.) has been more popular as described below.
2.2.5.1 National and State Parks
Utah is home to five national parks, nicknamed ‘The Mighty 5’, which combined for 10.7 million recreation visits in
2019. All five of the parks provide miles of trails for hiking, backpacking, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, and
horseback riding with backdrops of sweeping vistas and to gaze at some of the highest concentrations of hoodoos
(irregular columns of rock) found anywhere in the world. There are also 11 national places including the Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area and the Golden Spike National Monument. The COVID-19 pandemic initially
caused the temporary closure of all the national parks in Utah by early April. According to data from the National
Park Service, the Mighty 5 had 7.8 million recreation visits in 2020, a decline of 27.4%. The parks began to
reopen in May 2020. Figure 2-17 presents the monthly visits to the Mighty 5 from January 2019 through
December 2020. As shown, there was a significant drop in visitors beginning in March 2020. However, visitor
traffic was relatively robust in the late summer and early fall of 2020 considering much of the tourism in the U.S.
was still severely impacted as a result of the pandemic. In fact, October, November, and December visitors in
2020 exceeded those of the same months in 2019.
37 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, The State of Utah’s Travel and Tourism Industry 2019, September 2020.
38 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, A “Tourism Trifold”, January 2021.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 45
Figure 2-17 Park Visitors to the Mighty 5 (January 2019 – December 2020)
Source: National Parks Service, National Reports, April 2021.
In addition to the Mighty 5 national parks, Utah has 44 state parks. In 2019, state park visits increased 10.6%
from 6.7 million to 7.4 million people. Unlike the national parks, Utah’s state parks saw significant growth in 2020
receiving over 10 million visits. This increase in visitors is likely because of other tourist destinations not being
open during the COVID-19 pandemic. As mentioned, both the national parks and the state parks offer visitors
open spaces and outdoor activities that are more conducive to activity restrictions during a health pandemic.
2.2.5.2 Ski Resorts
The ski industry is another major driver for tourism in Utah. For the 2018-19 season which runs from mid-
November through to April, there were 5.1 million skier days 39 in Utah, the most on record. However, the 2019-20
season was shut down early because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the shortened season,
Utah’s ski resorts still saw its 4th best season on record.40 All 15 of Utah’s ski areas were open for the 2020-21
season with safety protocols in place. [data for 20-21 season?]
39 A skier day is defined as one person visiting a ski area for all or part of a day or night for skiing or snowboarding.
40 Ski Utah, Utah Skier Numbers Remain Promising Despite an Abrupt End to the 2019-20 Season, accessed online at
https://www.skiutah.com/news/authors/pr/utah-skier-numbers-remain
0.2 0.2
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.5 1.4
1.3 1.4
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.2 0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Park Visitors
In milions
2019 2020
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
46 | Landrum & Brown
2.2.5.3 Other
The Air Service Area is home to a rich variety of cultural, educational, and entertainment attractions including: the
Utah Museum of Fine Arts; Utah Museum of Contemporary Art; Phillips Gallery; Natural History Museum of Utah;
Hogle Zoo; Tracy Aviary; Fort Douglas Military Museum; Red Butte Garden; Wheeler Historic Farm; Living Planet
Aquarium; The Leonardo science museum; Clark Planetarium and IMAX Theater; Discovery Gateway Children’s
Museum; Utah Opera; Utah Symphony; Ballet West; Repertory Dance Theatre; Pioneer Theatre Company, and
others.
In 2020, 116,800 people attended the annual Sundance Film Festival, held in January in Park City, Utah.
Approximately 44,000 of the attendees were visitors from out of State.41 In 2021, the Sundance Film Festival took
place both online and in-person. Other festivals and events in the Air Service Area and around the state include
the Utah Shakespeare Festival, Moab Music Festival, Utah Festival Opera, Tuacahn theater series, and the Utah
Arts Festival.
Major professional sports teams based in the Air Service Area include the National Basketball Association’s Utah
Jazz, Major League Soccer’s Real Salt Lake, and Major League Rugby’s Utah Warriors. There are also six minor
professional teams.
In 2019, there were approximately 655,000 attendees accounting for more than $330 million at
meetings/conventions/events in Salt Lake City.42 However, the meeting industry has been one of the hardest hit
sectors because of restrictions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Visit Salt Lake, through its “Meet In
Utah” program, offered financial incentives to groups that contracted events by December 30, 2020 that are
planned to be held in 2021. Through this effort, 30 events have been scheduled that are forecast to generate
28,000 room nights for 2021.43
2.2.6 Summary
The Air Service Area has, historically, exceeded the overall U.S. in key factors such as employment and
household income which generally indicate the capacity of the Air Service Area to generate demand for air travel
services. As described, the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting restrictions have severely disrupted and continues
to disrupt economic activity in the Air Service Area, the U.S., and other countries around the world. At this time,
due to emerging data and information, it is not possible to fully assess the overall economic impact of and timing
for recovery from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; however, L&B has evaluated such based on available
information, including relevant projections.
41 Y2 Analytics, 2020 Sundance Film Festival: Economic Impact, access online at
https://www.sundance.org/pdf/2020%20Sundance%20Film%20Festival%20Economic%20Impact%20Report.pdf
42 Visit Salt Lake, 2019 Annual Report, accessed online at https://www.visitsaltlake.com/members/member-tools/
43 Visit Salt Lake, Meet In Utah Program Initiates Recovery of Salt Lake’s Meeting Industry,
https://www.visitsaltlake.com/articles/post/meet-in-utah-program-initiates-recovery-of-salt-lakes-meeting-industry/
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 47
A summary of our key findings of our assessment of the Air Service Area’s economic base for air traffic are as
follows:
The Air Service Area has a lower proportion of working age residents (25 to 64 years old) than the U.S.
(48.9% versus 52.1%). However, it does have a higher proportion of population in the younger working
age range or ages 24 to 46. This provides an opportunity for the Air Service Area to maintain a robust
working age population for years to come as the population ages. Additionally, the Air Service Area has a
higher population with college degrees as compared to the U.S. (45.9% versus 41.7%). Both
demographics have historically accounted for a higher demand for air travel.
The Air Service Area has historically exhibited more favorable employment trends than the nation;
however, both the Air Service Area and U.S. have experienced significant unemployment increases since
March 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic. State unemployment claims have decreased significantly
since the peak in April 2020. While unemployment rates are still relatively high on a national level, the Air
Service Area’s unemployment rate for March 2021 was 2.8%. The CBO forecasts that the national
unemployment rate will continue to decrease as the economic recovery continues. It is expected that the
Air Service Area would continue to follow the national trend while continuing to be at a more favorable
rate.
The Air Service Area has historically exhibited strong income indicators. It has a higher proportion of
household income greater than $100,000 than the nation, which is indicative of a higher demand for air
travel.
On a per capita basis, the Air Service Area’s GRP has consistently been lower than that of the GDP for
the U.S. It is generally assumed that the Air Service Area’s lower share of working age population as
compared to the U.S. contributes to GRP per capita being lower. The CBO has forecast GDP recovery for
the nation and is currently estimating that GDP will return to 2019 levels in the third quarter of 2021. It is
expected that the GRP for the Air Service Area would continue to generally trend with that of the U.S.
As described previously, the economy in the Air Service Area is also connected to visitors to the region, including
both leisure and business travelers. The Air Service Area is in relatively close proximity to many national parks
(including the Mighty 5), state parks, and ski resorts that offer visitors unique and exceptional activities in an open
and outdoor natural setting more conducive to restrictions in place during health pandemics. Many of these
activities have been as popular as ever during the COVID-19 pandemic.
While, overall, the associated impacts and restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have negatively
affected the regional economy, tourism, conventions, and events over the past year, it is anticipated these will
recover as the spread of COVID-19 is controlled and the U.S. economy continues to recovery and again stimulate
demand for air travel.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
48 | Landrum & Brown
3 Air Service and Air Traffic Analysis
This chapter describes and evaluates the state of air service at the Airport, analyzes historical trends in air traffic,
identifies key factors that generally affect demand for air travel, and provides projections of air traffic activity. This
chapter also addresses the impacts on air traffic associated with the COVID-19 pandemic using data and
information available to date. It should be noted however, that impacts are still emerging, and at this time
L&B is unable to fully quantify the effect that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on air service and air
traffic and the length of time over which this effect will occur. No assurance can be given that the future
results discussed herein will be achieved, and actual results may differ materially from the projections
described herein. In this respect, the words “estimate,” “forecast,” “project,” “anticipate,” “expect,”
“intend,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The
forward-looking statements in this Report are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual
results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by such statements. All estimates,
projections, forecasts, assumptions and other forward-looking statements are expressly qualified in their
entirety by the cautionary statements set forth in this Report and the Official Statement.
3.1 Air Service at the Airport
The following sections evaluate current air service capacity and operating performance for the primary passenger
airlines serving the Airport. The Airport’s overall O&D market is also assessed at the market level, comparing
performance with prior years. Additionally, the Airport’s role as a connecting hub for Delta when compared to
other U.S. hubs is examined. To the extent airline market data and related information is available, impacts
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic are also identified. Due to Delta’s significant presence at the Airport, it
was evaluated in greater detail.
3.1.1 Airlines Operating at the Airport
The Airport has historically been served by the largest U.S. airlines in the industry. The current U.S. passenger
airline industry generally consists of three primary business models: network carriers, low-cost carriers (LCCs),
and ultra-low-cost carriers (ULCCs). Network carriers are generally considered the major airline brands that have
existed, in one form or another, since the deregulation of the airline industry in the late 1970s. Network airlines
have extensive route networks and can operate with a “hub and spoke” system or maintain significant market
share at focus cities. These airlines served all categories of travelers but have historically catered more toward
the business traveler segment. LCCs are generally defined as passenger airlines that focus on lower operating
costs to be able to provide customers with lower fares while still providing some amenities within the cost of the
ticket. LCCs typically focus upon carrying point-to-point traffic while offering some connections. However, as
compared to network airlines, LCCs typically do not have as extensive route networks. LCCs have historically
catered to a mix of business and leisure traffic depending on the destination. ULCCs are somewhat similar to
LCCs but typically offer lower air fares as they do not provide any amenities within the cost of the ticket. ULCCs
typically ‘unbundle’ extra services and charge for everything outside of the ticket cost such as checked baggage,
carry-on baggage, and seat selection among other things. Most of the traffic handled by ULCCs has historically
been leisure travelers. It should also be noted that network carriers and certain LCCs also charge separately for
some of these items; however, these carriers also operate customer loyalty programs that offer frequent travelers
various benefits.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 49
As of March 2021, the Airport had scheduled passenger service by four U.S. network airlines,44 two LCCs,45 one
ULCC,46 and no foreign flag airlines. All domestic carriers have maintained service, albeit at lower levels, since
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aeroméxico 47 and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, which have historically
operated at the Airport, have not resumed service at the Airport as of March 2021. Currently, there is no
information on when these airlines will resume service at the Airport. Table 3-1 provides a list of the scheduled
passenger and all-cargo airlines that served the Airport as of March 2021.
Table 3-1 Airlines Serving the Airport (As of March 2021)
Passenger Airlines
All-Cargo Airlines (9)
Mainline Carriers (7) Regional/Commuter
Airlines (4)
Foreign Flag
Airlines1(0)
Alaska Airlines Horizon Air5 Alpine Aviation
American Airlines Mesa Airlines2,4 Ameriflight
Delta Air Lines Republic Airlines4 Corporate Air
Frontier Airlines SkyWest Airlines2,3,4,5 Empire Airlines
JetBlue Airlines FedEx
Southwest Airlines Gem Air
United Airlines Southern Air6
United Parcel Service
Western Air Express
Notes: 1 Aeroméxico and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines have suspended service at the Airport.
2 Doing business as American Eagle
3 Doing business as Delta Connection
4 Doing business as United Express
5 Doing business as Alaska Airlines
6 Operates DHL Express service
Source: Diio Mi, Schedule – Dynamic Table, accessed April 2021 (passenger airlines). Department (all-cargo airlines)
44 For the purposes of this Report, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines are considered network
airlines.
45 For the purposes of this Report, Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways are considered low-cost carriers.
46 For the purposes of this Report, Frontier Airlines is considered an ultra-low-cost-carrier.
47 In July 2020, Aeroméxico filed for voluntary Chapter 11 protection. The airline continues to operate but a significantly reduced
capacity.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
50 | Landrum & Brown
In FY 2017, Delta accounted for 69.9% of the total enplaned passengers at the Airport. From FY 2018 through FY
2019, Delta continued to increase its passenger market share at the Airport while the passenger market share of
the majority of the other domestic airlines remained relatively constant through this period. Although Delta’s
enplaned passengers declined in FY 2020 primarily because of the impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic
during the last several months of FY 2020, its passenger market share at the Airport did increase. Delta
accounted for 73.0% of the total enplaned passengers in FY 2020. Through February 2021, Delta’s enplaned
passenger market share at the Airport has decreased slightly to 72.6%. For FY 2021 through February 2021,
Frontier has been able to maintain 67.4% of its enplaned passengers at the Airport as compared to the same
period in FY 2020 and American has been able to maintain 59.9% of its enplaned passengers at the Airport for
this same period. These are the only two airlines that were able to maintain at least 50% of their enplaned
passengers over this period. Table 3-2 presents enplaned passengers by airline along with the associated market
share at the Airport from FY 2017 through FY 2021 year-to-date (through February 2021).
In order to provide context as to the recovery of the airlines at the Airport since the beginning of the COVID-19
pandemic, Table 3-3 compares key air service metrics at the Airport for May 2020 versus May 2021 by airline.
Because of the restrictions put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic, all foreign flag airlines suspended
service at the Airport by May 2020. As of March 2021, none of the foreign flag airlines have published schedules
that indicate a resumption of service at the Airport by May 2021. Total departures are essentially flat and
departing seats are up in May 2021 by approximately 4.3% as compared to May 2019. While passengers are still
recovering back to levels experienced in 2019, May is the first month where scheduled departing seats are above
2019 levels. This is an encouraging sign for air traffic recovery at the Airport.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 51
Table 3-2 Airport Enplaned Passengers and Airline Market Share (FY 2016 – FY 2021 YTD)
Airline
Enplaned Passengers
(In Thousands) Market Share
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
YTD FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
YTD
Delta Air Lines 8,281 8,729 9,432 7,365 2,966 69.9% 70.3% 72.0% 73.0% 72.6%
Southwest Airlines 1,216 1,310 1,300 982 395 10.3% 10.5% 9.9% 9.7% 9.7%
American Airlines 747 775 740 555 285 6.3% 6.2% 5.7% 5.5% 7.0%
United Airlines 596 608 663 475 189 5.0% 4.9% 5.1% 4.7% 4.6%
Alaska Airlines 421 379 333 253 85 3.6% 3.1% 2.5% 2.5% 2.1%
JetBlue Airways 296 363 358 274 49 2.5% 2.9% 2.7% 2.7% 1.2%
Frontier Airlines 246 243 263 191 114 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 2.8%
Other 47 13 2 1 0 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 11,850 12,420 13,090 10,096 4,083 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: FY 2021 year-to-date (YTD) is the period of July 2020 through February 2021.
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics, accessed at https://slcairport.com/about-the-airport/airport-overview/air-traffic-statistics/
Compiled by Landrum & Brown, Inc.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
52 | Landrum & Brown
Table 3-3 Key Air Service Metrics at the Airport by Airline (May 2019 vs May 2021)
Airline
Departures Scheduled Departing Seats Nonstop Markets Served
May
2019
May
2021
Percent
Change
May
2019
May
2021
Percent
Change
May
2019
May
2021 Change
Delta Air Lines 7,784 7,927 1.8% 910,097 976,146 7.3% 95 90 -5
Southwest
Airlines 899 750 -16.6% 134,317 123,122 -8.3% 12 14 2
United Airlines 605 572 -5.5% 48,234 47,782 -0.9% 6 6 0
American Airlines 520 577 11.0% 69,154 79,681 15.2% 5 6 1
Alaska Airlines 273 341 24.9% 29,585 31,412 6.2% 5 5 0
JetBlue Airways 238 141 -40.8% 35,952 22,644 -37.0% 5 5 0
Frontier Airlines 109 157 44.0% 21,014 29,160 38.8% 4 4 0
Aeroméxico 31 0 -100.0% 3,060 0 -100.0% 1 0 -1
KLM 14 0 -100.0% 4,116 0 -100.0% 1 0 -1
Total (see note) 10,473 10,465 -0.1% 1,255,529 1,309,947 4.3%
Notes: Data includes regional affiliates, as applicable.
As of April 2021, Aeroméxico and KLM are not scheduled to resume service at the Airport.
Nonstop markets served total do not sum as there is overlap in markets by carriers.
Source: Diio Mi, Schedule – Dynamic Table, accessed April 2021.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 53
3.1.2 Delta’s Operations at the Airport
Delta is the dominant airline at the Airport, historically accounting for around 70% of the Airport’s enplaned
passengers. The Airport is important in serving O&D traffic and is also one Delta’s primary connecting hubs along
with Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), and
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW). Table 3-4 provides the scheduled departing seats for Delta’s
top ten airports in the U.S for FY 2021 versus FY 2020. As shown, the Airport had approximately 9.4 million
scheduled departing seats during FY 2020, which ranked it as Delta’s 4th largest airport in the U.S. In FY 2021,
the Airport maintains its number four ranking; however, it has moved closer to the top three airports. Departing
seats at the Airport are scheduled to reach almost 10.1 million in FY 2021, resulting in an increase of 7.2% over
FY 2020. The Airport is the only U.S. airport in Delta’s top 10 for departing seats with positive growth in FY 2021,
and only one of five U.S. airports ranked in Delta’s top 30 with positive growth in FY 2021.
Table 3-4 Delta’s Top Ten Airports Based on Scheduled Departing Seats (FY 2020 vs FY 2021)
Rank Airport Code Departing Seats Year-Over-Year
Percent Change FY 2020 FY 2021
1 Atlanta ATL 39,841,093 33,727,290 -15.3%
2 Minneapolis MSP 13,246,811 10,819,068 -18.3%
3 Detroit DTW 13,560,175 10,705,191 -21.1%
4 Salt Lake City SLC 9,354,801 10,026,526 7.2%
5 Los Angeles LAX 6,710,041 5,794,301 -13.6%
6 New York-JFK JFK 8,261,986 5,464,329 -33.9%
7 Seattle SEA 6,087,947 5,145,818 -15.5%
8 New York-LGA LGA 6,336,910 3,066,756 -51.6%
9 Orlando MCO 2,889,151 2,666,352 -7.7%
10 Boston BOS 4,078,316 2,339,968 -42.6%
Source: Diio Mi Innovate Schedules, Accessed March 2021
The next two sections discuss the Airport’s importance in serving both O&D and connecting traffic within Delta’s
route network.
3.1.2.1 Delta’s O&D Traffic at the Airport
The size of the Airport’s O&D market is a key consideration in being a hub for Delta. As shown in Table 3-5, Delta
achieved approximately $1.4 billion in estimated revenue on a roundtrip basis at the Airport in FY 2020. The
Airport was the 7th largest domestic market in Delta’s network based upon both O&D passengers and revenue in
FY 2020, this was the same ranking for the Airport as in FY 2019.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
54 | Landrum & Brown
Table 3-5 Delta’s Top Ten Domestic O&D Markets Based on Estimated Revenue (FY 2020)
Rank Airport Code O&D Passenger
(in millions)
Average
One-Way Fare
Roundtrip
Revenue
(in billions)
1 Atlanta ATL 8.5 $224 $3.8
2 Minneapolis MSP 4.6 $228 $2.1
3 New York-JFK JFK 4.5 $273 $2.5
4 Detroit DTW 4.4 $245 $2.1
5 New York-LGA LGA 3.8 $182 $1.4
6 Los Angeles LAX 3.7 $243 $1.8
7 Salt Lake City SLC 3.3 $220 $1.4
8 Boston BOS 2.7 $210 $1.1
9 Seattle SEA 2.7 $228 $1.2
10 Orlando MCO 2.2 $192 $0.8
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation via Diio, accessed January 2021; fare is net of taxes and fees.
Figure 3-1 presents the percentage of O&D enplaned passengers at Delta’s key “interior” connecting hub airports
including ATL, MSP, DTW, and the Airport. Interior hubs are considered to be those hub airports that are
geographically located within the interior of the U.S. and not on either the east or the west coast. As shown,
47.1% of Delta’s enplaned passengers at the Airport were O&D passengers in FY 2020, the most of any of
Delta’s primary hubs. This percentage of O&D traffic is in-line with its other major connecting hubs at MSP and
DTW. Delta’s share of O&D traffic at the Airport was also well above that for Delta’s ATL hub. However, given
ATL’s role as Delta’s largest global connecting hub airport, comparisons to ATL are not as relevant as the other
hub comparisons. Per discussions with Delta staff, serving large O&D markets and maintaining a ratio of
approximately 40% to 50% of O&D traffic at its primary connecting hubs, with the exception of ATL, is considered
to be a sustainable balance for its network. Over the past two decades, other Delta connecting hubs that served
much smaller local O&D markets that were unable to sustain a similar share of O&D passenger traffic were either
significantly downsized or discontinued as connecting hubs within Delta’s network such as Cincinnati and
Memphis.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 55
Figure 3-1 Delta’s Percent of O&D Enplaned Passengers at Interior Connecting Hubs (FY 2020)
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (T100) via Diio, accessed March 2020.
3.1.2.2 Delta’s Connecting Traffic at the Airport
The Airport provides Delta a strategic presence in the western U.S. allowing for connectivity to and from the U.S.
mountain-west and Pacific regions. Figure 3-2 presents a summary by U.S. region and internationally where
passengers either began or ended their trips while connecting through major Delta U.S. hub airports in FY 2020.
As shown on Figure 3-2, for Delta’s passengers traveling to and from the west region (as depicted) the Airport
served as the connecting point for 25.8% of passengers in FY 2020. This was only second to Delta’s largest
airport of ATL which served 28.4% of west region connections.
Indicative of its connecting share, the Airport provides Delta a strategic presence in the western half of the U.S.,
and allows Delta to provide more efficient traffic flows than it could otherwise offer from its other hub airports to
and from connecting markets in the western U.S. The Airport serves a unique purpose in Delta’s network, as both
a north-south and east-west connecting point. The absence of the Airport hub would create a noticeable void in
Delta’s network, as it could not otherwise connect passenger traffic efficiently to key markets throughout the
western U.S. Table 3-6 also presents this data in tabular form in terms of total passengers.
47.1%46.7%44.6%27.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
SLC MSP DTW ATL
Enplaned O&D Passengers
Percent Share of Total Enplaned Passengers
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
56 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 3-2 Delta Hub Connecting Passengers by Region (FY 2020)
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation via Diio, accessed March 2020.
25.8%
5.4%
4.3%
3.8%
4.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
West
Midwest
Northeast
South
International
Connecting Passengers
Percent Share of Flow Through
SLC ATL DTW MSP SEA LAX
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 57
Table 3-6 Delta Connecting Passengers by Hub by Region (in thousands; FY 2020)
US Region SLC ATL DTW MSP SEA LAX
West 2,317 2,554 802 1,512 1,086 711
Pacific 1,131 1,518 493 877 857 513
Mountain 1,186 1,036 309 635 229 199
Midwest 358 2,794 1,433 1,795 160 111
West North Central 179 1,032 311 969 63 59
East North Central 179 1,762 1,121 827 96 52
Northeast 154 1,845 1,074 425 66 55
Middle Atlantic 119 1,451 818 327 47 42
New England 35 393 256 97 19 13
South 568 11,690 1,295 911 160 209
West South Central 193 1,930 197 179 18 73
East South Central 81 2,354 289 176 32 33
South Atlantic 294 7,407 809 557 110 102
International 169 2,380 564 470 286 269
Grand Total 3,566 21,263 5,167 5,114 1,758 1,355
Note: Totals may not equal due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation via Diio, accessed March 2020
Delta’s other major airport operations in the western U.S. are on the west coast at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport (SEA) and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Both airports are considered key Delta gateways to
Asia. Other than the major U.S. west coast corridor markets, unlike the Airport, the geographic locations of SEA
and LAX on the U.S. west coast are considered a disadvantage in operating efficient domestic connecting traffic
flows throughout the western region of the U.S. While there is some overlap in Delta’s service provided to larger
west coast markets from the Airport, SEA, and LAX, the airports generally do not compete with one another as
each airport serves distinct markets and regions not served by the others. Additionally, with the Airport’s central
location within the western U.S., it serves as an efficient connecting point for Delta passengers to or from both
SEA and LAX to the eastern U.S. Both LAX and SEA are considered primarily O&D airports for Delta, although
their geographic locations also offer the opportunity to provide connections to trans-Pacific international markets,
Mexican and Canadian markets, and larger markets along the U.S. west coast. LAX and SEA also serve as a
connecting point for traffic to and from the Airport to Alaska and Hawaii; although, Honolulu and Anchorage have
been seasonally served nonstop markets from the Airport as well.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
58 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 3-3 depicts the top 30 markets with passengers connecting through the Airport, SEA, and LAX. As shown,
the top airport destinations for passengers that connect through SLC consist of major markets along the west
coast, smaller airports within the U.S. mountain west, other Delta connecting hubs, and larger O&D markets in the
eastern U.S. In particular, the Airport provides Delta primary access to several smaller mountain west and
western markets such as Boise, Reno, Bozeman, Glacier Park, Idaho Falls, and Billings, among others. These
are markets that, for the most part, Delta could not efficiently serve via any of its other hub airports. In general, the
only other viable option for efficient connectivity in the U.S. mountain west is Denver International Airport (DEN).
However, Denver, appears to be an unlikely alternative for Delta given that three other airlines (United Airlines,
Southwest, and Frontier Airlines) already operate hubs and/or focus city operations there.
To further illustrate this point, Table 3-7 presents the top 20 airports where passengers either began or ended
their trips while connecting through these U.S. west coast hubs on Delta in FY 2020. As shown, Delta’s top 20
connecting markets through the Airport account for less than half (43.7%) of Delta’s total connecting passengers,
with most of the markets being located in the mountain west or western portion of the U.S. By comparison, the top
airport where most passenger either begin or end their trips on Delta while connecting through either SEA or LAX
are Anchorage (ANC) and Honolulu (HNL), respectively. The majority of other passenger connections at SEA or
LAX are generally to airports that are relatively near SEA and LAX. For example, 22.8% of passengers
connecting at SEA on Delta either begin or end their trip in Anchorage, Portland, Vancouver, or Spokane.
Similarly, for LAX, 23.2% of passengers begin or end their trips in Honolulu, Las Vegas, or an airport in the San
Francisco Bay area. Overall, Delta’s top 20 connecting markets through SEA or LAX account for nearly 60% of
Delta’s total connecting passengers indicating that the top connecting markets at SEA and LAX are more
concentrated than the top connecting markets at the Airport, thus indicating that Delta’s connecting traffic at the
Airport is more diverse than its connecting traffic in SEA and LAX.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 59
Figure 3-3 Delta’s Top 30 Connecting Markets at the Airport, LAX, and SEA (FY 2020)
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation via Diio, accessed March 2020
SLC
LAX
SEA
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
60 | Landrum & Brown
Table 3-7 Delta Top 20 Airports with Passengers Connecting at West Coast Hubs (FY 2020)
Salt Lake City
International Airport
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
Los Angeles
International Airport
Airport
Code
Share of
Passengers
Airport
Code
Share of
Passengers
Airport
Code
Share of
Passengers
PDX 3.4% ANC 6.9% HNL 8.3%
SEA 3.4% PDX 5.8% SFO 4.9%
BOI 2.9% GEG 5.3% SLC 3.8%
LAS 2.6% YVR 4.7% OGG 3.7%
RNO 2.3% LAX 3.0% LAS 3.6%
GEG 2.3% HNL 2.7% SAN 3.4%
LAX 2.3% LAS 2.7% SEA 3.2%
PHX 2.2% SLC 2.6% SYD 2.9%
JAC 2.2% BOI 2.6% SMF 2.9%
SMF 2.2% PSC 2.6% MSP 2.7%
SAN 2.1% MSP 2.4% SJC 2.7%
BZN 2.1% SFO 2.2% PDX 2.7%
ATL 2.0% DEN 2.1% ATL 2.7%
DEN 1.9% FAI 2.1% KOA 2.5%
OAK 1.7% SAN 2.1% JFK 2.4%
MSP 1.7% EUG 2.0% LIH 2.0%
SFO 1.6% PHX 2.0% PHX 2.0%
FCA 1.6% DTW 1.9% DTW 1.8%
IDA 1.6% OGG 1.9% DFW 1.7%
SNA 1.6% SMF 1.8% DEN 1.4%
Other 56.3% Other 40.5% Other 38.5%
Total 100.0% Total 100.0% Total 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation via Diio, accessed March 2020
3.1.2.3 COVID-19 Impact on Delta
As discussed earlier, the various actions taken associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted airlines
worldwide. For the twelve months ended February 2021 as compared to the prior same twelve-month period,
Delta’s scheduled seat capacity declined 50.6% year-over-year throughout its system network. But at the Airport,
comparing the same time periods, Delta’s scheduled seat capacity only declined 24.6%, or less than half as much
as it did over Delta’s system. Of the 30 largest airports in the U.S., the Airport’s overall seat capacity declined less
than any other airport. Figure 3-4 presents the change in seating capacity at the Airport versus the weighted
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 61
average for the top 30 airports in Delta’s network. Furthermore, the Airport’s return to pre-pandemic levels has
been much faster as compared to most of the U.S. Delta’s seat capacity at the Airport essentially returned to pre-
pandemic levels in November 2020, as scheduled seat capacity was down less than 1% as compared to
November 2019. Delta’s May seat capacity at the Airport is up 7.3% versus May 2019. For all airlines, the Airport
is up 4.3% in seat capacity when comparing May 2021 to May 2019. The Airport appears to be positioned well for
recovery from the impacts associated with the pandemic as compared to other airports.
Figure 3-4 Delta Air Lines Seating Capacity Change
Source: Innovata (via Diio), Schedule files, accessed March 2021.
3.1.3 Origin and Destination Markets
O&D passengers on all airlines combined accounted for approximately 58.1% of passenger traffic at the Airport in
FY 2020, which has remained relatively consistent over the past several years.48 Table 3-8 provides information
regarding the Airport’s top O&D markets, including the number of daily O&D enplaned passengers for FY 2020.
The table also presents daily departures, daily departing seats, and the airlines offering nonstop service for each
market.
Table 3-9 presents the change in air service at the Airport’s top 25 O&D markets for May 2021 compared to May
2019. While O&D data is not currently available for this period, this analysis helps to illustrate how the Airport’s air
travel demand has changed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, the number of nonstop flights
from the Airport increased from 10,901 in May 2019 to 10,465 in May 2021, a 0.1% decrease. The number of
departing seats increased by 54,418 seats or 4.3%.
48 Data used to estimate an airport’s share of O&D passengers is from the USDOT. These data are a random 10% sample of tickets
either ticketed by a U.S. carrier or where a U.S. carrier operated at least one flight in the ticket's itinerary.
2.
7
%
-53
.
2
%
-66
.
3
%
-55
.
8
%
-33
.
6
%
-20
.
3
%
-14
.
5
%
-10
.
9
%
-0.
7
%
-5.
2
%
-1.
2
%
-2.
4
%
-5.
3
%
0.
9
%
7.
3
%
-2.
4
%
-72
.
1
%
-82
.
0
%
-76
.
8
%
-60
.
0
%
-48
.
6
%
-45
.
3
%
-42
.
6
%
-34
.
2
%
-33
.
4
%
-41
.
1
%
-42
.
9
%
-47
.
8
%
-50
.
7
%
-46
.
9
%
-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Mar
2020
Apr
2020
May
2020
Jun
2020
Jul
2020
Aug
2020
Sep
2020
Oct
2020
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Seating Capacity Change
Percent change from comparable month in 2019SLCTop 30 Weighted Average
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
62 | Landrum & Brown
Table 3-8 Top 25 Origin and Destination Markets at the Airport (FY 2020)
Rank Region
Annual
O&D
Enplaned
Passengers
Annual
Departures
Annual
Departing
Seats
Airports Served
Nonstop
Airlines Operated
Nonstop
1 Los Angeles Basin 636,492 11,046 1,259,265 LAX, LGB, SNA,
BUR, ONT
DL, AA, AS, B6,
UA, WN
2 San Francisco Bay Area 345,993 7,477 876,923 SFO, OAK, SJC DL, AS, UA, WN
3 New York / Newark 268,638 2,780 469,403 JFK, EWR DL, B6, UA
4 Denver 263,006 6,349 783,813 DEN DL, F9, UA, WN
5 Phoenix 257,997 4,505 657,654 PHX DL, AA, F9, WN
6 San Diego 198,282 2,392 349,878 SAN DL, AS, WN
7 Seattle 194,748 3,853 579,143 SEA DL, AS
8 Las Vegas 186,166 3,099 508,230 LAD DL, F9, WN
9 Central Florida 184,716 1,241 227,737 MCO, TPA DL, B6
10 Dallas / Ft. Worth 175,724 3,601 507,417 DFW, DAL DL, AA, WN
11 Washington / Baltimore 172,072 1,306 226,630 BWI, DCA, IAD DL, WN
12 Chicago 141,419 3,588 422,994 ORD, MDW DL, AA, UA, WN
13 Atlanta 132,640 2,858 590,382 ATL DL, F9
14 Hawaii 125,753 323 83,570 HNL, OGG DL
15 Portland 125,409 2,452 348,797 PDX DL, AS
16 Boston 114,197 876 154,178 BOS DL, B6
17 Houston 107,700 2,158 212,265 IAH, HOU DL, UA, WN
18 Austin 84,286 987 139,686 AUS DL, F9
19 Sacramento 76,994 1,862 226,587 SAC DL, WN
20 Minneapolis / St. Paul 75,013 1,765 310,751 MSP DL
21 Detroit 60,442 1,412 261,203 DTW DL
22 Philadelphia 55,313 322 55,707 PHL DL, AA
23 Boise 31,185 1,822 184,338 BOI DL
24 Spokane 29,555 1,246 157,062 GEG DL
25 Anchorage1 25,401 54 9,640 ANC DL
Top 25 Total 4,069,141 11,148 9,603,253
Others 1,792,625 4,911 3,396,014
Total 5,861,766 107,890 12,999,267
Notes: DL = Delta Air Lines; AA = American Airlines; UA = United Airlines; WN = Southwest Airlines; F9 = Frontier
Airlines; AS = Alaska Airlines; B6 = JetBlue
1 Anchorage is seasonal service.
Source: Diio, US DOT Reports DB1A; Diio Mi, Schedule – Dynamic Table, accessed January 2020.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 63
Table 3-9 Air Service Changes at Top 25 O&D Markets (May 2019 vs May 2021)
Rank Region
Monthly Departures Monthly Departing Seats
May
2019
May
2021
Percent
Change
May
2019
May
2021
Percent
Change
1 Los Angeles Basin 1,074 1,028 -4.3% 123,036 123,777 0.6%
2 San Francisco Bay Area 721 617 -14.4% 84,478 62,897 -25.5%
3 New York / Newark 266 208 -21.8% 44,530 38,565 -13.4%
4 Denver 610 615 0.8% 70,816 86,222 21.8%
5 Phoenix 426 453 6.3% 61,377 70,912 15.5%
6 San Diego 210 208 -1.0% 32,581 33,545 3.0%
7 Seattle 364 367 0.8% 55,673 54,593 -1.9%
8 Las Vegas 341 270 -20.8% 50,338 43,419 -13.7%
9 Central Florida 136 184 35.3% 24,879 34,654 39.3%
10 Dallas / Ft. Worth 374 412 10.2% 52,541 70,188 33.6%
11 Washington / Baltimore 140 120 -14.3% 24,598 19,648 -20.1%
12 Chicago 355 337 -5.1% 40,356 37,985 -5.9%
13 Atlanta 245 292 19.2% 50,716 64,599 27.4%
14 Hawaii 31 62 100.0% 6,031 14,976 148.3%
15 Portland 237 210 -11.4% 35,092 30,632 -12.7%
16 Boston 105 90 -14.3% 19,948 16,241 -18.6%
17 Houston 211 279 32.2% 18,002 29,831 65.7%
18 Austin 103 93 -9.7% 13,088 12,276 -6.2%
19 Sacramento 176 148 -15.9% 20,351 23,013 13.1%
20 Minneapolis / St. Paul 177 141 -20.3% 30,315 25,467 -16.0%
21 Detroit 120 141 17.5% 21,753 27,946 28.5%
22 Philadelphia 28 55 96.4% 5,040 8,612 70.9%
23 Boise 171 124 -27.5% 19,230 15,292 -20.5%
24 Spokane 115 124 7.8% 14,177 14,244 0.5%
25 Anchorage1 0 27 n.a. 0 4,860 n.a.
Top 25 Total 6,736 6,605 -1.9% 918,946 964,394 4.9%
Others 3,737 3,860 3.3% 336,583 345,553 2.7%
Total 10,473 10,465 -0.1% 1,255,529 1,309,947 4.3%
Note: 1 Anchorage is a seasonal service.
Source: Diio, US DOT Reports DB1A; Diio Mi, Schedule – Dynamic Table, accessed January 2020.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
64 | Landrum & Brown
3.1.4 Current Nonstop Service
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was scheduled service to 91 domestic destinations and 11 international
destinations from the Airport in February 2020. Since February 2020, service to 25 airports (19 domestic and six
international) was suspended as a primary result of the COVID-19 pandemic but has resumed as of May 2021. As
of May 2021, service to eight nonstop domestic destinations and five international destinations was still
suspended. Six new nonstop markets at the Airport (Miami, Florida; Fairbanks, Alaska; Anchorage, Alaska;
Durango, Colorado; Moab, Utah; and Memphis, Tennessee) have been added since February 2020. Figure 3-5
provides a map of the scheduled nonstop domestic destinations for the Airport since February 2020 as of May
2021. Figure 3-6 provides a map of the scheduled nonstop international destinations since February 2020 as of
May 2021. In these maps, the blue lines indicate service without interruption, black lines indicate service that has
been resumed after a temporary suspension, red lines indicate the service has been suspended and yet to
resume, and the green lines indicate new service.
3.2 Air Traffic Activity and Trends
This section analyzes historical trends in air traffic activity at the Airport including enplaned passengers, aircraft
operations, and landed weight. It also discusses the primary factors affecting these trends. This section identifies,
to the extent data is available, air traffic trends at the Airport that have been impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Certain historical information about the Airport’s air traffic activity predates the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic and should be considered in light of possible or probable negative effects the
COVID-19 pandemic has had and may have on current and future Airport air traffic activity.
3.2.1 Enplaned Passengers
Passenger activity at an airport drives numerous revenues and financial measures including such items as non-
airline revenues (e.g., parking, rental cars, terminal concessions, etc.) Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
revenues, and FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) entitlement grant distributions. Enplaned passengers are
also the denominator for airline cost per enplaned passenger (CPE). The relationship of the enplaned passengers
to the financial analysis is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of this Report.
.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 65
Figure 3-5 Domestic Nonstop Destinations at the Airport since February 2020 (As of May 2021)
Source: Diio Mi, Schedule – Dynamic Table, accessed April 2021.
Continuous Service Currently Suspended Service Resumed Service New Service
SBA
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
66 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 3-6 International Nonstop Destinations at the Airport since February 2020 (As of May 2021)
Note: Delta’s flight to Amsterdam (AMS) is currently scheduled to resume less than daily service beginning May 27, 2021.
Source: Diio Mi, Schedule – Dynamic Table, accessed May 2021.
Continuous Service Currently Suspended Service Resumed Service New Service
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 67
3.2.1.1 FY 2012 – FY 2020
From FY 2012 through FY 2019, enplaned passenger traffic at the Airport experienced a generally consistent
upward trend as demonstrated in Table 3-10, which presents the total enplaned passengers by domestic and
international segments. Enplaned passengers at the Airport increased from approximately 10.1 million in FY 2012
to approximately 13.1 million in FY 2019, representing a CAGR of 3.7%. Since the Airport predominantly serves
domestic traffic, the majority of the increase in passenger levels was domestic. However, international enplaned
passengers have increased at a significantly faster rate from FY 2012 to FY 2019 as compared to domestic
enplaned passengers (a CAGR of 14.4% versus 3.4%, respectively).
From FY 2012 through FY 2019, Delta enplaned passengers increased from 7.4 million to 9.4 million, resulting in
a CAGR of 3.4%, slightly higher than the airline’s increase in seating capacity during that time which increased at
a CAGR of 3.1%. Existing markets accounted for the majority of this increase in seating capacity with LAX, PDX,
DEN, and SEA having the most seats added. However, there were some notable new markets added since FY
2012 including Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU), Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport
(FLL), and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS). The remainder of the growth in enplaned passengers was
primarily from American, United Airlines (United), and JetBlue Airways (JetBlue) as well as the start of service by
Alaska Airlines (Alaska) during this period.
3.2.1.2 COVID-19 Pandemic Impact: FY 2020 – FY 2021
In March 2020, the enplaned passengers at the Airport decreased dramatically primarily as a result of the impacts
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. These impacts included international travel restrictions and stay-at-
home orders throughout the U.S. Overall, enplaned passengers decreased by 61.7% in CY 2020 as compared to
CY 2019 levels with most, if not all, of the impact occurring after mid-March 2020 when the impacts from the
COVID-19 pandemic generally took hold in the U.S. Table 3-11 presents the monthly enplaned passengers for
FY 2020 and FY 2021 compared to FY 2019. As shown, in March 2020, enplaned passengers decreased by
approximately 49.2% from March 2019. The decline continued into April when enplaned passengers were 91.9%
lower than April 2019. Since April 2020, enplaned passengers at the Airport have started to recover on a monthly
basis. The recovery in enplaned passengers at the Airport plateaued somewhat in November 2020 through
January 2021 with monthly totals being down around 50% as compared to the same months in the prior year. In
February 2021, enplaned passengers recovered to be about 48.9% down from February 2020. In March 2021,
enplaned passengers were up 22.9% when compared to March 2020, but are still down 37.6% as compared to
March 2019.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
68 | Landrum & Brown
Table 3-10 Historical Enplaned Passengers (In Thousands; FY 2012 – FY 2020)
Fiscal
Year Domestic International Total Year-Over-Year
Growth Rate
2012 9,917 208 10,125 -2.9%
2013 9,874 170 10,044 -0.8%
2014 10,115 180 10,295 2.5%
2015 10,610 224 10,834 5.2%
2016 10,988 305 11,293 4.2%
2017 11,417 433 11,850 4.9%
2018 11,946 474 12,420 4.8%
2019 12,556 534 13,090 5.4%
2020 9,713 382 10,096 -22.9%
Compound Annual Growth Rate
2012-19 3.4% 14.4% 3.7%
2019-20 -22.6% -28.5% -22.9%
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Enplaned Passengers
In millions
Domestic International Airport reaches
13.1 million
passengers
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 69
Table 3-11 Enplaned Passengers at the Airport (FY 2019 – FY 2021 YTD)
Month Enplaned Passengers Percent Change from Prior Year
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2021
July 1,196,325 1,239,067 438,268 3.6% -64.6%
August 1,201,689 1,220,698 507,906 1.6% -58.4%
September 1,050,274 1,098,626 491,647 4.6% -55.2%
October 1,077,840 1,177,796 548,370 9.3% -53.4%
November 1,000,320 996,598 494,175 -0.4% -50.4%
December 1,000,259 1,098,032 540,171 9.8% -50.8%
January 1,005,577 1,078,161 531,994 7.2% -50.7%
February 954,196 1,037,793 530,106 8.8% -48.9%
March 1,206,454 612,882 752,949 -49.2% 22.9%
April 1,075,360 87,557 -91.9%
May 1,131,368 161,192 -85.8%
June 1,190,471 287,330 -75.9%
Total 13,090,133 10,095,732 4,835,586 -22.9%
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Enplaned Passengers
In millions
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Travel ban
and stay at
home orders
began in
March.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
70 | Landrum & Brown
3.2.2 Aircraft Operations
Although aircraft operations have a minimal impact on airport revenues and financial performance, aircraft
operations impact decisions regarding airport capital programs. Airlines’ decisions on aircraft type and the number
of operations to accommodate passenger demand ultimately determine overall aircraft landed weight. Airlines are
constantly evaluating how to best serve passenger demand with their available aircraft fleet. In markets that
exhibit strong business travel, an airline may decide to operate smaller aircraft on the route several times per day
to offer customers more choice and redundancy. In other cases, an airline may choose to offer larger aircraft and
less frequency. Airlines also make decisions to change aircraft capacity on particular routes in reaction to load
factors and profitability. Aircraft fleet mix and operations are important considerations for airport operators when
planning for the appropriately size airport facilities and to ensure the airport has sufficient capacity to
accommodate operations in the future.
3.2.2.1 FY 2012 – FY 2020
Aircraft operations at the Airport declined from FY 2012 through FY 2016 as network carriers shifted from smaller
regional jets to narrow-body aircraft. However, from FY 2016 to FY 2019, aircraft operations at the Airport have
increased consistently. Table 3-12 presents the aircraft operations at the Airport from FY 2012 through FY 2020.
As shown, total aircraft operations in FY 2019 were slightly lower than such levels in FY 2012; however, air carrier
aircraft operations in FY 2019 were about 1.9% higher than such levels in FY 2021. The main category that
decreased over this period was general aviation aircraft operations.
3.2.2.2 COVID-19 Pandemic Impact: FY 2020 – FY 2021
In response to the significant decline in enplaned passenger in the U.S. and at the Airport during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic, the airlines reduced the number of daily flights and air service in kind. There were 1,689
flight cancellations at the Airport in March 2020 and 1,197 cancellations in April 2020 before tailing off in May and
June.49 Figure 3-7 illustrates the high concentration of flight cancellations early in the pandemic, followed by a
reduction in flights, and a gradual increase in flights in the summer before remaining flat though January.
49 Federal Aviation Administration, Airline Service Quality Performance System: Airport View: Causal Report, accessed online at
https://aspm.faa.gov/asqp/sys/Airport.asp
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 71
Table 3-12 Historical Aircraft Operations (FY 2012 – FY 2020)
Fiscal
Year Air Carrier Air Taxi General
Aviation Military Total
Year-Over-
Year
Growth
2012 249,038 16,520 73,389 4,170 343,117 -5.0%
2013 236,790 17,942 74,215 2,044 330,991 -3.5%
2014 237,700 18,098 66,620 2,190 324,608 -1.9%
2015 237,960 18,484 60,806 2,738 319,988 -1.4%
2016 237,294 19,434 50,879 7,978 315,585 -1.4%
2017 247,158 20,240 48,843 7,202 323,443 2.5%
2018 250,904 20,382 53,695 7,037 332,018 2.7%
2019 253,666 20,618 61,117 5,751 341,152 2.8%
2020 216,320 20,604 63,326 2,792 303,042 -11.2%
Compound Annual Growth Rate
2012-19 0.3% 3.2% -2.6% 4.7% -0.1%
2019-20 -14.7% -0.1% 3.6% -51.5% -11.2%
Note: Commercial operations refers to commercial passenger and all-cargo aircraft operations.
Non-commercial operations refer to general aviation and military aircraft operations.
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Aircraft Operations
In thousands
Passenger Cargo Other
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
72 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 3-7 Flight Departures and Cancellations at the Airport (March 2020 – January 2021)
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Airline Service Quality Performance System: Airport View: Causal Report,
accessed online at https://aspm.faa.gov/asqp/sys/Airport.asp
Overall, air carrier aircraft operations decreased by 11.2% in FY 2020 as compared to FY 2019 levels with the
primary impacts occurring after mid-March 2020. Table 3-13 depicts the monthly aircraft operations for FY 2020
and FY 2021 compared to the prior year. As shown, starting in March 2020, aircraft operations decreased by
approximately 14.4% from March 2019, compared to 49.2% for enplaned passengers. Normally, aircraft
operations would be more directly related to enplaned passengers. However, there was an initial reluctance to
remove flights because of the implementation of social distancing practices (i.e. restricting the use of middle
seats) and to a smaller degree the continued operations of all-cargo airlines that were impacted to a lesser
degree by the pandemic. The decline continued into April 2020 and May 2020 when aircraft operations were
49.7% and 52.2% lower than the same months in the prior year, respectively. Since May 2020, aircraft operations
at the Airport have started to recover with aircraft operations being down 9.8% in November 2020. The recovery
in aircraft operations stalled somewhat beginning in December 2020 and continued through February 2021 but
strong growth in March 2021 when operations increased 10.8% when compared to March 2020.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
3/
1
3/
8
3/
1
5
3/
2
2
3/
2
9
4/
5
4/
1
2
4/
1
9
4/
2
6
5/
3
5/
1
0
5/
1
7
5/
2
4
5/
3
1
6/
7
6/
1
4
6/
2
1
6/
2
8
7/
5
7/
1
2
7/
1
9
7/
2
6
8/
2
8/
9
8/
1
6
8/
2
3
8/
3
0
9/
6
9/
1
3
9/
2
0
9/
2
7
10
/
4
10
/
1
1
10
/
1
8
10
/
2
5
11
/
1
11
/
8
11
/
1
5
11
/
2
2
11
/
2
9
12
/
6
12
/
1
3
12
/
2
0
12
/
2
7
1/
3
1/
1
0
1/
1
7
1/
2
4
1/
3
1
Aircraft Departures
In thousands
Actual Departures Cancellations
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 73
Table 3-13 Aircraft Operations at the Airport (FY 2019 – FY 2021 YTD)
Month Aircraft Operations Percent Change from Prior Year
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2021
July 29,878 30,961 23,469 3.6% -24.2%
August 30,921 30,997 25,185 0.2% -18.8%
September 27,595 27,916 23,998 1.2% -14.0%
October 27,960 28,864 24,768 3.2% -14.2%
November 26,340 26,422 23,835 0.3% -9.8%
December 27,762 28,859 26,452 4.0% -8.3%
January 28,546 29,512 25,873 3.4% -12.3%
February 25,698 28,175 23,690 9.6% -15.9%
March 30,431 26,063 28,865 -14.4% 10.8%
April 27,882 14,022
-49.7%
May 28,317 13,542
-52.2%
June 29,822 17,709
-40.6%
Total 341,152 303,042 226,135 -11.2%
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Aircraft Operations
In thousands
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Travel ban
and stay at
home orders
began in
March.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
74 | Landrum & Brown
3.2.3 Aircraft Landing Weight
Aircraft landed weight, expressed in 1,000-pound units, is the sum of the maximum gross certificated landing
weight as certified by the FAA for passenger and all-cargo aircraft landing at the Airport. Per the Airport Use and
Lease Agreement with the Signatory Airlines that operate at the Airport, aircraft landed weight is used as the
denominator in the calculation of activity fees (landing fees) that are used to recover the net cost of the Airport.
Therefore, landed weight is an important measure for the Authority as it provides a method to recover costs from
each airline based on its share of landed weight.
3.2.3.1 FY 2012 – FY 2020
Aircraft landed weight at the Airport increased from 12.6 billion pounds in FY 2012 to 15.5 billion pounds in FY
2019, resulting in a CAGR of 3.0%. Both passenger airlines and all-cargo airlines contributed to landed weight
growth, increasing at a CAGR of 2.8% and 4.7%, respectively. A significant portion of the all-cargo airlines landed
weight growth can be attributed to increased e-commerce traffic at the Airport during this period. Table 3-14
provides the landed weight at the Airport by category for the period of FY 2012 through FY 2020.
3.2.3.2 COVID-19 Pandemic Impact: FY 2020 – FY 2021
Overall, aircraft landed weight decreased by 12.3% in FY 2020 as compared to FY 2019 levels with the primary
impacts occurring after mid-March 2020. Passenger airlines accounted for the decrease in landed weight over this
period as they were down by 13.7%. However, all-cargo airlines landed weight increased in FY 2020 as
compared to FY 2019 by 3.7%, which mitigated the overall decrease in landed weight at the Airport. This trend
was generally experienced throughout the U.S. as all-cargo carriers have experienced some growth since the
COVID-19 pandemic as the demand for cargo services has remained strong.
Table 3-15 depicts the monthly aircraft landed weight for FY 2020 and FY 2021 as compared to FY 2019. As
shown, starting in March 2020, aircraft landed weight decreased by approximately 11.7% from March 2019,
compared to 49.2% for enplaned passengers and 14.8% for aircraft operations. The decline continued into May
when aircraft landed weight was 63.2% lower than May 2019. Since May 2020, aircraft landed weight at the
Airport has started to recover with aircraft landed weight being down 9.7% in November 2020. The recovery in
aircraft landed weight stalled somewhat in December 2020 through February 2021 as those months were down
11.4%, 16.1%, and 20.5%, respectively, as compared to the same months in prior years. In March 2021, landed
weight increased 5.4% compared to March 2020 but were still down 7.0% from March 2019.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 75
Table 3-14 Historical Landed Weight (in thousand-pound units; FY 2012 – FY 2020)
Fiscal
Year Passenger Cargo Total Year-Over-Year
Growth
2012 11,731,536 873,214 12,604,750 -4.7%
2013 11,463,695 942,557 12,406,252 -1.6%
2014 11,740,729 938,309 12,679,038 2.2%
2015 12,202,986 997,992 13,200,978 4.1%
2016 12,511,833 1,069,830 13,581,663 2.9%
2017 13,303,497 1,106,147 14,409,644 6.1%
2018 13,737,381 1,171,564 14,908,945 3.5%
2019 14,263,691 1,201,369 15,465,060 3.7%
2020 12,315,209 1,246,304 13,561,514 -12.3%
Compound Annual Growth Rate
2012-19 2.8% 4.7% 3.0%
2019-20 -13.7% 3.7% -12.3%
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Landed Weight
In billions of pounds
Passenger Cargo
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
76 | Landrum & Brown
Table 3-15 Change in Monthly Aircraft Landed Weight at the Airport
(in thousand-pound units; 2019 vs 2020)
Month Aircraft Landed Weight Percent Change from Prior Year
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2021
July 1,364,737 1,399,023 965,376 2.5% -31.0%
August 1,400,144 1,399,919 1,072,236 0.0% -23.4%
September 1,231,361 1,261,826 1,005,503 2.5% -20.3%
October 1,280,069 1,378,709 1,093,378 7.7% -20.7%
November 1,212,561 1,218,459 1,100,005 0.5% -9.7%
December 1,281,642 1,376,801 1,220,036 7.4% -11.4%
January 1,266,469 1,364,027 1,144,361 7.7% -16.1%
February 1,155,433 1,273,154 1,011,562 10.2% -20.5%
March 1,372,801 1,212,091 1,277,168 -11.7% 5.4%
April 1,265,828 557,884 -55.9%
May 1,298,766 478,447 -63.2%
June 1,335,252 641,173 -52.0%
Total 15,465,060 13,561,514 9,889,626 -12.3%
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Aircraft Landed Weight
In thousands
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Travel ban
and stay at
home orders
began in
March.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 77
3.3 Key Factors Affecting Air Traffic Demand
The following section addresses certain key factors that could impact air traffic activity, both nationwide and at the
Airport.
3.3.1 The COVID-19 Pandemic
While passenger traffic, and to a lesser extent aircraft operations and landed weight, was dramatically affected by
the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic initially, it started to recover through the summer of 2020.
However, during the fall of 2020, the recovery seemed to stall before more recovery in the winter of 2020 and into
the Spring of 2021.
Figure 3-8 depicts the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic to passenger checkpoint throughput at
both the Airport and for the overall U.S per data from the TSA. This figure presents the recovery trend for
passenger checkpoint throughput indexed to 2019 levels (i.e., 2019 levels equal 100). As shown during the early
days of the pandemic, the impact to the Airport’s checkpoint passengers tracked closely with the general
nationwide trend, however, was slightly better, decreasing to an unprecedented trough of around -91% of the prior
year’s levels during April 2020. Starting in May 2020, TSA checkpoint passenger throughput for the Airport and
the U.S. started to recover. The recovery at the Airport has been more pronounced than the nation, especially, as
we have moved on from the early days of the pandemic. For the weekly average in early March 2021, the Airport
was around 58% of the 2019 throughput compared to about 46% for the U.S.
Two factors are assumed to be necessary for air traffic to recover back to levels experienced prior to the COVID-
19 pandemic. First, confidence needs to be restored such that passengers feel that traveling on aircraft and using
airport facilities, both at the Airport and at their final destinations, is safe from a health standpoint. Second, the
U.S. public health response must constrain the spread of the virus sufficiently to demonstrate that our travel
origins and destinations are deemed safe.
Airlines and airports appear to have generally shown that air transportation is safe during this pandemic. Despite
the CDC concluding “that the risk for on-board transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during long flights is real and has the
potential to cause COVID-19 clusters of substantial size”,50 another study suggests that on-board transmission is
a rare event.51 Airlines and airports, including the Airport, have taken further steps to reduce risks through
enhanced cleaning, contactless boarding, use of physical barriers, physical distancing, temperature screening of
employees, and requiring use of face coverings. According to a report from the Harvard’s Aviation Public Health
Initiative, airports have made “consistent and impressive commitments to reduce the risks of disease transmission
in their facilities” between passengers, employees, concessionaires, contractors and visitors through layered,
interlinked, risk-mitigation strategies that, when used together, effectively can control the risk of exposure. The
report concluded that, overall, the probability of being infected in an airport is very low.52
50 Transmission of SARS-CoV 2 During Long-Haul Flight, Nguygen Cong Khanh et al, EID Journal Volume 26, Number 11, accessed
via CDC website https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-3299_article accessed February 10, 2021
51 Risk of COVID-19 During Air Travel, Rui Pombal, MD et al, Journal of the American Medical Association, October 1, 2020, accessed
via https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771435, accessed on February 10, 2021
52 AAAE, Top Stories for Thursday, February 11, 2021: Harvard: Risk of Virus Infection ‘Low’ In Airports.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
78 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 3-8 Comparison of Airport and U.S. TSA Checkpoint Passengers
(March - March 2021)
Sources: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, accessed March 2021.
Transportation Security Administration, accessed March 2021.
It is generally considered that in order to return to life prior to the pandemic, we must achieve some level of
population immunity on a national and global scale. Population immunity, also known as herd immunity, is the
indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through
vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. To reach herd immunity it is estimated that a
significant percent of the population must be immune to a virus to interrupt the chain of transmission. At this time,
the exact share of the population needed to achieve herd immunity from COVID-19 is uncertain. The U.S.
government has been focused on the development of an effective vaccine since the start of the pandemic. To-
date, three vaccines have been approved for full use, Pfizer’s Comirnaty, Moderna’s mRNA-1273, and Johnson &
Johnson’s Ad26.COV2.S. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require two doses to be effective, while the Johnson
& Johnson vaccine requires a single dose. On April 13, 2021, use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was halted
as federal health agencies called for a pause in the vaccine’s use to examine cases of a rare blood-clotting
disorder. The pause was lifted in April 2021. The first COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. administered to the public
occurred on December 14, 2020. As of April 1, 2021, more than 200.5 million doses have been distributed with
nearly 99.6 million people receiving the first dose and nearly 56.1 million people fully vaccinated.53 It is estimated
that herd immunity in the U.S. could be reached in mid-fall 54 but that could change depending on a number of
53 CDC COVID Data Tracker accessed at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations
54 NPR, Fauci Predicts U.S. Could See Signs Of Herd Immunity By Late March Or Early April, December 15, 2020 access via
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/12/15/946714505/fauci-predicts-u-s-could-see-signs-of-herd-immunity-
by-late-march-or-early-april
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21
Enplaned Passengers
Seven-day moving average; Index (2019 = 100)
Salt Lake City International Airport United States
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 79
factors. However, global herd immunity may not occur until 2022 or later which will effect international traffic
recovery.55
3.3.2 Economic Conditions and Events
Historically, the U.S. economy, as measured by GDP, grew at a relatively steady rate, averaging 3.1% per annum
between CY 1960 and CY 2019. The rate of growth had been remarkably stable reflecting both the size and
maturity of the U.S. economy. Individual years have fluctuated around the long-term trend for a variety of reasons
including macroeconomic factors, fuel shocks, war, and terrorist attacks.
Prior to 2020, there were two official economic recessions in the U.S. in the 21st century. The first occurred
between March 2001 and November of 2001 and was compounded by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The negative impact of these events on the airline industry is well documented. The recession itself was short-
lived by historical standards and the economy returned to positive growth rates quickly, fueled by a gradual but
prolonged reduction in interest rates. The Great Recession occurred between December 2007 and June 2009.56
As a result of the Great Recession, the nation’s unemployment rate rose from 5.0% in December 2007 to a
previous high of 10.0% in October 2009.57
The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 and the declaration of a pandemic by the WHO on March 11, 2020
coupled with the subsequent travel restrictions have led to disruptions of economies around the world, resulting in
dramatic increases in unemployment and significant decreases in air traffic. Business failures, worker layoffs, and
consumer business bankruptcies are occurring and are expected to continue into the near future as the COVID-
19 global pandemic continues. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), real GDP decreased at an
annual rate of 31.4% in the second quarter of 2020 after decreasing by 5.0% in the first quarter of 2020. In
comparison, the worst decline in GDP during the Great Recession was 8.4% in the fourth quarter of 2008. There
was significant recovery in GDP in the third quarter, increasing 33.4%. Although the growth was significant, real
GDP still remains below first quarter 2020. The updated estimate for fourth quarter of 2020 shows a 4.0%
increase. Figure 3-9 depicts the magnitude of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the U.S. economy,
thus far, when compared to the Great Recession.
55 The Hill, WHO official warns global herd immunity from COVID-19 won't happen until 2022, accessed via
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/533792-who-official-warns-global-herd-immunity-from-covid-wont-happen-until-2022
56 National Bureau of Economic Research, U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions, September 20, 2010.
57 National Bureau of Economic Research, U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions, September 20, 2010.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
80 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 3-9 U.S. Economic Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Note: Rates are seasonally adjusted at annual rates.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts.
Figure 3-10 shows the strong correlation between enplaned passenger traffic in the U.S. and the nation’s
economy in addition to significant shocks/events. During periods of economic contractions and exogenous events,
there is a notable decline in passenger volumes and during the subsequent economic expansions and recovery
periods, there is significant growth in passenger volumes. Additionally, exogenous shocks such as terrorist
attacks have generally had a short but significant impact on passenger volumes. As presented on this figure, the
COVID-19 pandemic has been the most disruptive event to negatively impact aviation in history. There is still
much uncertainty on when air traffic will recover to “pre-COVID-19” levels. However, it is assumed that the
ultimate ability to control the spread of COVID-19 throughout the world and/or the mass distribution of an effective
vaccine or treatment will play a significant role in restoring passenger confidence in air travel and airlines being
able to return to pre-COVID-19 load factors. Future waves and/or threats of future waves of COVID-19 or another
pandemic including associated travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders, could have a further negative impact
on air travel in the future.
-8.4%-5.0%
-31.4%
33.4%
4.0%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Real Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding quarter
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 81
Figure 3-10 U.S. Aviation System Shocks and Recoveries
Note: Excludes non-revenue enplaned passengers.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Air Carrier Traffic Statistics; National Bureau of Economic
Research, U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions.
3.3.3 The U.S. Airline Industry
3.3.3.1 Airline Profitability
Since 2008, the U.S. airline industry has decreased capacity, particularly in short-haul markets with smaller, short
range aircraft types. The result has been significant improvement in yields, revenue per available seat mile
(RASM), and subsequently profitability prior to outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. In recent years, the U.S.
airline industry had been at its most stable, profitable point in history. According to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), the 23 U.S. scheduled passenger airlines reported a pre-tax net operating profit of $15.8 billion in
CY 2019, which was a 19.7% increase from 2018 and marked the eleventh consecutive year of pre-tax operating
profits. The scheduled passenger airlines reported an operating profit margin of 7.5% in 2019, which was up from
6.3% in 2018.58 Profitability during this period can also be attributed to airlines unbundling services and increasing
the use of ancillary fees such as charges for checked baggage.
58 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2019 Annual and 4th Quarter U.S. Airline Financial Data.
COVID-19
Impact
PATCO Strike
Pan Am Flight 103
Gulf War
WTC Bombing
9/11 Attack
Iraq War
COVID-19 Pandemic
SARS Outbreak
Avian Flu
19
7
3
-75
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
8
0
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
8
1
-82
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
19
9
0
-91
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
20
0
1
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
Gr
e
a
t
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
CO
V
I
D
-19
R
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
United States Enplaned Passengers
12-month rolling; In millions
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
82 | Landrum & Brown
As a result of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. airlines incurred record losses in 2020 and likely into
2021. Delta reported $12.4 billion in losses for all of 2020 59. The U.S. DOT has reported that U.S. scheduled
passenger airlines reported a second straight quarter after-tax net loss. Through the third quarter of 2020, airlines
experienced an after-tax net loss of $28.0 billion.60 The International Air Transport Association (IATA) projects
that, globally the airlines are expected to lose $118.5 billion in 2020. In 2021, IATA projects losses to be cut to
$38.7 billion as revenues rise to $459 billion.61 To help support U.S. air carriers through this crisis, on March 25,
2020 the U.S. Senate passed by unanimous vote the CARES Act. Under Title IV of the CARES Act, Congress
approved $500 billion in federal assistance to severely distressed sectors of the economy as part of the larger $2
trillion stimulus package. The approved programs include $61 billion to the airline sector as follows:
$29 billion in loans and loan guarantees for air carriers,
FAA Part 145 aircraft repair stations and ticket agents;
$32 billion in payroll protection grants for air carriers and their contractors; and
Relief to air carriers from federal excise taxes that apply to transporting passengers and cargo and the
purchase of aviation jet fuel.
As of January 31, 2021, 352 passenger carriers, 39 cargo carriers, and 220 contractors have applied for payroll
support under CARES Act funds.62 As a condition of accepting these funds, U.S. airlines were required to (1)
refrain from imposing involuntary furloughs on U.S.-based employees or reducing employee pay or benefits
through September 30, 2020; (2) maintain certain limitations on executive compensation through March 24, 2022;
(3) suspend the payment of dividends or other distributions and cease stock buybacks through September 30,
2021; and (4) continue service as is reasonable and practicable under DOT regulations. [info on American
Rescue Plan]
As discussed above, it is expected that the airlines will continue to experience financial distress for the
foreseeable future until air traffic is able to recover to reasonable levels. It is generally assumed that the airlines
will continue to right-size capacity to meet suppressed demand and evolve business models in the near-term to
limit the spread of COVID-19.
3.3.3.2 Airline Bankruptcies and Mergers
Over the past two decades, the U.S. airline industry has undergone a significant transformation. Although it has
been profitable in recent years prior to the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. airline
industry cumulatively experienced losses of approximately $62 billion from 2000 through 2009 on domestic
operations. Many airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and some ceased operations altogether.
During this period, airlines suffered from excess capacity, which drove down yields. Yields adjusted for inflation
had dropped by approximately 70%. With oil prices spiking to near $150 per barrel in 2008, industry changes
were critical. As a result, all of the major network airlines restructured their route networks and reached
agreements with lenders, employees, vendors, and creditors to decrease their cost structure.
59 AP, A $12 billion loss for 2020, Delta is cautious in early 2021, https://apnews.com/article/travel-air-travel-coronavirus-pandemic-
e6304e8edfcf83a42a29ce9b5faee542
60 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Airlines Report Third Quarter 2020 Losses.
61 International Air Transport Association, Deep Losses Continue Into 2021, https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-11-24-01/
62 Department of the Treasury, Payroll Support Program Payments, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/preserving-jobs-for-
american-industry/payroll-support-program-payments
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 83
Currently, airlines are experiencing significant financial difficulty given the significant passenger decreases
caused by the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As of April 1, 2021, five U.S. airlines including
three regional carriers and one charter airline have ceased operations primarily as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic.63 As of April 1, 2021, no U.S. scheduled mainline passenger airline has filed for Chapter 11 or ceased
operations. However, given the ongoing financial struggles and the uncertain recovery of air traffic, it is possible
that airlines may file for bankruptcy protection or potentially cease operations in the future primarily as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Industry consolidation has taken place as a result of competitive pressures and economic conditions. Many
airlines have merged or been acquired since the turn of the 21st century. Figure 3-11 provides a graphical
representation of the major U.S. airline mergers during this period. These mergers have resulted in significant
economic control of passenger ridership. For FY 2020, the four largest U.S. airlines (American, Delta, Southwest,
and United) account for 79.6% of the domestic seating capacity. The potential impacts associated with
consolidation include limited industry seats, limited capacity growth, and increases in fares.
As of April 1, 2021, there has been no announcement of a U.S. scheduled mainline passenger airline seeking to
acquire or merge with another U.S. scheduled mainline passenger airline. However, given the ongoing financial
struggles and the uncertain recovery of air traffic, it is possible that airlines may seek further industry
consolidation in the future primarily as a result of the financial difficulties experienced during the COVID-19
pandemic. It is expected that airlines will continue to enter into partnerships and code-share agreements in
attempts to seek competitive advantages. For example, in early 2021, American has entered into partnerships
with both Alaska Airlines for markets in the western U.S. and JetBlue Airways for markets in the eastern U.S.
3.3.4 Aviation Fuel
The price of oil and the associated cost of jet fuel has historically been one of the largest operating costs affecting
the airline industry. In 2000, jet fuel sold to end users averaged $0.89 per gallon. The average cost of jet fuel
climbed steadily through 2007. However, in 2008, crude oil prices and consequently, jet fuel surged in price as a
result of strong global demand, a weak U.S. dollar, commodity speculation, political unrest, and a reluctance to
materially increase supply. In July 2008, jet fuel reached an average price of $4.01 per gallon, nearly double the
price the year prior. Reduced demand in 2009 stemming from the global financial crisis and subsequent economic
downturn resulted in a sharp decline in price. However, as the economic climate improved and political unrest
continued in the Middle East, oil prices increased in the subsequent three years. The increase in the price of jet
fuel put upwards pressure on airline operating costs. As a result, airlines were faced with cutting capacity or
increasing fares, and sometimes both. The average price of jet fuel dropped significantly in 2015 and 2016,
reaching a low of $1.03 per gallon in February 2016. Since then, jet fuel prices increased steadily to a peak of
$2.25 in October 2018 before falling to $1.70 per gallon in December 2019 due to increased oil supplies. In 2019,
jet fuel prices remained fairly stable, averaging approximately $1.90 per gallon from February 2019 through
January 2020.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the global demand for crude oil and fuel decreased dramatically starting in
January 2020. As a result, the price of crude oil dropped below $20 per barrel in April 2020. Since then, crude oil
supply curtailments have caused oil prices to recover. Prices hovered near $40 per barrel from early June 2020
through December but have increased to nearly $60 per barrel in February 2021.
63 The five U.S. airlines that have gone bankruptcy in 2020 are the regional carriers: Expressjet (UA), Trans States Airlines (UA), and
Compass Airlines (AA and DL), and the charter carriers: Miami Air International, and Shoreline Aviation. The major carriers served
by the regional partner carriers contracted with other carriers to provide regional service.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
84 | Landrum & Brown
Figure 3-11 Major U.S. Airline Mergers of the 21st Century
Note: Shading indicates bankruptcy.
Source: Airlines for America, U.S. Airline Mergers and Acquisitions.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides forecasts of jet fuel refiner price to end users in a
report entitled Short-Term Energy Outlook. In the January 2021 release, the EIA projects that jet fuel prices will
reach $1.64 per gallon by December 2022. Figure 3-12 presents the historical price for jet fuel refiner price to end
users and the EIA’s forecast of that price.
Although fuel cost is of major importance to the airline industry, future prices and availability are uncertain and
fluctuate based on numerous factors. These can include supply-and-demand expectations, geopolitical events,
fuel inventory levels, monetary policies, and economic growth estimates. Historically, certain airlines have also
employed fuel hedging as a practice to provide some protection against future fuel price increases. While fuel
hedging has generally not been used by airlines in recent years, it remains as a potential option to mitigate fuel
cost risk.
It is expected that aviation fuel costs will continue to impact the airline industry in the future. If aviation fuel costs
increase significantly over current levels, air traffic activity could be negatively affected as airlines attempt to pass
costs on to consumers through higher airfares and fees in order to remain profitable. At this time, alternative fuels
are not yet commercially cost effective.
Delta Air Lines
Northwest Airlines
United Airlines
Continental Airlines
Southwest Airlines
AirTran Airways
American Airlines
Trans World Airways
US Airways
American West
Alaska Airlines
Virgin America
2000 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 85
Figure 3-12 Jet Fuel Prices
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (January 2020).
3.3.5 Aviation Security
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (9/11), government agencies, airlines, and airport operators have
upgraded security measures to guard against threats and to maintain the public’s confidence in the safety of air
travel. Security measures have included cargo and baggage screening requirements, deployment of explosive
detection devices, strengthening of aircraft cockpit doors, the increased presence of armed air marshals,
awareness programs for personnel at airports, and new programs for flight crews. Aviation security is under the
control of the federal government through the TSA.
The threat of terrorism poses risks to the continued growth of the aviation industry. Although terrorist events
targeting aviation interests would likely have negative and immediate impacts on the demand for air travel, the
industry and demand have historically recovered from such events. There have been terrorist attacks at airports
internationally including at the Brussels Airport in March 2016, the Istanbul Atatürk Airport in June 2016, and the
Orly International Airport in March 2017. So long as government agencies continue to seek processes and
procedures to mitigate potential risks and to maintain confidence in the safety of aircraft, without requiring
unreasonable levels of costs or inconvenience to the passengers, economic influences are expected to be the
primary driver for aviation demand as opposed to security and safety.
Jul 2008
400.8 ¢/gal
Dec 2022
164.2 ¢/gal
Forecast ►
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Jet Fuel Refiner Price to End Users
Cents per Gallon
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
86 | Landrum & Brown
3.3.6 National Air Traffic Capacity
The U.S. aviation system has a major impact on the national economy because it provides a means of
transporting people and cargo over long distances in a relatively short period. As demand for air travel increases,
the national aviation system must maintain sufficient capacity to allow for travel without unacceptable delays or
congestion. It is generally assumed that the required infrastructure improvements needed to maintain capacity will
keep pace with demand. Although not likely over the projection period evaluated herein, the inability of the
national aviation system to keep pace with demand could create congestion and delays on a national level that
could adversely affect the passenger experience and impact future demand.
3.4 Air Traffic Activity Projections
This section presents industry research on various forecast recovery scenarios from the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic as well as a presentation of the air traffic activity projections including the key assumptions used to
develop those projections.
This section contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The air traffic activity projections included in this Report represent
L&B’s opinion, based on information available to L&B as well as estimates, trends and assumptions that
are inherently subject to economic, political, regulatory, competitive and other uncertainties, all of which
are difficult to predict and many of which will be beyond the control of L&B. Prospective investors should
assume that the restrictions and limitations related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and the current
upheaval to the air travel industry and the national and global economies, could increase at least over the
near term, recovery may be prolonged, and, therefore, have an adverse impact on Airport revenues. As a
result, projected results may not be realized, and actual results could be significantly higher or lower than
projected. L&B is not obligated to update, or otherwise revise, the projections or the specific portions
presented to reflect circumstances existing after the date when made or to reflect the occurrence of
future events, even in the event that any or all of the assumptions are shown to be in error.
3.4.1 Industry Recovery Scenarios
Several industry sources have made predictions as to the length of recovery of air traffic to levels prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Table 3-16 presents summaries of various scenarios. As shown, the general consensus of
those cited below is that passenger traffic will not recover to CY 2019 levels until sometime around CY 2023 to
CY 2024. It is important to note that these forecasts reflect the recovery at a national level and are not necessarily
reflective of the recovery at the Airport.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 87
Table 3-16 Industry Recovery Scenario Forecasts
Source
Company /
Agency
Expected
Recovery
Period
Citation Source
International
Air
Transport
Association
(IATA)
CY 2024
“We assume a vaccine(s) is deployed in the second half
of 2021, but it looks likely that there will be production
and distribution challenges that mean it will only be in
late 2021 and in 2022 when air travel rises back
substantially. On this basis we don’t expect 2019 levels
to be regained until around 2024.
We should also acknowledge the huge amount of
uncertainty over virus behavior, vaccine effectiveness
and government responses...”
“Deep Losses Continue
Into 2021”, November 24,
2020.
https://www.iata.org/en/pr
essroom/pr/2020-11-24-
01/
Airports
Council
International
CY 2023-
24
“Passengers expected to recover to 2019 levels in
2023-2024. Domestic markets by 2023 and international
markets by 2024-2025”
“State of the Airport
Industry – COVID-19
Impact and Outlook,”
December 2020
Fitch
Ratings CY 2024
“Fitch Ratings expects air traffic recovery in U.S. and
Canadian markets to be slower in 1H21 than previous
forecasts, given ongoing low levels of passenger
demand observed through the early weeks of 2021.
Accelerated growth is expected in 2H21 with greater
vaccination rates and the release of pent-up leisure and
holiday travel demand.
Airports and airlines are highly sensitive to the pace of
recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and new, more
contagious variants of the virus may hinder a rapid
rebound in the near term. A prolonged rebound for the
air travel industry is part of our forecast, with full
recovery not expected until 2024 at the earliest.”
“North American Airport
and Airline Pressures to
Ease, Accelerating
Recovery Later This
Year”, March 11, 2021
https://www.fitchratings.c
om/research/infrastructur
e-project-finance/north-
american-airport-airline-
pressures-to-ease-
accelerating-recovery-
later-this-year-virus-
variants-travel-
restrictions-vaccine-
rollouts-present-
uncertainties-11-03-2021
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
88 | Landrum & Brown
Table 3-16 Industry Recovery Scenario Forecasts (continued)
Source
Company /
Agency
Expected
Recovery
Period
Citation Source
Moody’s
Investor
Service
CY 2024
“Enplanement levels have divorced from traditional GDP
correlations because of unpredictable consumer
behavior and local and international restrictions on
travel or onerous quarantine requirements.
Enplanement levels depend on the perceived spread of
the virus, but we expect enplanements to be 25% to
45% of 2019 volumes in the first half of 2021 before
recovering with warmer weather and expected adoption
of a vaccine.”
“2021 outlook negative
with high degree of
traffic uncertainty, airline
financial health”,
December 1, 2020.
https://www.moodys.com/
research/Moodys-2021-
outlook-for-US-airports-
remains-negative-amid-
ongoing--
PBC_1255600?cid=7QF
RKQSZE021
Standard &
Poor’s
(S&P)
CY 2024
“U.S. public transit and airport sectors face the longest
recovery relative to other U.S. transportation
subsectors, with our current baseline activity estimates
for 2021 compared with pre-COVID-19 levels showing
annualized declines of approximately 50% for public
transit, and 40% for airports; and public transit ridership
recovering to approximately 15% below pre-COVID-19
levels by the end of 2023 and enplanements returning
to or near pre-pandemic levels in 2024 for most
airports..”
“Updated Activity
Estimates for U.S.
Transportation
Infrastructure Show
Public Transit and Airport
Operators Still Face A
Long Recovery”. January
13, 2021
https://www.spglobal.com
/ratings/en/research/articl
es/210113-updated-
activity-estimates-for-u-s-
transportation-
infrastructure-show-
public-transit-and-airport-
operators-st-11797812
Sources: Cited in table above. Accessed April 2021.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 89
3.4.2 Projection Assumptions
There are two main factors determining the recovery in air travel: safety from COVID-19 and its variants and
economic recovery. To determine when it is deemed safe to travel, assumptions regarding the timeframe to
achieve population immunity were developed. Once safe travel is available through population immunity, it was
assumed recovery of air travel will be predicated on recovery in the economy. This section describes assumptions
regarding achieving population immunity, the return of business travel, and economic recovery.
3.4.2.1 Reaching Manageable Infection Rates
Achieving population or “herd” immunity is generally viewed as one of the largest obstacles to returning to normal
activities. This immunity is achieved through a combination of natural immunity through infection and vaccination.
A survey from PEW Research Center in February 2021 indicated that approximately 69% of Americans intend to
get a vaccine or already have.64 While this presents a gap between the amount required and the number of those
likely to be vaccinated, it should be noted that this is an increase of nine percent from those surveyed in
November 2020 and 18% from those surveyed in September 2020. However, 31% said they would either
probably not or definitely not get the vaccine.65 As of April 1, 2021, more than 200.5 million doses have been
distributed with nearly 99.6 million people receiving the first dose and nearly 56.1 million people fully vaccinated.66
This equates to 16.9% of Americans being completely vaccinated. Certain experts have indicated that it is
becoming more unlikely that population immunity will be reached in the U.S. as people may opt not to take the
vaccine and variants of the virus spread. Some experts believe that without reaching immunity the virus will
continue to circulate but will become more manageable, but will still result in hospitalizations and deaths by in
much smaller numbers.67
While developing the enplaned passenger projections, two timelines for reaching managing infection rates were
developed. The following presents the timelines based on the assumptions made.
Rapid-Adoption: The rapid-adoption timeline assumes that the general public will continue to quickly
adopt to the vaccine. It is assumed that those wanting to be vaccinated will be by the fourth quarter of
2021 resulting in more manageable infection rates.
Slow-Adoption: The slow-adoption timeline assumes that people are slow to adopt the vaccine for
various reasons. It is also assumed that those wanting to be vaccinated will be by the third quarter of
2022 resulting in more manageable infection rates.
Due to the initially slow start to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, it was originally assumed that the rapid-adoption
timeline would be an optimistic scenario. However, now that initial supply issues have largely been resolved. The
slow-adoption timeline would likely only happen with severe shortages and a large portion of the population opting
not to take the vaccine or if other issues occur that impact distribution or increase people. Therefore, it represents
a more pessimistic scenario. Therefore, under baseline conditions, it is assumed that the adoption timeline for the
vaccine will be between the two timeframes outlined above for domestic travel. It was assumed that for
international travel, the adoption timeline will lag behind given the complexities associated with opening borders,
varying vaccine distribution, achievement of herd immunity, and other adoption issues.
64 Pew Research Center, Growing Share of Americans Say They Plan To Get a COVID-19 Vaccine – or Already Have, accessed
online at https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/03/05/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-plan-to-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-or-
already-have/
65 Ibid.
66 CDC COVID Data Tracker accessed at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations, accessed April 2021.
67 The New York Times, Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html, accessed May 2021.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
90 | Landrum & Brown
3.4.2.2 Loss of Business Travelers
Prior to the Great Recession, air fares did not typically have a significant impact on air travel for business
travelers. However, the economic climate after the Great Recession prompted businesses to seek measures in
order to save cost, part of which included shrinking travel budgets. As such, companies began substituting air
travel with telecommunication when the cost to travel becomes too great.
The impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic essentially halted all travel in March 2020, which required
many business travelers to quickly pivot from in-person meetings to conducting videoconference meetings. Stay-
at-home orders required many businesses to shift to work-at-home temporarily with many still operating a hybrid
of work at home and in the office. Both of these somewhat acted as an experiment to determine what meetings
could be conducted remotely and what jobs can be done effectively from home versus an office setting. The
COVID-19 pandemic has been a catalyst for some companies to move to work-at-home on a permanent basis. A
survey from July 2020 indicated that 93% of companies believe that their remote working and meeting policies will
permanently change.68
For business travelers conducting in-person sales or client meetings, air traffic has been recovering quicker and is
expected to make a full recovery as face-to-face conversations will continue to be seen as worth the cost of travel.
However, internal meetings, training programs, trade shows, and conferences have seen little to no recovery to
date. It is possible that if more people work-from-home, in-person internal meetings and training programs
previously done in-person will be drastically reduced, with people opting for virtual meetings. There are a number
of estimates as to how much business travel will be permanently lost. According to a business travel analyst, the
data suggests that between 19% and 36% of all air traffic are likely to be lost.69
Historically, there have been a number of events over the past 20 years, such as the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 and the Great Recession, that have prompted theories of an ultimate decline in business air
travel. However, the industry has continued to prove resilient and business air travel recovered from both of those
events. Therefore, given the data above, it was assumed that business air travel would fare better than the
estimates above. Subsequently, for the purposes of this Report, it was assumed for the baseline projection that
about 8% of business travel would be lost upon recovery during the projection period. For the purposes of the
slower recovery sensitivity scenario projection, this loss was assumed to be about 15%.
3.4.2.3 Economic Recovery
Biannually, the CBO provides 10-year economic projections which includes output, prices, labor market
measures, interest rates, and income. Part of this work includes projections of potential GDP. In July 2020, the
CBO released the first update to these projections since the beginning of the pandemic. At the time, the CBO
forecast that real U.S. GDP contracted by 10.1% in the second quarter of 2020, which is equivalent to an annual
decline of 34.6%, followed by a 17.0% recovery in the third quarter. The CBO projected that GDP would recover
to fourth quarter of 2019 levels by the third quarter of 2022, making the recession the second longest U.S.
recession since 1947.
68 BCG, COVID-19 Consumer Sentiment Snapshot #11: Getting to the Other Side, June 2, 2020. Accessed online at
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/covid-consumer-sentiment-survey-snapshot-6-02-20
69 The Wall Street Journal, The Covid Pandemic Could Cut Business Travel by 36%—Permanently, December 1, 2020. Accessed
online at https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-covid-pandemic-could-cut-business-travel-by-36permanently-11606830490
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 91
However, when actual results became available, the real U.S. GDP contracted by 8.9% in the second quarter of
2020, which is equivalent to an annual decline of 31.4%, before rebounding by 6.7% in the third quarter of 2020.
According to the CBO’s most recent -year projections released early February 2021, the U.S. GDP is estimated to
continue rebounding during the fourth quarter of 2020 as concerns about the pandemic diminish and as state and
local governments ease stay-at-home orders, bans on public gatherings, and other measures to limit the spread
of COVID-19. On an annual basis, the CBO estimates that the U.S. GDP decreased by 3.4% in 2020 and
forecasts that GDP will increase by 4.6% in 2021. The February release projects that GDP would recover to fourth
quarter of 2019 levels by the third quarter of 2021. Figure 3-13 provides a comparison of GDP declines (as of
second quarter 2020) to the current CBO forecast (February 2021), the previous release of the forecast, and other
major U.S. recessions since 1947.
Figure 3-13 U.S. GDP Comparison during Recessions
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts; Congressional Budget Office, An
Overview of the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031, February 2020.
For the purposes of the projections used for this analysis, it is assumed that the February 2021 CBO projections
represent more of an optimistic scenario for economic recovery. For the purposes of developing a projection for
financial feasibility purposes, the baseline projection assumes that long-term recovery will be somewhat more
protracted resembling the tail of the July 2020 CBO projection and that GDP recovery to 2019 levels will occur
closer to the first quarter of 2022.
1973-75 Recession
1981-82 Recession
Great Recession
CBO Forecast -July 2020
CBO Forecast -February 2021
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2019
Q4
2020
Q1
2020
Q2
2020
Q3
2020
Q4
2021
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
2022
Q1
2022
Q2
2022
Q3
2022
Q4
2023
Q1
2023
Q2
United States Gross Domestic Product
Percent total draw-down from previous peak
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
92 | Landrum & Brown
At this time, it is difficult to determine the exact timing and scope of economic recovery. It, however, has been
demonstrated that the economy in the Air Service Area has been somewhat less impacted than for the nation as
a whole. Therefore, it could be likely that the Air Service Area’s economy could recover more rapidly than that of
the nation. However, for the purposes of this Report and developing air traffic projections for financial feasibility
purposes, it has been assumed that the Air Service Area’s economic recovery is generally within the same
timeline as that of the nation. Please note that should economic conditions deviate from these assumptions, it is
likely that air traffic activity could vary from the projections presented herein, and such variances could be
material.
3.4.3 Enplaned Passengers Projection
Based on the assumptions described above, enplaned passengers at the Airport are projected to recover to
approximately 2019 levels, or 13.1 million, by FY 2024. Under the baseline projection, total enplaned passengers
at the Airport are projected to reach 14.1 million in FY 2028. Table 3-17 provides a summary of the enplaned
passengers projection by segment.
Table 3-17 Enplaned Passengers Projection (FY 2019 – FY 2028)
Fiscal Year
Enplaned Passengers (in thousands)
Domestic International Total Percent of 2019
Actual 2019 12,556 534 13,090 100.0%
2020 9,713 382 10,096 77.1%
Estimate 2021 6,518 173 6,692 51.1%
Projected
2022 11,137 370 11,507 87.9%
2023 12,014 508 12,522 95.7%
2024 12,541 529 13,070 99.8%
2025 12,876 542 13,418 102.5%
2026 13,142 552 13,695 104.6%
2027 13,391 562 13,953 106.6%
2028 13,563 568 14,132 108.0%
Range Compound Annual Growth Rate
2019-20 -22.6% -28.5% -22.9%
2020-21 -32.9% -54.7% -33.7%
2021-28 11.0% 18.5% 11.3%
2019-28 0.9% 0.7% 0.9%
Note: This projection is based on current expectations and information and is not intended as a representation of facts
or guarantee of results.
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics (actual data).
Landrum & Brown (estimate and projections).
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 93
Figure 3-14 compares the enplaned passengers projection with a selection of recovery forecasts from ACI, Fitch
Ratings, IATA, Moody’s Investor Service, and S&P Global Ratings on a CY basis.70 As shown, the projection for
the Airport is somewhat more favorable in the early years of the recovery as compared to the other industry
forecasts, which is indicative of the Airport performing better than the nation as a whole thus far during the
recovery. The projection for the Airport is somewhat more conservative in its assumption of a recovery to 2019
levels by 2024 than the ACI and IATA forecasts and similar to the Fitch (Rating Case) and S&P forecasts. This
projection is somewhat more favorable than the Fitch Ratings (Severe Downside) and Moody’s (Slower/Base)
scenarios. However, a slower recovery projection scenario for the Airport is also presented later in this Chapter.
Figure 3-14 Comparison of Enplaned Passenger Projections
Note: This projection is based on current expectations and information and is not intended as a representation of facts
or guarantee of results.
Sources: IATA, Deep Losses Continue Into 2021, November 24, 2020. ACI, State of the Airport Industry - COVID-19
Impact and Outlook, December 20, 2020. Fitch Ratings, North American Airport and Airline Pressures to Ease,
Accelerating Recovery Later This Year”, March 11, 2021. Moody's Analytics, 2021 outlook negative with high
degree of traffic uncertainty, airline financial health, December 1, 2020. S&P Global Ratings, Updated Activity
Estimates for U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Show Public Transit and Airport Operators Still Face A Long
Recovery”. January 13, 2021.
70 The projections for the Airport were converted to CY for comparison purposes.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Air Passenger Traffic Forecast
Index 2019 = 100
Report Forecast IATA Forecast (Global RPKs)
ACI (Domestic Passenger Forecast)S&P Global Ratings
Fitch Ratings (Rating Case)Fitch Ratings (Severe Downside)
Moody's (Faster)Moody's (Slower/Base)
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
94 | Landrum & Brown
3.4.4 Aircraft Landed Weight Projection
It was assumed that the passenger airlines’ average landed weights will generally follow the enplaned passenger
trends described above. As described previously, all-cargo airlines’ landed weights actually increased during the
COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to remain relatively stable. Table 3-18 presents a summary of the aircraft
landed weight projection by segment.
Table 3-18 Landed Weight Projection (FY 2019 – FY 2028)
Fiscal Year
Landed Weight (in million-pound units)
Passenger Airlines All-Cargo Total Percent of 2019
Actual 2019 14,264 1,201 15,465 100.0%
2020 12,315 1,246 13,562 87.7%
Estimate 2021 12,778 1,351 14,129 91.4%
Projected
2022 13,012 1,375 14,387 93.0%
2023 13,651 1,389 15,040 97.3%
2024 14,249 1,402 15,651 101.2%
2025 14,629 1,416 16,045 103.8%
2026 14,930 1,431 16,361 105.8%
2027 15,211 1,445 16,656 107.7%
2028 15,407 1,459 16,866 109.1%
Range Compound Annual Growth Rate
2019-20 -13.7% 3.7% -12.3%
2020-21 3.8% 8.4% 4.2%
2021-28 2.7% 1.1% 2.6%
2019-28 0.9% 2.2% 1.0%
Note: This projection is based on current expectations and information and is not intended as a representation of facts
or guarantee of results.
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics (actual data).
Landrum & Brown (estimate and projections).
3.4.5 Slower Recovery Enplaned Passengers Projection
Given the uncertainty with the level and duration of the recovery from the impacts associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, L&B prepared a slower recovery projection for enplaned passengers at the Airport. The financial
impacts associated with this enplaned passenger scenario will be analyzed in Chapter 5. The following
summarizes the assumptions and presents the results of the slower recovery projection.
Slow-Adoption of Vaccine: The slow-adoption timeline assumes that a portion of the population is
hesitant to take the vaccine for various reasons. Under this case, it is assumed that those wanting to be
vaccinated will be by the third quarter of 2022.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 95
Long-Term GDP Recovery: In the July release of its GDP forecast, the CBO projected that GDP would recover
to fourth quarter of 2019 levels by the third quarter of 2021. It was assumed for the purposes of the slower
recovery that it will take until the third quarter of 2022 for the U.S. GDP to recover, and that the Air Service Area’s
recovery will be generally consistent with this timeline.
Loss of Business Travelers: Under the baseline projection, it was assumed that there would be an 8%
loss in business traffic during the projection period. For the purposes of the slower recovery projection,
this loss was assumed to be 15% during the projection period.
Reduced Connecting Traffic: In 2019, 40.9% of domestic enplaned passengers at the Airport were
connecting. For the purposes of the slower recovery projection, it was assumed that the Airport would
experience a loss of approximately 20% of connecting traffic during the projection period. At this time and
as presented earlier in this chapter, the loss of connecting traffic does not appear likely; however, it has
been assumed for the purposes of preparing a hypothetical slower recovery scenario.
Table 3-19 presents the results of the slower recovery projection as compared to the baseline. As shown, under
the baseline, enplaned passengers are projected to reach over 14.1 million in FY 2028. Under the slower
recovery scenario, enplaned passengers are projected to reach approximately 12.7 million in FY 2028.
Table 3-19 Enplaned Passengers Slower Recovery Projection (FY 2019 – FY 2028)
Fiscal Year
Enplaned Passengers (in thousands)
Baseline Slower Recovery Slower Recovery as a
Percent of Baseline
Actual 2019 13,090 13,090 100.0%
2020 10,096 10,096 100.0%
Estimate 2021 6,692 6,692 100.0%
Projected
2022 11,507 8,660 75.3%
2023 12,522 11,035 88.1%
2024 13,070 11,686 89.4%
2025 13,418 12,002 89.4%
2026 13,695 12,253 89.5%
2027 13,953 12,487 89.5%
2028 14,132 12,650 89.5%
Range Compound Annual Growth Rate
2019-20 -22.9% -22.9%
2020-21 -33.7% -33.7%
2021-28 11.3% 9.5%
2019-28 0.9% -0.4%
Note: This projection is based on current expectations and information and is not intended as a representation of facts
or guarantee of results.
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Air Traffic Statistics (actual data).
Landrum & Brown (estimate and projections).
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
96 | Landrum & Brown
4 Airport Facilities and Capital Program
This Chapter provides an overview of existing Airport facilities and describes the New SLC and other planned
capital improvements at the Airport, referred to as Other Capital Projects for the purposes of this Report.
4.1 Existing Airport Facilities
The Airport comprises approximately 9,400 acres of land in Salt Lake County, Utah. It is located approximately
five miles west of downtown Salt Lake City. The Airport is relatively distant from other comparable airports and is
the primary commercial air passenger and cargo service facility for the Salt Lake Valley, the State of Utah, and
portions of southwestern Wyoming, southeastern Idaho, northeastern Nevada, and northwestern Colorado.
Access to the Airport is primarily provided from Interstate 80 via Terminal Drive. Existing Airport facilities are
described in sections below and are graphically illustrated on Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1 Airport Layout (As of November 2020 – see note)
Note: Since November 2020, the former terminal building, airside concourses, and parking garage have been
demolished.
Source: Airport management records
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 97
4.1.1 Airport History
Originally used for aerobatic flights, the Airport began as a cinder-covered landing strip in a marshy pasture called
Basque Flats in 1911. The City purchased 100 acres surrounding the landing strip for $40.00 per acre in 1920,
and the resulting airfield was named Woodward Field. The first commercial passenger flight took place in 1926
with two passengers perched atop U.S. mail sacks, and in 1943, the Airport became a training base and
replacement depot for the U.S. Army Air Force. A history of the Airport’s growth over historical time periods is
summarized below.71
1930s and 1940s: In 1930, the Airport was renamed Salt Lake City Municipal Airport and consisted of
approximately 400 acres, 11 hangars and two gravel runways. In 1933, the City built an airport
administration building that housed a passenger waiting room, mail room, airport manager’s office, other
facilities, and leased office space to the airlines. A third runway was also added in 1933. The Airport
became a training base and replacement depot for the U.S. Army Air Force in 1943.
1950s and 1960s: The three runways were upgraded in 1950 to accommodate the largest commercial jet
aircraft of that time. The first terminal building, currently Terminal One, was constructed and dedicated in
1961. In 1968, the Airport was renamed the Salt Lake City International Airport.
1970s and 1980s: Airport property expanded to an area of approximately 7,500 acres. In 1978, Terminal
Two was completed to accommodate the operations of former Western Airlines, a new executive terminal
was opened to serve general aviation needs, and the west runway and taxiway systems were extended.
Terminal One was expanded and remodeled in 1981. The Airport became an operational hub for former
Western Airlines in 1982, which led to facility upgrades. In 1984, Terminal Two was expanded to
accommodate an additional concourse. In 1987, Western Airlines merged with Delta and additional
facilities were constructed to accommodate an expansion of the hub.
1990s to Present: A third air carrier runway was added in 1995, in addition to Concourse E and the
International Arrivals Building. In 1999, the FAA opened a new airport traffic control tower (ATCT) and
terminal radar approach control facility. The City hosted the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Since 2005, the
Airport has upgraded Terminal Two, including bag claim carousel modifications, explosive detection
systems (EDS) and international gates, completed the north cargo apron, and completed rehabilitation of
Runway 16L-34R pavement. In FY 2015, the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) started
construction for the quick turn-around facility (QTA), rental car facility site work, rental car service
buildings, infrastructure, and temporary roadway construction and realignments. Construction of the NCP
began in January 2018. In September 2020, the terminal and western portion of the South Concourse of
the TRP opened. In October 2020, the western portion of the NCP opened.
4.1.2 Airfield Facilities
The existing airfield consists of three air carrier runways and a general aviation runway. The air carrier runways
are, generally, in a parallel north/south alignment (Runways 16L-34R, 16R-34L, and 17-35). The general aviation
runway is oriented in a northwest/southeast direction (Runway 14-32). Runway 16L-34R is 12,003 feet in length,
Runway 16R-34L is 12,000 feet in length, Runway 17-35 is 9,596 feet in length, and Runway 14-32 is 4,900 feet
in length. All runways are 150 feet wide. The air carrier runways are equipped with high intensity runway lighting
systems, centerline lighting, and touchdown zone lights. Precision instrument landing systems (ILS) were installed
on all ends of each air carrier runway for approaches during instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions. The general
aviation runway (14-32) is not equipped with an ILS.
71 Salt Lake City Department of Airports website (https://www.slcairport.com/about-the-airport/airport-overview/airport-history/),
accessed June 2016.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
98 | Landrum & Brown
4.1.3 Terminal Facilities
The current terminal and airside concourses were completed as part of the New SLC program and opened in the
fall of 2020. The passenger terminal complex consists of a consolidated passenger terminal, one attached airside
concourse (Concourse A – formerly referred to as South Concourse), and one remote airside concourse
(Concourse B – formerly referred to as North Concourse) comprising over 1.7 million square feet of total space.
An underground tunnel connects the western portions of the concourses is approximately 1,000 linear feet. This
tunnel area provides pedestrian access to Concourse B from Concourse A. Ultimately, this tunnel will be closed to
passenger access when a central tunnel is completed later as part of the new SLC. After its closure, the current
tunnel will be primarily used as a utility corridor and for baggage systems. The terminal is also connected to the
parking garage via the Gateway Center. Figure 4-2 illustrates the Airport’s terminal complex and shows the area
for future facilities that are under construction.
Level 1 of the Terminal contains a federal inspection services area (FIS), international baggage claim and recheck
area, tenant administrative offices, a centralized security checkpoint for dedicated employee access, ground
transportation counters, and also serves commercial curbs and other ground transportation functions. Level 2
provides passenger circulation areas and connects landside and airside components of the facility. Public areas
prior to the security checkpoint provide for baggage claim and airline baggage service offices, an expansive
meeter-greeter area, food and beverage and retail concessions, and a centralized security screening checkpoint.
Areas beyond security screening include the main terminal plaza area consisting of 79,000 square feet of
concessions, seating, and circulation space. Level 3 contains the ticketing area for departing passengers, a
30,000-square foot Delta SkyClub, a conference center and administrative offices for the Department and other
tenants at the Airport. Departing passengers being dropped off at the Airport arrive on the Level 3 curb. The
Airport is served by the TRAX light rail system owned and operated by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), which
connects the Airport with downtown Salt Lake City.
There is also a remote hardstand facility to serve aircraft in overflow situations where all contact gates are
occupied. Delta and its regional affiliate partners operate from both airside concourses, while all other airlines at
the Airport operate on Concourse B. As of April 2021, the existing airside concourses and hardstand facilities
provide for a total of 66 aircraft parking positions, associated passenger waiting areas and security screening
facilities. Of the 66 positions, 46 have passenger loading bridges and the 20 remote hardstand positions are
served through a busing operation and have aircraft access directly on the apron without passenger loading
bridges. Table 4-1 presents the current number of aircraft gate positions at the Airport by concourse and used by
the Signatory Airlines. Section 4.6 of this Report describes future gate counts planned as part of the New SLC.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 99
Figure 4-2 SLC Terminal Complex
Source: Airport management records, April 2021
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
100 | Landrum & Brown
Table 4-1 Aircraft Gate Use at the Airport (As of April 2021)
Airline Concourse A Concourse B Hardstand Total
Alaska - 1 - 2
American - 2 - 2
Delta 25 7 15 47
Frontier - 1 - 1
JetBlue - 1 - 1
Southwest - 4 - 6
United - 2 - 3
Department - 3 5 2
Total 25 21 20 66
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports management records
4.1.4 Public Parking Facilities
Public parking facilities currently located at the Airport consist of the new five level, short-term parking garage
near the terminal complex that opened as part of the New SLC in September 2020 and long-term economy
surface parking lots. As part of the TRP, the economy lots have also been reconfigured. In total, these facilities
comprise about 152 acres, including the five levels of the garage, and have 14,401 public parking spaces. The
short-term parking garage has 3,469 public parking spaces on levels two through five and is located adjacent to
the passenger terminal. The first floor is dedicated to rental car operations and contains approximately 1,200
ready/return parking spaces. Upper floors are served via two helical ramps. Current pricing for the short-term
parking garage is $35 per day or $55 per day for the Premium Reserved Parking service.
In addition to the new Parking Garage, the Airport also has a substantial amount of surface parking available for
Airport patrons, including a new surface parking area to be located east of the new parking structure. The surface
lot has 384 parking spaces. The South Economy Parking Lot opened in July 2014 and consists of approximately
2,900 additional parking spaces replacing the economy parking that was displaced by the construction of the new
rental car facilities. The South Economy Parking Lot is integrated with the remainder of the Economy Parking Lot.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 101
To help reduce vehicle traffic congestion in the terminal area, the Department maintains a 132-space Park and
Wait lot and adjacent Touch n’ Go service plaza located west of Terminal Drive, just south of Terminal One,
where motorists meeting arriving passengers may wait without charge until passengers are ready to be picked up.
The Park and Wait lot has large electronic signs displaying flight arrival information. Once a flight has arrived and
sufficient time has elapsed for passengers to claim their luggage, the sign indicates “ready for pick up.” To reduce
congestion at the curb, however, the Department encourages drivers to wait until passengers are at the curb,
confirming with their driver via cell phone.
4.1.5 Rental Car Facilities
Rental car operations for passengers at the Airport currently are located on the ground floor of the new parking
garage adjacent to the terminal building and include approximately 1,200 ready/return parking spaces Nine rental
car brands are currently located at the Airport: Alamo, Avis, Budget, Dollar, Enterprise, Hertz, National, Payless
and Thrifty. In addition, six brands are located off-Airport and their customers must use shuttle bus services.
The rental car service facilities were placed in service in March 2016. These facilities consist of a ‘quick-turn-
around’ (QTA) facility for fueling and washing cars and three facilities for performing light vehicle maintenance.
The QTA is a two-level building of approximately 468,000 sf with 14 wash and service bays on the first floor and
vehicle storage and parking on the second floor. The Rental Car Service Site (RSS) facility consists of three
single-story service buildings containing a total of approximately 34,000 sf of building space located south of the
QTA. These buildings provide back-of-house maintenance areas for the rental car providers and contain office,
support and storage space.
4.1.6 Transportation Network Companies
The Airport is served by several transportation network companies (TNCs), including both Uber and Lyft. The
Department has set aside dedicated curb space at the Airport for TNC pick-ups, but TNC drivers are required to
wait for customers off-Airport. TNC operations at the Airport have grown substantially since FY 2016, when TNC
operations were first permitted at the Airport and 209,800 transactions were reported. During FY 2020, there were
approximately 1.26 million TNC transactions reported.
4.1.7 Ancillary Facilities
Ancillary facilities support the aviation-related activities at the Airport. The facilities identified as ancillary are
categorized as military, general aviation, FAA, ground support equipment, cargo facilities, aircraft maintenance
facilities, and the Boeing facility.
Military: The Utah Air National Guard (UTANG) operates on more than 82 acres on the northeast side of
the Airport as the Roland R. Wright Air National Guard Base. The 151st Air Refueling Wing is based at the
Airport, which provides personnel to fly, maintain, and support a KC-135R aerial refueling unit.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
102 | Landrum & Brown
General Aviation: General aviation (GA) facilities are located on the east side of Airport property. This
area includes fixed base operator (FBO) facilities, maintenance hangar facilities, aircraft parking aprons
(aircraft tie-down spaces managed by the FBOs), general aviation aircraft storage hangars (total
combination of 226 T-hangars and shade hangars managed by the Department), fuel storage facilities
and access roadways. The two FBOs on site sell both jet A and 100 low-lead aviation gasoline. FBOs
offer a variety of services including rental cars, catering and transportation. Aircraft maintenance facilities
are available on the airfield. In April 2018, Atlantic Aviation, one of the Airport’s FBOs, opened a new
12,700 square-foot terminal and two new 30,000 square-foot heated hangars. 72
FAA: The FAA occupies the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and handles all flight arrivals and
departures as well as ground movement.
Ground Support Equipment: Ground support equipment (GSE) facilities include areas and buildings
that house vehicles and equipment necessary to serve aircraft operations such as aircraft tugs, baggage
tugs and carts, catering trucks, fuel trucks, 400-hertz power generators, deicers, lavatory service trucks,
etc. GSE is stored in a multi-purpose building and covered areas surrounding the terminal area.
Cargo Facilities: Over 1.0 million square feet of cargo space is leased at the Airport. United Parcel
Service and DHL each have stand-alone cargo facilities and FedEx has a cargo facility at the Airport
constructed in recent years of just under 70,000 square feet.
Aircraft Maintenance Facilities: Delta and its regional partner, SkyWest, currently lease from the
Department and maintain aircraft maintenance hangars at the Airport. Routine and heavy aircraft
maintenance is performed at these facilities.
Boeing Facility: Boeing leases a 100,000-square foot fabrication and assembly facility on a 16-acre site
on the east side of the Airport. At this site, Boeing is assembling the horizontal stabilizer for its 787-9
Dreamliner aircraft. Boeing also has an option to lease an additional 157 acres of adjacent Airport
property.
4.2 The Auxiliary Airports
The Department also operates two general aviation airports owned by the City: South Valley Regional Airport and
Tooele Valley Airport, referred to collectively as the Auxiliary Airports. These airports support the GA needs of the
region and complement the airport services provided at the Airport. A general description of each GA airport is
provided below.
South Valley Regional Airport (U42) currently supports business-related flying, law enforcement/fire/rescue flying
services, recreational flying, flight training, and air charters. A Utah National Guard Army Aviation Support Facility
is also housed on the airfield. South Valley Regional Airport comprises about 880 acres and is located
approximately 10 miles south of the Airport in West Jordan, Utah. U42 has a single runway, Runway 16-34, which
is 5,862 feet in length and 100 feet in width. The runway is constructed of asphalt and is equipped with pilot-
controlled medium intensity runway lights (MIRL) and four light precision approach path indicators (PAPIs). In
addition, each end of the runway is also equipped with runway end identifier lights (REILs). The primary landside
area at U42 consists of a linear layout, running north to south along the west side. Facilities include the Utah
National Guard Army Aviation Support Facility, FBO facilities, maintenance hangar facilities, aircraft parking
aprons (100 aircraft tie-down spaces), general aviation aircraft storage hangars (total combination of 155 T-
hangars and shade hangars managed by the Department), fuel storage facilities and access roadways. The
Department sells both jet A and 100 low-lead aviation gasoline. Aircraft maintenance facilities are available on the
airfield. The Department is currently providing fueling, ground handling, aircraft storage and parking and ground
72 Atlantic Unveils New Salt Lake City FBO Complex, AIN Online, April 19, 2018, https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-
aviation/2018-04-19/atlantic-unveils-new-salt-lake-city-fbo-complex, accessed June 2018.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 103
power (GPU) services at South Valley Regional Airport. A third-party maintenance provider and flight school are
also available.
Tooele Valley Airport (TVY) currently provides many aviation-related services, including business-related flying,
sky diving, law enforcement/fire/rescue flying services, recreational flying, and flight training. Tooele Valley Airport
comprises about 600 acres and is located in Erda, Utah, approximately five miles northwest of Tooele, near State
Highway 138. It is operated with one primary runway, oriented in a general north-south direction, along with a
supporting parallel taxiway system. The single runway at the airport, Runway 17-35, is 6,050 feet in length and
100 feet in width. The runway is constructed of asphalt and is equipped with pilot-controlled MIRLs. Threshold
lights are located at each end as well as runway end identifier lights for the Runway 35 approach. Four light
PAPIs service the runway. The airport has ILS for Runway 17 in addition to a non-directional beacon. The
landside area consists of a linear layout, running north to south along the east side. The facilities include six
individual privately-owned hangars, aircraft parking aprons (24 aircraft tie-down spaces), self-service fuel storage
and dispensing facilities and access roadways. The Bureau of Land Management maintains a Single Engine Air
Tanker base at Tooele Valley Airport. Self-serve 100 low-lead aviation fuel is available 24-hours a day.
The Department operates the Airport and the Auxiliary Airports as an Airport System. This is defined within the
Master Trust Indenture (referred to herein as Master Indenture) to include the operation and maintenance costs
and revenues of the Auxiliary Airports within the definitions of Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport
System and Revenues. Therefore, such costs and revenues are included for the purposes of the Master
Indenture, including the Rate Covenant (defined later in Chapter 5 of this Report).
4.3 Summary of Capital Projects
For purposes of this Report, the Department’s current capital program is organized into the following categories,
each of which is discussed in the sections that follow in this chapter of the Report:
The New SLC: The New SLC consists of both the TRP and NCP as described below:
The Terminal Redevelopment Program: The TRP is the major capital program currently under
construction that has completely replaced and rebuilt the Airport’s landside and terminal facilities and is
currently replacing its airside concourse facilities over the next few years in conjunction with the NCP. The
western portion of the airside concourse (Concourse A) was opened in September 2020 and is
operational. The TRP has been funded, in part, with proceeds of the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series
2018 Bonds, and is also intended to be funded, in part, with proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds and
additional bonds along with other funding sources to be described later. In addition, the Department has
entered into a short-term revolving credit facility with JP Morgan, Chase Bank, National Association,
pursuant to which the city can access up to $300 million (Line of Credit). The Line of Credit is currently
intended to be used as an interim funding facility. The capital and operating costs associated with the
TRP have been included in the financial analysis in this Report and are further described in Chapter 5.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
104 | Landrum & Brown
The North Concourse Program: The NCP is also currently under construction and includes the
development of a midfield airside concourse (Concourse B) to the north of the new airside concourse to
be developed simultaneously with the TRP (i.e., Concourse A). The western portion of Concourse B
opened in October 2020 and is currently operational. The eastern portion of Concourse B is anticipated to
be opened during the fourth quarter of 2024 with full operation of Concourse B by the fourth quarter of
2025. The NCP has been funded, in part, with proceeds of the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018
Bonds, and is also intended to be funded, in part, with proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Line of
Credit as an interim funding source, and additional bonds along with other funding sources to be
described later. The capital and operating costs associated with the NCP have been included in the
financial analysis in this Report and are further described in Chapter 5.
Other Capital Projects: These projects are in addition to the elements of the New SLC and are the other
Airport System capital projects that currently are anticipated by the Department to be undertaken over the
projection period, or from FY 2022 through FY 2028. Such projects are referred to in this Report as the ‘Other
Capital Projects.’ The estimated capital funding and operating costs, if any, and estimated revenue impacts, if
any, associated with the Other Capital Projects have also been included as part of the financial analysis in
this Report.
4.4 The New SLC
The New SLC is a comprehensive capital program that is currently under construction to completely redevelop
and replace the existing landside and terminal complex of the Airport. The New SLC is comprised of two capital
programs known as the TRP and the NCP. A significant portion of the New SLC has been completed and is
currently operational. Remaining portions of the New SLC currently under construction primarily consist of airside
concourse development and associated airside improvements. Figure 4-3 illustrates the New SLC and shows
the facilities that are complete and in operation and the future airside concourse elements currently under
construction. The next several sections provide additional details on the TRP and the NCP.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 105
Figure 4-3 The New SLC
Source: Airport management records, April 2021
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
106 | Landrum & Brown
4.4.1 The Terminal Redevelopment Program
In 2014, the Signatory Airlines operating at the Airport approved the implementation of the TRP through execution
of the current AUA that incorporates the TRP and is effective through June 30, 2024. As described later in
Chapter 5 of this Report, Delta has executed an extension of the AUA through June 30, 2034. Terms and
conditions of the AUA are described later in this Report in Chapter 5.
The TRP is estimated to cost approximately $2.72 billion, including design, engineering, construction, escalation
for inflation, and contingency amounts, but excluding financing costs. Sources of funding for the TRP are
presented in Exhibit A of this Report. Approximately $2.21 billion of project costs have already been incurred
through March 2021. Table 4-2 presents project costs of the TRP by element in chronological order for when
each element is planned to be operational. A description of the major project elements of the TRP is then
contained in the next several subsections.
Table 4-2 TRP Project Costs by Element (thousands of dollars)
TRP Element Current Budget1 Planned CY Quarter of
Operation
South Economy Parking Lot $14,344 Operational
Rental Car Facilities: QTA and RSS 95,457 Operational
Central Utility Plant 59,535 Operational
Terminal Facility2 915,696 Operational
Gateway Center 126,153 Operational
Concourse A (West) 422,742 Operational
Parking Garage 241,872 Operational
Terminal Roadway System 110,343 Operational
Concourse A (East) 389,078 Q2 2023 (west half)
Q4 2023 (east half)
Terminal Apron, Fuel Hydrant System, and
Taxilanes 277,360 Various
Miscellaneous Landside/Parking Lot
Improvements 9,143 Operational
Owner Reserve 57,378 Ongoing
Total $2,719,101
Notes: 1 Approximately $2.21 billion of project costs have been incurred through March 2021.
Amounts may not add because of rounding.
2 Includes baggage handling system
Source: Airport records, May 2021
The eastern section of Concourse A is currently under construction and the remaining portion of the TRP to be
completed. This facility continues the configuration of Concourse A and is comprised of approximately 376,000
square feet of space that will be contiguous with the terminal facility. Level 1 of the Concourse A will contain non-
public areas that accommodate airline operations offices and support areas, outbound and transfer baggage
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 107
facilities, storage facilities, and house MEP systems. Level 2 of the facility will serve as the main passenger
circulation level serving enplaning and deplaning passengers and will include passenger amenities such as
moving sidewalks and expanded food and beverage and retail concessions. In total, the eastern portion of
Concourse A will ultimately accommodate 22 aircraft gate positions.
The eastern section of Concourse A is currently planned to be completed by the fourth quarter of CY 2023.
Because of the substantial decreases in air traffic resulting from the impacts associated with the COVID-19
pandemic that have temporarily reduced the need for aircraft gates, the Department was able to accelerate the
demolition of its former airside concourses. The demolition of these former airside concourses has essentially
cleared the site for the development of Concourse A and simplified its construction phasing. The demolition of the
former facilities has accelerated the planned opening of all the aircraft gates on Concourse A by nearly two years.
4.4.2 The North Concourse Program
The NCP consists of a planned 31-gate midfield concourse on the north side of the drawing of which 21 gates
opened in October 2020. There is future capacity for an additional 15-gates (beyond the planned 31 gates) when
demand warrants, and the development of underground connecting tunnels from Concourse A. It is currently
estimated that the NCP will cost approximately $1.73 billion. Table 4-3 presents project costs of the NCP by
element in chronological order for when each element is planned to be operational. A description of the major
project elements of the NCP follows the table.
Table 4-3 NCP Project Costs by Element (thousands of dollars)
TRP Element Current Budget1 Planned CY Quarter of Operation
Concourse B (west) $398,450 Operational
Concourse B (east) 412,272 Q4 2024
Baggage Handling System 70,820 Phased
Central Tunnel 147,562 Q4 2024
Mid Concourse Tunnel 22,534 Operational
Apron/Taxilanes 355,471 Phased
Hydrant Fueling System 53,175 Phased
Concourse A (east) Modifications 89,363 Q4 2023
Concourse A (east) Hardstand/Rephase 95,306 Q4 2023
RON Airfield Pavement 9,436 Operational
BHS Cold Bag Storage 35,862 Q4 2023
Owners Reserve 42,622 Ongoing
Total $1,732,873
Notes: 1 Approximately $637.0 million of project costs have been incurred through March 2021.
Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records, May 2021
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
108 | Landrum & Brown
The first phase of the NCP was opened in October 2020, about one month after the terminal and the Concourse A
(west). This initial phase was the west portion of Concourse B and included 21 aircraft gate positions and
comprised approximately 361,000 square feet of space.
The second phase of the NCP will add an additional 10 aircraft gate positions. The second phase is planned to be
approximately 246,000 square feet of building space. The Central Tunnel connecting Concourse B to Concourse
A and terminal will be approximately 1,000 linear feet and will also be constructed during this phase. The Central
Tunnel will become the primary pedestrian access and the mid-concourse tunnel will be closed. This final phase
of the NCP is currently planned to be initially operational in the fourth quarter of CY 2024 and fully operational by
the fourth quarter of CY 2025.
As shown on Figure 4-3, there is additional area east of the NCP available for further buildout of a future
extension of Concourse B. It is currently estimated that an additional 15 aircraft gates could be built in this area as
future demand warrants.
4.4.3 New SLC Aircraft Gate Positions
Prior to construction of the New SLC, the Airport had 56 aircraft gates with loading bridges and 30 aircraft gates
without loading bridges on Concourse E. As described earlier, the Airport currently has 66 aircraft positions with
46 of these having loading bridge access to aircraft, and the remaining 20 positions on the remote aircraft
hardstand facility are without loading bridges. The construction phasing plan for the New SLC has been
developed to maintain active aircraft gate positions throughout construction. When completed, the New SLC is
planned to provide 78 aircraft gate positions at the Airport. Each of these gates will be served by a loading bridge
and is planned to accommodate the expected future aircraft fleet mix. As compared to today, the Airport is
planned to have 32 more loading bridge capable gates upon completion of the New SLC to accommodate future
requirements more efficiently and effectively. Table 4-4 presents the current plan for aircraft parking positions
through various phases of the New SLC construction.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 109
Table 4-4 Planned Aircraft Parking Positions During the New SLC Construction
Date Conc.
C
Conc.
D
Conc.
E1
Conc.
F2
Conc.
G3
Conc.
A
(west)
Conc.
A
(east)
Conc.
B
Hard-
Stand4
Total
with
LB5
Total
Before
Construction
of New SLC
13 13 30 22 8 0 0 0 0 56 86
Current 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 21 20 46 66
May 2023 0 0 0 0 0 25 4 21 20 50 70
November
2023 0 0 0 0 0 25 22 16 7 63 70
February
2024 0 0 0 0 0 25 22 21 7 68 75
October 2024 0 0 0 0 0 25 22 26 0 73 73
October 2025 0 0 0 0 0 25 22 31 0 78 78
Notes: 1 Concourse E did not provide loading bridge access to aircraft.
2 Formerly Concourse B
3 Formerly Concourse A
4 The aircraft hardstand does not provide loading bridge access.
5 Loading bridge (LB)
Source: Airport management records, accessed March 2021.
4.4.4 The New SLC Program Management Team
Program management for the New SLC is comprised of a selected staff of professionals chosen from 10
companies of which 41 personnel were engaged as of May 4, 2021. At the peak of construction 59 full-time
personnel were engaged. Pursuant to this approach, the Department maintains complete control as opposed to a
more typical approach where this responsibility is contracted to a firm or team of firms that provide this function
with their staff. The Department’s process allows it to select individuals from the pool of firms for each program
management position. In addition, the Department outlines key performance requirements for each of these
program management positions and has the ability to replace those not meeting appropriate performance
requirements. In such circumstances, the Department will request companies from the external pool to provide
potential candidates to be interviewed by the Department. The Department will then select the most qualified
individual from the pool of candidates. Key external program management staff, which lead the program
management team, include a Program Director, a Financial and Program Controls coordinator, and an Airline
Technical Representative.
The Program Director reports to the Department’s Executive Director and is responsible for the overall
implementation of the TRP. The lead architectural firm for the New SLC is HOK (formerly known as Helmuth,
Obata & Kassabaum, Inc.), which has multiple sub-consultant firms engaged on various engineering and design
efforts. In October 2013, the Department selected Holder-Big-D, A Joint Venture (HDJV) as the Construction
Manager at Risk (CMAR) for the TRP. HDJV is a joint venture between Holder Construction Company and Big-D
Construction. Big-D Construction is a local Salt Lake City based company and Holder Construction Company is
Georgia-based. In April 2017, the Department selected Austin Okland Aviation as the CMAR for the NCP. The
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
110 | Landrum & Brown
CMAR Contract with AOJV was not extended and AOJV has de-mobilized. HDJV has added the second phase of
the NCP to its existing CMAR.
The New SLC has been broken down into CGMP contracts between the Department, on behalf of the City, and
the CMAR. Each CGMP constitutes an amendment to the CMAR contract that provides that the CMAR will
construct the elements of the New SLC described in the scope of the applicable CGMP for a guaranteed
maximum price, within the schedule set forth in the CGMP and in accordance with the CMAR contract. The
CMAR contract also requires the CMAR, as applicable, to provide specified pre-construction and general
conditions services during its term. As of March 2021, approximately 100% of the TRP project costs and 79.1% of
the NCP project costs are subject to an executed CGMP.
Each CGMP is designed and bid separately. All subcontracts must be competitively awarded, and the
subcontracts are held by the CMAR, as applicable, and expressly provide that the Department has no contractual
relationship with the subcontractors. Before the Department enters into a CGMP, the Department’s Financial
Oversight Committee must approve the guaranteed maximum price and its Construction Committee must approve
the scope of the work of the CGMP and recommend to the Executive Director that the CGMP be approved and
executed. The CMAR contract provides for a formal dispute resolution process that must be undertaken in the
event of a disagreement between the Department and the CMAR, as applicable, before any legal action may be
commenced.
4.5 Other Capital Projects
Other Capital Projects currently anticipated by the Department to be undertaken or completed during the
projection period that are not part of the New SLC are shown in Exhibit A. Preliminary cost estimates for the Other
Capital Projects total approximately $308 million through FY 2028. Projects expected to be undertaken include
rehabilitation of taxiways as well as improvements at Tooele and South Valley Airports. It should be noted that
certain capital projects included in Other Capital Projects could be potentially deferred or not otherwise
undertaken by the Department during the projection period, depending on circumstances such as aviation
demand levels and availability of project funding. For purposes of this analysis, all such projects have been
incorporated in this Report and the accompanying financial tables to demonstrate the full financial effect of
undertaking all of the Other Capital Projects along with the New SLC.
4.5.1 Financial Impact for Other Capital Projects
Sources of funding for the Other Capital Projects are described below and presented on Exhibit A. The estimated
financial impacts of the Other Capital Projects are incorporated in this Report.
It is possible that during the projection period, the Department may consider other potential future Airport
improvements not planned at this time. However, it is assumed that the Department will only undertake
construction on any other potential future projects when demand warrants, necessary environmental reviews have
been completed, necessary approvals have been obtained, and associated project costs can be supported by a
reasonable level of Airport user fees or other discrete funding sources such as state and federal grants, PFCs,
Department funds, CFCs, and third-party funds.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 111
4.6 Plan of Finance
Exhibit A presents the total project costs along with estimated funding sources for the New SLC and Other Capital
Projects discussed previously in Chapter 3. These estimates are based on currently available information
regarding the estimated cost and timing of the New SLC and Other Capital Projects, and the estimated receipt of
federal, state, and other grants and other funds. As presented in Exhibit A, the TRP is estimated to cost
approximately $2.72 billion, the NCP is estimated to cost $1.73 billion, and the Other Capital Projects are
estimated to cost $308.1 million. Additional detail regarding the estimated funding sources for the New SLC and
Other Capital Projects is presented in this section.
4.6.1 Federal, State and Other Grants
The Department receives federal grants for Airport capital development under the FAA Airport Improvement
Program (AIP). The Department received AIP entitlement grants of approximately $3.8 million in FY 2020 based
on (1) levels of funding authorized and appropriated by Congress for the program, (2) the number of passengers
and amount of cargo at the Airport, and (3) a 75% reduction in entitlement grants associated with the
Department’s $4.50 PFC level. The Auxiliary Airports receive a total of approximately $150,000 in FAA AIP
entitlements per year per airport. The Department also receives AIP discretionary grants for specific projects
pursuant to grant applications for such funding, and FAA discretionary grant awards, which are a function of the
amounts authorized and appropriated by Congress and the FAA’s prioritization of competing projects.
As shown in Exhibit A, the Department expects to be able to fund a portion of its capital development with FAA
AIP and TSA grants. Approximately $203.9 million in federal grants are anticipated to fund a portion of the New
SLC and the Other Capital Projects.
4.6.2 Passenger Facility Charge Revenues
PFC revenues are used to pay for certain FAA-approved, PFC-eligible projects, either by using certain PFC
revenues to pay for approved project costs on a pay-as-you-go basis or by applying certain PFC revenues to pay
debt service associated with bonds used to fund approved projects. Pursuant to the Master Indenture, unless
otherwise provided in a Supplemental Indenture or a certificate of the City, PFC revenues are excluded from the
definition of Revenues, and therefore, are not pledged to the payment of debt service on the Bonds. However,
PFC revenues may still be applied to pay debt service on Bonds in two separate ways. First, the City may
designate specified PFC revenues as Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service. Passenger Facility
Charges Available for Debt Service are transferred to the Trustee and deposited directly into a City designated
Debt Service Fund to be used to pay debt service on a specific Series of Bonds. Secondly, the City can designate
specified PFC revenues as Pledged Passenger Facility Charges. Pledged Passenger Facility Charges are
transferred to the Trustee and deposited directly into a City designated Debt Service Fund to be used to pay debt
service on a specific Series of Bonds. For purposes of the Rate Covenant, Annual Debt Service on the Bonds
does not include principal or interest paid with PFC revenues that have been designated as Passenger Facility
Charges Available for Debt Service and/or Pledged Passenger Facility Charges. For the purposes of the financial
analysis for the Series 2018 Bonds, it is assumed that the City will designate certain PFC revenues as Passenger
Facility Charges Available for Debt Service and such PFC revenues will be used to pay a portion of the debt
service on the Series 2017 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, and additional bonds.
As of March 31, 2021, the Department is authorized by the FAA, to impose and use approximately $2.2 billion of
PFC revenues (at the $4.50 level) for various projects. The Department received an approval from the FAA on
June 3, 2020 for its amendment request to increase its PFC funding for the TRP by $72.3 million. The FAA’s
charge-expiration date is April 1, 2037. As of March 31, 2021, the Department had collected approximately $936.8
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
112 | Landrum & Brown
million of its total approved collection and had disbursed approximately $916.5 million on approved projects. The
Department received approval for its PFC Application number 16 in February 2016 for the TRP. The application
and subsequent amendment was approved at the PFC collection rate of $4.50 for a total approved use of
approximately $1.38 billion.
As presented in Exhibit A, the Department has planned for approximately $323.8 million of PFCs to fund TRP
project costs on a pay-as-you-go basis. At this time, the Department does not expect to fund any additional costs
of the TRP with PFC revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis. In addition, the Department intends to fund eligible debt
service for the TRP with a significant portion of its annual PFC collections into the foreseeable future.
4.6.3 Department Funds
The Department has historically used its internal funds from the operation of the Airport System to fund certain
projects in the CIP. Per the Master Indenture, any Revenues remaining in the Surplus Fund, after all obligations
have been satisfied, are available for use by the Department for any lawful Airport System purpose. Per the AUA,
the Department may include in airline rates and charges a cost for the use of Department funds (net of PFCs,
CFCs, grants, and other funding sources), along with imputed interest, that pay for capital development in airline
cost and revenue centers. This cost is referred to as Amortization in the AUA. The AUA specifically prohibits
Amortization to be included in airline rates and charges for Department funds paying for costs of the TRP. There
is no prohibition for the use of Amortization for NCP.
As presented in Exhibit A, the Department is currently planning to apply internally generated Department funds for
the New SLC of approximately $421.1 million. The Department intends to use approximately $294.8 million of
Department funds for Other Capital Projects.
4.6.4 Outstanding Bonds, Series 2021 Bonds, and Future Bonds
The remaining portions of the New SLC are planned to be funded with proceeds of Bonds. The Department has
issued the Series 2017 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, and plans to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to pay the costs
of implementing a portion of the New SLC. Currently, the Department also is planning to issue additional Bonds
over the next several years to fund remaining portions of the New SLC based on future timing and cash flow
needs. As presented on Exhibit A, approximately $925.7 million of Series 2017 Bonds proceeds (including interest
earnings) are being used to fund project costs of the New SLC, approximately $798.8 million of Series 2018
Bonds proceeds are planned to fund project costs of the New SLC, approximately $xxx million of Series 2021
Bonds proceeds are planned to fund project costs of the New SLC, and approximately $xxx million of future Bond
proceeds are expected to fund future project costs of the New SLC. The Department also uses its $300 million
Line of Credit as an interim funding source. Assumptions related to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and
future Bonds are provided in Section 5.5.
4.6.5 Customer Facility Charges
On July 1, 2011, the Department began requiring the rental car companies at the Airport to charge a customer
facility charge (CFC) to be used to pay, or to reimburse the Department, for capital costs for construction and
improvement of rental car facilities at the Airport. The CFC was initially $4.00, with the current rate of $5.00
effective July 1, 2012. The $5.00 CFC is a per transaction daily fee up to a maximum of 12 days and is collected
by the on‐airport rental car companies from each of their customers and subsequently remitted to the Department.
Although federal law does not restrict the use of CFCs, a City ordinance restricts the use of CFCs to finance
capital improvements at the Airport that support rental car services, including a pro rata share of joint use
infrastructure such as roadways, the portions of the Parking Garage needed for ready/return facilities, funding
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 113
debt service associated with rental car facilities or funding the City’s costs for such other rental car related
purposes as the City may determine. The City currently does not expect to apply proceeds of Bonds to finance
rental car facilities or, accordingly, to pay debt service on Bonds with CFCs. CFCs are not included in Revenues.
The Department is applying the CFC revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis to fund eligible rental car portions of the
TRP. As shown on Exhibit A, the Department intends to fund approximately $200.0 million of rental car-related
improvements of the TRP from CFC revenues. The Department has expended approximately $194.5 million of
CFC eligible project costs through March 2021. The Department has already constructed the QTA, RSS, rental
car portion of the parking garage, and rental care portion of the Gateway Center, and has used available CFCs
and Department cash to fund these projects. The Department intends to reimburse its internal cash expenditures
on these elements of the TRP from CFC revenues as they become available.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
114 | Landrum & Brown
5 Financial Framework and Analysis
This Chapter discusses the financial framework for the Airport System, including an overview of the governing
body, management structure of the Department, financial structure including Airport System cost centers, certain
obligations of the Master Indenture, and certain provisions contained in the AUA (defined herein) and in other key
agreements at the Airport System. Additionally, the Department’s plan for funding sources, including the use of
proceeds of the Series 2017 Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, the planned Series 2021 Bonds, and future Bonds,
along with Debt Service projections, Operating Expenses, Revenues projections, debt service coverage, and
other key financial analyses are described in this Chapter.
Exhibits contained at the end of this Chapter present results for FY 2020, and projections for FY 2021 through FY
2028, also referred to as the projection period.
5.1 Airport Governing Body
The Airport System is operated and managed by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, a department of the
City. The Mayor of the City, the City Council and the 11-member Airport Advisory Board of citizen volunteers
oversee its affairs. In February 1976, the City created the Airport Advisory Board to provide advice with respect to
broad matters of policy affecting the operation of the Airport System. All actions taken by the Airport Advisory
Board constitute recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor has the power to review any action submitted by the
Airport Advisory Board.
5.2 Management Structure
The day-to-day operations of the Airport System are managed by the Executive Director, who reports directly to
the Mayor. The Executive Director, appointed by the Mayor, leads the management staff of the Department along
with the Department’s Division Directors. Ten Division Directors of the Department lead the following nine
Divisions: Operations; Maintenance; Finance; Engineering; Planning and Environmental; Administration and
Commercial Services; Communication and Marketing; Information Technology; and Operational Readiness,
Activation, and Transition for the New SLC. The executive team of the Department is a full-time staff of
professional and technical personnel located at the Airport.
5.3 Financial Structure
The Department’s Airport System includes the Airport and the Auxiliary Airports, general aviation airports owned
by the City and operated by the Department. For accounting purposes, the Airport System is operated as an
independent enterprise fund of the City and is separate from other City enterprises. As described in Section 4.3.2
below, funds deposited into the Revenue Account are not commingled with any other funds of the City and are
used and applied only in the manner as specified in the Master Indenture. A discussion of the application of
revenues is also described below.
The Department funds its operation of the Airport System with revenues generated from Airport System rentals,
fees, and charges. The Airport System is financially self-sustaining with Revenues generated from airline and
other tenant fees, grants, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), rental car CFCs, concession fees, and other
Revenues of the Airport System. Capital improvements at the Airport System are funded by the Department with:
(1) federal, state, and other grants-in-aid, (2) Revenues generated from Airport System rentals, fees and charges;
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 115
(3) Airport System revenue bond proceeds; (4) PFC revenues, (5) CFC revenues, and (6) other Department
funds.
5.3.1 Accounting Structure
Pursuant to the AUA for the Airport, the Department has created various cost and revenue centers and cost
centers for the purpose of accounting for and allocating costs and revenues of the Airport System in order to
establish airline rates and charges for the use of the Airfield and the Terminal. Per the AUA, the airline cost and
revenue centers are referred to as the Airfield Cost and Revenue Center and the Terminal Cost and Revenue
Center. In addition to the two-airline cost and revenue centers, the Department also allocates costs and revenues
to five other Department cost centers and two indirect cost centers. Landside, General Aviation, Support Areas,
Auxiliary Airports, and Other comprise the other direct Department cost and revenue centers. The General
Administration and Roads cost centers are the Department’s indirect cost centers, which are allocated to the
direct cost centers. As described below, rate-setting at the Airport is a hybrid methodology, where Landing Fees
are calculated on a residual basis and the Terminal Rents are calculated on a commercial compensatory basis. In
the Airfield Cost and Revenue Center, the Signatory Airlines have the primary responsibility and risk and benefit
from non-airline revenues. In the Terminal Cost and Revenue Center, the Department and the Signatory Airlines
share the responsibility and risk. The AUA also has an adjustment-to-actual provision that sets a process for the
reconciliation of rates and charges with the Signatory Airlines at the end of each FY.
The Airfield Cost and Revenue Center and Terminal Cost and Revenue Center include allocated shares of
Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays, debt service, amortization charges, Rolling Coverage Amount
requirements, O&M Reserve Requirements, Renewal and Replacement Requirements, other required reserve
deposits, and Revenues. The Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018 Bonds are payable from the Airport System
Net Revenues from all Cost and Revenue Centers of the Department.
Direct Cost and Revenue Centers:
Airfield Cost and Revenue Center: The cost and revenue center to which revenues and expenses
associated with those portions of the Airport providing for the landing, taking off, and taxiing of aircraft,
including without limitation approach and turning zones, clear zones, avigation or other easements,
runways, a fully integrated taxiway system, runway and taxiway lights, GSE storage areas, remote aircraft
parking aprons, and other appurtenances related to the aeronautical use of the Airport, including any
airfield property purchased for noise or other environmental mitigation purposes.
Terminal Cost and Revenue Center: The cost and revenue center to which revenues and expenses
associated with the Terminal buildings and Terminal Aircraft Aprons including but not limited to aircraft
gates, ticket counters, baggage claim areas, baggage make up areas, security checkpoint areas, office
space, storage areas, concourses, lobbies, VIP lounges, the IAB, employee break rooms and public
areas located within terminal building at the Airport. Terminal Aircraft Aprons include those areas of the
Airport that primarily are designated for parking of passenger aircraft and support vehicles and the
loading and unloading of passenger aircraft.
Landside Cost and Revenue Center: The cost center and revenue center to which revenues and
expenses associated with areas and facilities accommodating ground transportation, including Terminal
public access roadways and curbside, public automobile and employee parking facilities, rental car
operations, and taxi and transportation network companies (TNCs).
General Aviation: The cost and revenue center to which revenues and expenses associated with
general aviation areas and facilities provided at the Airport. These include, but are not limited to, hangar,
building, land and space rentals and fuel flowage fees.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
116 | Landrum & Brown
Support Areas: The cost and revenue center to which revenues and expenses associated with, but not
limited to, Airport support areas are allocated. These include flight kitchens, non-terminal buildings, cargo
ramps, and other areas.
Auxiliary Airports: The cost and revenue center to which revenues and expenses associated with areas
and facilities provided at the Auxiliary Airports. These include, but are not limited to, hangar, building, land
and space rentals and fuel flowage fees.
Other: The cost and revenue center to which revenues and expenses associated with areas and facilities
leased or provided for air cargo activities, improved land and buildings, and unimproved land.
Indirect Cost Centers
General Administration: Expenses associated with salaries, benefits, materials, and supplies of the
Airport’s administrative staff and not attributable to any Direct Cost and Revenue Center but allocated
among all cost centers for purposes of rate making.
Roads: Expenses associated with Airport roadways are allocated to the Department’s Direct Cost and
Revenue Centers.
5.3.2 Master Indenture
The Master Trust Indenture, referred to as the Master Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2017 by and between
the City and Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee authorizes the issuance of airport revenue bonds
to pay the costs of acquiring and constructing Airport System improvements, among other items. The Series 2017
and Series 2018 Bonds were issued pursuant to the Master Indenture and the First and Second Supplemental
Trust Indentures and the Series 2021 Bonds are being issued pursuant to the provisions of the Master Indenture
and the Third Supplemental Trust Indenture to be dated as of Month day, 2021, referred to as the Third
Supplemental Indenture, by and between the City and the Trustee. The Master Indenture, the First Supplemental
Trust Indenture, the Second Supplemental Indenture and the Third Supplemental Indenture are collectively
referred to as the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds are payable solely from the Net Revenues of the Airport
System, certain funds and accounts held by the Trustee under the Indenture, and other amounts payable under
the Indenture. As of July 2, 2021, the Department had $1.849 billion of Bonds Outstanding.
Pursuant to the Master Indenture, the City has pledged Net Revenues to the payment of the Bonds issued
thereunder. Net Revenues are all Revenues of the Airport System remaining after payment of Operation and
Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System. Revenues include, among other things, all amounts derived from
all rates, tolls, fees, rentals, charges and any other payments collected, or received by the City in connection with
the operation of the Airport System, any amounts designated as Other Pledged Revenues pursuant to the
procedures in the Master Indenture, and all investment income earned by the City on such Revenues except as
otherwise expressly provided in the Master Indenture.
Flow of Funds
The Master Indenture established certain funds and accounts and the priority for the flow of Revenues and certain
other amounts to such funds and accounts, as described below. Figure 5-1 illustrates the flow of funds as set
forth in the Master Indenture.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 117
Figure 5-1 Flow of Funds
Source: Master Indenture
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
118 | Landrum & Brown
As long as there are Outstanding Bonds, all Revenues are required to be deposited into the Revenue Account,
which is administered by the Department on behalf of the City. Revenues will be set aside for the payment of the
following amounts or deposited or transferred to the following funds, accounts and subaccounts in the following
order of priority:
1. Operation and Maintenance Subaccount
2. Debt Service Funds
3. Common Debt Service Reserve Fund and Series Debt Service Reserve Funds
4. Subordinate Obligation Debt Service
5. Subordinate Obligation Debt Service Reserve Funds
6. Operation and Maintenance Reserve Subaccount
7. Renewal and Replacement Subaccount
8. Rolling Coverage Account
9. Surplus Fund
Rate Covenant
In the Master Indenture, the City covenants, while any Bonds are Outstanding, to establish, fix, prescribe, and
collect rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges in connection with the Airport System and for services rendered in
connection therewith, so that Revenues in each FY will be at least equal to the following amounts:
Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System due and payable during such FY
the Annual Debt Service on any Outstanding Bonds required to be funded by the City in such FY as
required by the Master Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture with respect to the Outstanding Bonds;
the required deposits to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund or any Series Debt Service Reserve
Fund which may be established by a Supplemental Indenture;
the reimbursement owed to any Credit Provider or Liquidity Provider as required by a Supplemental
Indenture;
the interest on and principal of any indebtedness of the Department required to be funded during such
FY, other than for Outstanding Bonds, but including Subordinate Obligations; and
funding of any debt service reserve funds created with respect to any indebtedness of the Department,
other than Outstanding Bonds, but including Subordinate Obligations.
The City also covenants and agrees that it shall establish, fix, prescribe and collect rates, tolls, fees, rentals and
charges in connection with the Airport System and for services rendered in connection therewith, so that during
each FY the Net Revenues, together with any Transfer from the Rolling Coverage Account, will be equal to at
least 125% of Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds for such Fiscal Year. The amount of any Transfer
from the Rolling Coverage Account taken into account shall not exceed 25% of Annual Debt Service on the
Outstanding Bonds in such FY. When calculating Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds for purposes of
the rate covenants described above, Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds shall be reduced by the
amount of principal and/or interest paid with Capitalized Interest, Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt
Service and/or Pledged Passenger Facility Charges.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 119
Additional Bonds
Pursuant to the Master Indenture, the Department is authorized to issue additional Bonds, subject to meeting
certain conditions. To issue such Bonds, including the Series 2021 Bonds, the Department must provide either:
(i) a certificate, dated as of a date between the date of pricing of the Bonds being issued and the date of
delivery of such Bonds (both dates inclusive), prepared by an Authorized City Representative
showing that the Net Revenues for the last audited FY or any 12 consecutive months out of the most
recent 18 consecutive months immediately preceding the date of issuance of the proposed Series of
Bonds, together with any Transfer for the most recently ended Fiscal Year, were at least equal to
125% of Maximum Aggregate Annual Debt Service with respect to all Outstanding Bonds and the
proposed Series of Bonds, calculated as if the proposed Series of Bonds were then Outstanding; or
(ii) a certificate, dated as of a date between the date of pricing of the Bonds being issued and the date of
delivery of such Bonds (both dates inclusive), prepared by a Consultant, nationally recognized as an
expert in the area of air traffic and airport financial analysis, showing that:
(A) the Net Revenues for the last audited Fiscal Year or for any 12 consecutive months out of the most
recent 18 consecutive months immediately preceding the date of issuance of the proposed Series of
Bonds, together with any Transfer for the most recently ended Fiscal Year, were at least equal to
125% of the sum of the Annual Debt Service due and payable with respect to all Outstanding Bonds
for such applicable period; and
(B) for the period from and including the first full Fiscal Year following the issuance of such proposed
Series of Bonds, during which no interest on such Series of Bonds is expected to be paid from the
proceeds thereof, through and including the later of: (1) the fifth full Fiscal Year following the issuance
of such Series of Bonds, or (2) the third full Fiscal Year during which no interest on such Series of
Bonds is expected to be paid from the proceeds thereof, the estimated Net Revenues, together with
any estimated Transfer, for each such Fiscal Year, will be at least equal to 125% of the Aggregate
Annual Debt Service for each such Fiscal Year with respect to all Outstanding Bonds and calculated
as if (1) the proposed Series of Bonds were then Outstanding, and (2) any future Series of Bonds
which the City estimates will be required to complete payment of the estimated costs of construction
of such portion of the Specified Project and any other uncompleted portion of the Specified Project
from which the Consultant projects additional Revenues will be generated were then Outstanding.
For purposes of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) above, the amount of any Transfer taken into account shall not exceed
25% of the Aggregate Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds and the proposed Series of Bonds. The
City will be required to meet this test with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds. L&B is providing this Report along
with a certificate described in clause (ii) above with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds.
PFC Revenues used to pay Debt Service
Revenues do not include PFCs. However, PFCs may still be used to pay the principal of and interest on Bonds in
two separate ways under the Master Indenture. The City may designate specified PFCs as Passenger Facility
Charges Available for Debt Service or as Pledged Passenger Facility Charges. Any PFCs designated as
Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service or as Pledged Passenger Facility Charges will be
deposited directly to the Debt Service Fund or Funds directed by the City and will be used to pay debt service on
the applicable Series of Bonds. The City expects, to the extent approved by the FAA, to designate certain PFCs
as Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service and to use such PFCs to pay a portion of the debt
service on Outstanding Bonds, the planned Series 2021 Bonds, and certain of the Bonds to be issued in the
future. The City does not have any current plans to designate any PFCs as Pledged Passenger Facility Charges.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
120 | Landrum & Brown
When calculating debt service for purposes of the rate covenant set forth in the Master Indenture and the
additional bonds test set forth in the Master Indenture, debt service is reduced by the amount of PFCs, whether
designated as Pledged Passenger Facility Charges Available for Debt Service or as Pledged Passenger Facility
Charges, used or expected to be used, as applicable, to pay debt service on Outstanding Bonds, Series 2021
Bonds, or any additional Bonds.
5.3.3 Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture
The Master Subordinate Trust Indenture, referred to as the Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture, dated as of
March 1, 2021, by and between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as Subordinate Trustee
(the “Subordinate Trustee”), authorizes the issuance of Subordinate Obligations to pay the costs of acquiring and
constructing Airport System Improvements, among other items. Pursuant to the Subordinate Obligation Trust
Indenture, Subordinate Obligations will be secured by a pledge of and lien on Subordinate Revenues.
Subordinate Revenues include Net Revenues less all amounts required to pay debt service and reserve
replenishment on and related to the Bonds.
Rate Covenant
In the Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture, the City covenants, while any Subordinate Obligations are
Outstanding, to establish, fix, prescribe, and collect rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges in connection with the
Airport System and for services rendered in connection therewith, so that Revenues in each FY will be at least
equal to the following amounts:
Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System due and payable during such FY
the principal of and interest on any outstanding Bonds required to be funded by the City in such FY as
required by the Master Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture with respect to the Outstanding Bonds;
the required deposits to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund or any Series Debt Service Reserve
Fund;
the reimbursement owed to any Credit Provider or Liquidity Provider as required by a Supplemental
Indenture;
the annual debt service on any outstanding Subordinate Obligations required to be funded by the City in
such FY as required by the Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture or any supplemental subordinate
obligation indenture with respect to the outstanding Subordinate Obligations;
the required deposits to any debt service reserve fund which may be established by a supplemental
subordinate obligation indenture;
the reimbursement owed to any credit provider or liquidity provider as required by a supplemental
Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture;
the interest on and principal of any indebtedness of the City with respect to the Department of Airports
required to be funded during such Fiscal Year, other than for Outstanding Bonds and outstanding
Subordinate Obligations; and
funding of any debt service reserve funds created with respect to any indebtedness of the Department,
other than Outstanding Bonds and Subordinate Obligations.
The City further covenanted that it shall establish, fix, prescribe and collect rates, tolls, fees, rentals and charges
in connection with the Airport System and for services rendered in connection therewith, so that during each FY
the Subordinate Revenues, together with any transfer, will be equal to at least 115% of annual debt service on the
outstanding Subordinate Obligations for such FY. For purposes of this subsection (b), the amount of any transfer
taken into account shall not exceed 15% of annual debt service on the outstanding Subordinate Obligations in
such Fiscal Year. When calculating the principal and interest due on the Bonds for purposes of the Rate
Covenant pursuant to the Master Indenture, such principal and interest shall be reduced by the amount of
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 121
principal and/or interest paid with Capitalized Interest and Passenger Facility Charges. Additionally, when
calculating annual debt service on the outstanding Subordinate Obligations for purposes of the rate covenants,
annual debt service on the outstanding Subordinate Obligations shall be reduced by the amount of principal
and/or interest paid with capitalized interest, Passenger Facility Charges available for debt service and/or pledged
Passenger Facility Charges.
Additional Subordinate Obligations
Additional Subordinate Obligations may be issued under the Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture on parity with
outstanding Subordinate Obligations, provided, among other things, there shall be delivered to the Subordinate
Trustee either:
(i) a certificate, dated as of a date between the date of pricing of the Subordinate Obligations being
issued and the date of delivery of such Subordinate Obligations (both dates inclusive), prepared by an
authorized city representative showing that the Subordinate Revenues for the last audited FY or any 12
consecutive months out of the most recent 18 consecutive months immediately preceding the date of
issuance of the proposed series of Subordinate Obligations, together with any transfer for the most
recently ended FY, were at least equal to 115% of maximum aggregate annual debt service with respect
to all outstanding Subordinate Obligations and the proposed series of Subordinate Obligations, calculated
as if the proposed series of Subordinate Obligations were then outstanding; or
(ii) a certificate, dated as of a date between the date of pricing of the Subordinate Obligations being
issued and the date of delivery of such Subordinate Obligations (both dates inclusive), prepared by a
consultant, nationally recognized as an expert in the area of air traffic and airport financial analysis,
showing that:
(A) the Subordinate Revenues for the last audited FY or for any 12 consecutive months out
of the most recent 18 consecutive months immediately preceding the date of issuance of the
proposed series of Subordinate Obligations, together with any transfer for the most recently
ended FY, were at least equal to 115% of the sum of the annual debt service due and payable
with respect to all outstanding Subordinate Obligations for such applicable period; and
(B) for the period from and including the first full FY following the issuance of such proposed
series of Subordinate Obligations during which no interest on such series of Subordinate
Obligations is expected to be paid from the proceeds thereof through and including the later of:
(1) the fifth full FY following the issuance of such series of Subordinate Obligations, or (2) the
third full Fiscal Year during which no interest on such series of Subordinate Obligations is
expected to be paid from the proceeds thereof, the estimated Subordinate Revenues, together
with any estimated Transfer, for each such FY, will be at least equal to 115% of the aggregate
annual debt service for each such Fiscal Year with respect to all outstanding Subordinate
Obligations and calculated as if (y) the proposed series of Subordinate Obligations were then
outstanding, and (z) any future series of Subordinate Obligations which the City estimates will be
required to complete payment of the estimated costs of construction of such portion of the
specified project and any other uncompleted portion of the specified project from which the
consultant projects additional Revenues will be generated were then outstanding.
For purposes of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) above, the amount of any transfer taken into account shall not
exceed 15% of the aggregate annual debt service on the outstanding Subordinate Obligations, the
proposed series of Subordinate Obligations and any future series of Subordinate Obligations included
pursuant to subparagraph (ii)(B)(z) of the previous paragraph.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
122 | Landrum & Brown
For purposes of subsections (ii)(B) above, in estimating Subordinate Revenues, the consultant may take
into account (1) Revenues from specified projects or other Airport Facilities reasonably expected to
become available during the period for which the estimates are provided, (2) any increase in fees, rates,
charges, rentals or other sources of Revenues which have been approved by the City and will be in effect
during the period for which the estimates are provided, and (3) any other increases in Revenues which
the consultant believes to be a reasonable assumption for such period. With respect to Operation and
Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System, the consultant shall use such assumptions as the
consultant believes to be reasonable, taking into account: (x) historical Operation and Maintenance
Expenses of the Airport System, (y) Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System
associated with the specified projects and any other new Airport Facilities, and (z) such other factors,
including inflation and changing operations or policies of the City, as the consultant believes to be
appropriate. The consultant shall include in the certificate or in a separate accompanying report the
calculations and assumptions made in determining the estimated Subordinate Revenues and shall also
set forth the calculations of aggregate annual debt service, which calculations may be based upon
information provided by another Consultant.
In certain circumstances, neither of the certificates described above under subsection (a) shall be required for the
issuance of additional Subordinate Obligations. For instance, if Subordinate Obligations are being issued for the
purpose of refunding then outstanding Subordinate Obligations and there is delivered to the Subordinate Trustee,
instead, a certificate of an authorized city representative or a consultant showing that maximum aggregate annual
debt service after the issuance of such refunding, Subordinate Obligations will not exceed maximum aggregate
annual debt service prior to the issuance of such refunding Subordinate Obligations.
5.3.4 Airline Use Agreement
The Department entered into 10-year AUA with the Signatory Airlines operating at the Airport effective July 1,
2014. This original AUA is effective through June 30, 2024. As described below, the Department offered an
extension of the AUA through June 30, 2034, which has been executed by Delta. The AUA establishes, among
other things, procedures for setting and adjusting rentals, rates, fees and charges to be collected for the use of
Airport facilities. The Signatory Airlines at the Airport include the following: Alaska, American, Delta, Frontier,
JetBlue, Southwest and United. Together, the Signatory Airlines and their respective regional affiliates accounted
for approximately 99.6% of enplaned passengers at the Airport in FY 2018.
In May 2018, the Department offered a 10-year extension to the AUA to all the Signatory Airlines operating at the
Airport. This extends all existing terms and conditions of the AUA through June 30, 2034. Delta is the only airline
that has executed the 10-year AUA extension. However, Delta is the largest airline operating at the Airport with
approximately 70% of the enplaned passengers in FY 2018. At this time, no other airlines have executed the AUA
extension; however, the Department is currently in discussions with the other Signatory Airlines regarding their
execution of the AUA extension.
The AUA governs airline use of certain Airport facilities, including Airfield, Terminal, Aircraft Aprons, baggage
claim, ticket counters and gate areas and permits the Signatory Airlines to lease Exclusive Use Premises,
Preferential Use Premises, and Joint Use Premises. Exclusive Premises generally includes office space, storage
areas, airline club lounges, and employee break rooms; and Preferential Use Premises is Airport space, including
holdroom areas and gates, ticket counters, and certain baggage makeup areas, leased to a Signatory Airline and
to which the Signatory Airline has a higher and continuous priority of use over all other air carriers. Joint Use
Premises generally includes baggage claim areas and baggage makeup equipment.
The key provisions of the AUA are summarized in the following sections and are used as the basis for projecting
airline revenues for this Report.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 123
Airline Rate-Setting Methodology
As described earlier in this Chapter, the Airport has been segregated into seven direct cost and revenue centers
and two indirect cost centers for the purposes of setting rates and charges: two cost centers associated with the
airlines’ operations and five other Department cost and revenue centers. The cost centers associated with the
airlines are the Airfield Cost and Revenue Center and the Terminal Cost and Revenue Center, each of which are
direct cost and revenue centers, plus their allocated portions of the indirect cost centers. The Department’s other
five direct cost and revenue centers are Landside, General Aviation, Support, Auxiliary Airports, and Other, plus
their allocated portions of the indirect cost centers.
Landing Fees under the AUA are calculated on an Airfield Cost and Revenue Center residual basis where the
Signatory Airlines are required to guarantee the total requirement. The cost of Capital Investments allocable to the
Airfield, including debt service on Bonds or amortization of Department equity, may be included in the calculation
of the Landing Fees upon approval from at least one Signatory Airline. Terminal Rents under the AUA are
calculated on a commercial compensatory basis where the Signatory Airlines essentially pay rent for only the
space they lease. The cost of Capital Investments allocable to the Terminal, including debt service on Bonds or
amortization of Department equity, may be included in the calculation of the Terminal Rents upon approval from
at least one Signatory Airline. The Capital Investment costs associated with the New SLC, including debt service
on Bonds, has received the required approvals from the Signatory Airlines pursuant to the AUA.
The AUA allows for the annual calculation and adjustment of Landing Fees and Terminal Rents each FY, using
budgeted aviation activity, expenses, and non-airline revenues. The Department may also adjust Landing Fees
and Terminal Rents during the current FY if certain conditions warrant an adjustment per the AUA. The AUA also
allows for a final adjustment of Landing Fees, Terminal Rents, and Revenue Sharing credits after the annual audit
of Department records. Any resulting Adjustment-to-Actual resulting from the final settlement is included in the
budget for the second subsequent FY and included as part of the calculation of Landing Fees and Terminal Rents
for such FY.
Revenue Sharing
The AUA provides for the sharing of certain concession revenues, excluding parking, with the Signatory Airlines
(Revenue Sharing). All Revenue Sharing is applied directly to each Signatory Airline based on a credit of $1 per
enplaned passenger for up to 10 million enplaned passengers carried by all Signatory Airlines at the Airport. If
during any FY, the Signatory Airlines collectively carry more than 10 million enplaned passengers, the
Department will provide an additional enhancement to Revenue Sharing for only those enplaned passengers that
exceed the 10 million base; provided, however, that the total revenue sharing amount in any FY cannot exceed
the least of (i) 30% of Net Remaining Revenue; (ii) the total amount of Annual Adjusted Gross Revenues for
Selected Concessions; and (iii) the Calculated Revenue Sharing Amount. The Department’s obligation to provide
Revenue Sharing to the Signatory Airlines in a given FY shall be solely from annual adjusted gross revenues for
selected concessions for such FY. Exhibit G following this Chapter presents the Department’s Revenue Sharing
methodology pursuant to the AUA.
Throughout the FY, budgeted Revenue Sharing amounts are applied uniformly as a monthly credit to Signatory
Airlines’ invoices for Terminal Rents. For budgeting purposes, the Department applies only 95% of forecast
Revenue Sharing amounts throughout the FY. Revenue Sharing Adjustments-to-Actual are performed after the
end of the FY during the annual settlement process described above.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
124 | Landrum & Brown
Department Cost Centers
The Department’s non-airline Cost and Revenue Centers are not subject to an airline rate-setting methodology.
Airport Revenues generated in these Cost and Revenue Centers can be used by the Department to meet various
obligations or be used for other authorized Airport System-related purposes. The Department bears the
responsibility and risk for the Department’s non-airline Cost and Revenue Centers. The TRP
The AUA also contemplated the development of the TRP during the course of their term. Section 10.06 of the
AUA specifies special provisions regarding the TRP including memorializing that the Signatory Airlines have
approved and support the TRP and that the Department will use reasonable efforts to achieve the shared goal of
a target airline cost per enplaned passenger. Additional provisions regarding the TRP include procedures for
designating an airline technical representative, the development of contract documents, estimated costs and
potential budget overruns, change orders, the notice of claims, and for funding the development of the TRP
including best efforts to fund the project with federal and state grants, PFCs, CFCs, and the use of Bonds.
Signatory Airline Approval of Capital Improvement Projects
The Department and the Signatory Airlines agreed in the AUA that costs of certain Capital Investments are
subject to Signatory Airline consideration. Section 10.02 of the AUA specifies that no costs or amortization of
Capital Investments, including debt service on Bonds, shall be charged to the Signatory Airlines in Landing Fees
or Terminal Rents for any Capital Investments in the Airfield Cost and Revenue Center or in the Terminal Cost
and Revenue Center, respectively, unless at least one of the Signatory Airlines has approved such Capital
Investments. In the event the Department decides to undertake a Capital Investment in these airline Cost and
Revenue Centers, the Department and representatives from the Signatory Airlines shall meet to discuss the
methods for amortizing or allocating any associated Bonds debt service along with the associated impacts to the
Landing Fees and/or Terminal Rents resulting from such Capital Investment.
The Department has received all required approvals from the Signatory Airlines to undertake the capital
development projects described herein including the NCP, and to include debt service, including the Series 2017
Bonds, the Series 2018 Bonds, and additional bonds allocable to the Airfield Cost and Revenue Center and
Terminal Cost and Revenue Center in the calculation of Landing Fees and Terminal Rents, respectively.
The Department may implement, at any time, certain types of Capital Investments that are not subject to
Signatory Airline consideration. These include the following:
Projects mandated by the FAA, DOT, TSA, or similar government authority
Projects to repair casualty damage to Airport property that must be rebuilt or replaced in order for the City
to meet its obligations pursuant to the AUA, Master Indenture, or other agreements with lessees at the
Airport
Projects undertaken in Cost and Revenue Centers other than the Airfield Cost and Revenue Center and
the Terminal Cost and Revenue Center
Reasonable repairs, rebuilding, improvements or additions, including the associated costs therefor,
necessary to comply with the AUA or applicable law or to settle lawful claims, satisfy judgements, or
comply with judicial orders against City by reason of its ownership, operation, maintenance or use of the
Airport
Expenditures of any emergency nature which, if not made within 48 hours, would result in the closing of
any portion of the Airport
Projects funded directly or indirectly by PFCs, CFCs or grants; provided, however, that this provision shall
not be interpreted as a waiver of Signatory Airline consultation rights under applicable laws
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 125
Projects undertaken to satisfy the specific requirements of any Signatory Airline so long as such
Signatory Airline agrees to pay all increased rentals, fees, charges, and operating and maintenance costs
that are sufficient to cover annual debt service and operating and maintenance costs associated with the
project
Projects related to special purpose facilities for which the user agrees to pay or reimburse the Department
Extraordinary Coverage Protection
Section 8.11 of the AUA also contains an extraordinary coverage protection provision that allows for the
Department to collect additional payments from the Signatory Airlines to satisfy the Rate Covenant set forth in the
Master Indenture. These amounts collected from the Signatory Airlines, if ever required, are in addition to Landing
Fees and Terminal Rents and are to be allocated to the Signatory Airlines in a fair and not unjustly discriminatory
manner in the reasonable discretion of the Executive Director of the Department.
COVID-19 Financial Relief Measures
The significant declines in passenger traffic associated with the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative financial
impact on the airline industry as presented previously. The Department received requests for financial relief from
the airlines at the Airport early on during the COVID-19 pandemic. At its discretion to provide some relief to the
airlines, the Department deferred airline landing fees and terminal rents for April 2020, May 2020, and June 2020.
The repayment terms associated with the Department’s deferral of airline rentals and fees were 50% of the
balance in July 2020, and the remaining 50% in August 2020. The Department has received all outstanding
balances from the airlines under this deferral program. The Authority also provided short-term financing to build
out space in new facilities.
5.3.5 Other Principal Business Agreements
New in-terminal concession contracts commenced with the opening of the New SLC in the fall of 2020, and all
former contracts terminated at that time with the full demolition of the former facilities. In-terminal concession
contracts have been timed with the New SLC opening. New contracts constitute 59 locations in the initial phase
opening of the New SLC, with approximately 63% of locations developed and operational as of the spring of 2021.
Eight additional locations are under construction with openings planned to occur in the summer of 2021. The
remaining locations will open in the fall/winter of 2021, and in 2022 due to weakened demand and concessionaire
financial constraints caused by the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department intends to
issue a second request for proposals (RFP) for the next phase in-terminal concessions in the fall of 2021 for
openings to coincide with Concourse A (east) gates opening in the fall/winter of 2023, and a third RFP in the fall
of 2023 for openings to occur in 2025. Continuing on with practices in the initial phase, the Department intends to
award locations in packages of varying, albeit smaller sizes, to existing and new concessionaire partners with
successful proposals.
In regard to rental cars and as indicated previously, the following nine brands operate at the Airport: Alamo, Avis,
Budget, Dollar, Enterprise, Hertz, National, Payless, and Thrifty. All of these rental car companies pay privilege
fees and must collect and remit CFCs. The Department contracts with SP Plus Corporation to manage and
operate on-Airport automobile parking facilities. In addition, the Department has agreements with cargo facility
and fixed base operators and tenants leasing hangars and buildings.
Airport non-airline agreements have various terms and conditions. In general, the business terms of these
agreements are based on industry standards and practices. Additional summaries of key non-airline agreement
terms are provided below:
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
126 | Landrum & Brown
Terminal Food and Beverage Agreements:
Concession fees range between 15% and 22% of gross revenues
Minimum annual guarantee (MAG) equal to 90% of prior year percentage rents or 103% of prior year
MAG, whichever is greater
Total MAG amounts for 2021 are currently estimated at $5.4 million
New contracts were initially planned to commence with the opening of the New SLC facilities in
September 2020 and October 2020 for a term of 10 years, but were revised because of the COVID-19
pandemic impacts
Revised contracts will commence upon the sooner of achieving 90% of 2019 enplaned passenger levels
for three consecutive months or July 1, 2023
Revised contracts will terminate 10 years upon commencement with June 30, 2033 being the latest date
A second phase of concessions contracts is expected to be subject to a competitive process and
scheduled to open commensurate with the new facilities of the New SLC.
Terminal Retail Agreements:
Percentage rents range between 10% and 25% of gross revenues
MAG equal to 90% of prior year percentage rents or 103% of prior year MAG, whichever is greater
Total MAG amounts for 2021 are currently estimated at $5.2 million
New contracts were initially planned to commence with the opening of the New SLC facilities in
September 2020 and October 2020 for a term of eight years, but were revised because of the COVID-19
pandemic impacts
Revised contracts will commence upon the sooner of achieving 90% of 2019 enplaned passenger levels
for three consecutive months or July 1, 2023
Revised contracts will terminate eight years upon commencement with June 30, 2031 being the latest
date
A second phase of concessions contracts is expected to be subject to a competitive process and
scheduled to open commensurate with the new facilities of the New SLC.
Parking and Shuttle Management Agreement:
Includes automobile parking facilities, shuttle bus operations, and aircraft hardstand bus operations
Term of agreement with SP Plus Corporation is currently month-to-month
The Department currently plans to issue a request for proposal (RFP) and commence a new contract for
these services during the fall of 2021
Rental Car Concession Agreement:
Concession fees equal to 11.11% on all on-Airport customer contracts or the MAG, whichever is greater
annually
MAG equal to 85% of prior year gross revenues or 103% of prior year MAG, whichever is greater, and it
reset in September 2020 at the opening of new parking garage and continues at the greater value
through term
Total MAG amounts for 2021 are approximately $14.6 million
In addition to the MAG, each on-Airport rental car company will pay fair market value rent for the use of
the QTA, RSS, parking stalls, and customer service counters
Term of agreement is 10 years expiring on February 28, 2026
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 127
COVID-19 Financial Relief Measures
The significant declines in passenger traffic associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has also had a negative
financial impact on non-airline businesses at the Airport. In March 2020, former Governor Herbert ordered
restaurants and bars to suspend dine-in service. This order negatively affected full-service dine-in restaurants at
the Airport. In the early stages of the pandemic, many concessionaires closed or reduced operations at the
Airport.
The Department received requests for financial relief from Airport concessionaires, rental car companies, and
other non-airline tenants at the Airport. A summary of the measures the Department implemented are as follows:
In-Terminal Concessions:
Deferral of food and beverage and retail MAGs from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020 for
existing concession contracts expiring September 14, 2020 and October 26, 2020 when the former
terminals and airside concourses closed
Percent rent was only charged during the above deferral period; however, the annual settlement was
based on actual contract terms that contain MAG abatement provisions
Allowing new food and beverage and retail concession contracts that start on September 15, 2020 and
October 27, 2020 to pay percentage of rent (MAG deferral) until the Airport achieves 90% of 2019
enplaned passenger levels for three consecutive months or July 1, 2023, whichever occurs first
Extended terms of concession agreements to commence upon achieving 90% of 2019 enplaned
passengers levels over three consecutive months or July 1, 2023, whichever occurs first
Allowed concessionaires to complete build-outs of locations as the pandemic subsides and traffic returns
to pre-pandemic levels
Allowing temporary closures, reduced operating hours, and scaled back menus of concessionaires
without penalty
Provided short-term financing for the build-out of space in new facilities
Rental Cars:
Deferral of MAG from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020
Percent rent was only charged during the deferral period; however, the annual settlement was based on
actual contract terms that contain MAG abatement provisions
Provided additional overflow parking from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020
Provided short-term financing for the build-out of space in new facilities
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
128 | Landrum & Brown
5.3.6 CARES Act Grant Assistance
As described in Section 1.2 of this Report, the CARES Act was approved by the U.S. Congress and signed by
President Trump on March 27, 2020. It is one of the legislative actions taken to address the crisis associated with
the COVID-19 pandemic and includes among its relief measures direct aid in the form of grants for U.S. airports,
as well as direct aid, loans and loan guarantees for passengers and cargo airlines.
The CARES Act provides $10 billion of grant assistance to airports. It generally includes the following provisions:
$3.7 billion allocated among all U.S. commercial service airports based on number of enplanements in
CY 2018;
$3.7 billion allocated among all U.S. commercial service airports based on formulas that consider fiscal
year 2018 debt service relative to other U.S. commercial service airports, and cash-to-debt service ratios;
$2.0 billion apportioned in accordance with AIP entitlement formulas, subject to CARES Act formula
revisions;
$500 million to increase the federal share to 100% for FAA AIP grants awarded in FFY 2020; and
$100 million reserved for general aviation airports.
The FAA announced in April 2020 that it had allocated approximately $82.5 million to the Department for the
Airport System. The Department may draw on such funds, on a reimbursement basis, for any purpose for which
airport revenues may be lawfully used in accordance with FAA rules and regulations.
The Department used approximately $3.9 million of CARES Act funds in FY 2020 for the reimbursement of
Operating Expenses. For FY 2021, the Department is planning on using $66 million of CARES Act funds for the
reimbursement of Operating Expenses. The Department intends to apply its remaining balance of CARES Act
funds or approximately $12.6 million in FY 2022 for the reimbursement of Operating Expenses. For the purposes
of the Rate Covenant and the test for Additional Bonds pursuant to the Master Indenture, Operating Expenses net
of such reimbursement amounts are the amounts to be included in those calculations.
5.3.7 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation Act
On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 was signed. Division M of that Act is the
CRRSAA. Title IV of CRRSAA provides approximately $2 billion in economic relief to airports to prevent, prepare
for, and respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency, including relief from rent and MAGs for eligible airport
concessions at primary airports.
The FAA announced on February 12, 2021 that it had allocated approximately $23.4 million to the Department. Of
that amount, approximately $2.8 million must be used for concessionaire relief. Under the grant program, the
Department may use these funds to retain its workforce, make debt service payments, or offset increased
operational costs from enhanced mitigation efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19. Funds must be obligated by
September 30, 2021. The Department is planning to apply all of this funding except for the amounts obligated to
concession relief (approximately $20.6 million) for the reimbursement of Operating Expenses in FY 2022. As
described above, for the purposes of the Rate Covenant and the test for Additional Bonds pursuant to the Master
Indenture, Operating Expenses net of such reimbursement amounts are the amounts to be included in those
calculations.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 129
5.3.8 American Rescue Plan Act
On March 11, 2021, the President signed the ARPA, a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package designed to help
the United States’ economy recover from the adverse impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to other
economic relief, ARPA includes financial relief for certain eligible airports. For eligible airports, ARPA appropriates
$8 billion to assist such airports to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19, and such amounts remain
available until September 30, 2024. ARPA requires that, of the $8 billion appropriated, not more than $6.492
billion will be made available for primary airports such as the Airport (provided such airport has not been allocated
more than four years of operating funds to respond to COVID-19 in federal fiscal year 2020), for “costs related to
operations, personnel, cleaning, sanitation, janitorial services, combating the spread of pathogens at the airport,
and debt service payments.” ARPA further appropriates not more than $608 million to pay a federal share of one
hundred percent of the costs for any grant awarded in federal FY 2021 (or in federal FY 2020 with less than a one
hundred percent federal share) for any airport redevelopment project (as defined therein), and provides for not
more than $800 million for sponsors of primary airports to provide relief from rent and minimum annual
guarantees to airport concessions. Of such $800 million for airport concessions, ARPA requires that at least $640
million be made available for small airport concessions, and at least $160 million be made available for large
airport concessions located at primary airports. The allocation of amounts appropriated by ARPA has not yet been
announced, and the Department is not yet aware of the amount of funding the Airport will receive pursuant to
ARPA at this time. [to be updated]
It is important to note that the amounts and allocations by FY for the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA are still
preliminary at this time and are subject to change. The Department will continue to monitor its budgeted plan and
may, ultimately, apply a different amount of such funding at the Department’s discretion.
5.4 Debt Service
The Department plans to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to (1) fund a portion of the costs of the New SLC, (2) repay
the outstanding balance in the Line of Credit, (3) fund capitalized interest, (4) fund a deposit to the Common Debt
Service Reserve Fund, and (5) pay the costs of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds. Table 5-1 presents a listing
of estimated sources and uses of funds for the proposed Series 2021 Bonds. The estimated sources and uses of
funds and debt service for the proposed Series 2021 Bonds were prepared by the Department’s financial advisor,
PFM Financial Advisors LLC (PFM). Table 5-2 presents the estimated sources and uses for the Series 2021
Bonds and future Bonds currently estimated to be required to fund the remaining portions of the New SLC.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
130 | Landrum & Brown
Table 5-1 Series 2021 Bonds Estimated Sources and Uses (dollars in thousands)1 [TBP]
Sources Total
Par Amount of Series 2021 Bonds $
Premium
Total Sources $
Uses:
Construction Funds $
Repay Line of Credit
Capitalized Interest
Common Debt Service Reserve Fund
Cost of Issuance
Total Uses $
Notes: 1 Amounts in this table will not be updated to reflect the final terms of sale on the Series 2021 Bonds.
Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: PFM Financial Advisors LLC, month year
Table 5-2 Outstanding Bonds, Series 2021 Bonds and Future Bonds Estimated Sources and
Uses (dollars in thousands) [TBP]
Sources Outstanding Series 2021 Future Bonds Total
Par Amount of Bonds
Premium
Total Sources
Uses:
Construction Funds
Capitalized Interest
Common Debt Service Reserve Fund
Cost of Issuance
Total Uses
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: PFM Financial Advisors LLC, month year
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 131
Exhibit B presents annual Debt Service for the projection period of FY 2021 through 2028. Series 2017 Bonds
debt service, Series 2018 Bonds debt service, planned Series 2021 Bonds debt service, and future debt service,
net of capitalized interest, is projected to be approximately $239.8 million in FY 2025 upon completion of the New
SLC. Total annual debt service, net of PFC revenues applied to pay debt service on the Series 2017 Bonds, the
Series 2018 Bonds, Series 2021 Bonds, and future Bonds, is estimated to be approximately $190.3 million by FY
2025 when all elements of the New SLC are expected to be operational, and approximately $199.9xxx million by
FY 2028. Debt Service estimates were provided by PFM and are based on the assumptions included in Table 5-
3.
Table 5-3 Assumptions for the Series 2021 Bonds and Future Bonds [TBP]
Assumption Series 2021 Future Bonds
Issuance Date
Principal Amount
Project Fund Deposit
Bond Yield
Final Maturity
Source: PFM Financial Advisors LLC, month year
5.5 Operating Expenses
Table 5-4 presents historical Operating Expenses and capital outlays of the Department for the last four FYs or
for FY 2017 through FY 2021.73 This period has been chosen to present trends prior to the COVID-19 pandemic
(FY 2017 through FY 2019), trends immediately following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (FY 2020 versus
FY 2019), and estimated trends for a full year of COVID-19 pandemic impacts (FY 2021 versus FY 2020). For the
period of FY 2017 through FY 2019, total Operating Expenses increased from approximately $100.4 million in FY
2017 to approximately $108.1 million in FY 2019, a CAGR of approximately 3.8%. While the Department had
budgeted a significant increase in Operating Expenses in FY 2020 of $120.4 million primarily due to the upcoming
opening of the New SLC, it was able to stabilize Operating Expenses upon the arrival of the pandemic and limit
increases such that they increased by 4.0% to $112.4 million. In FY 2020, the Department applied approximately
$3.9 million of CARES Act grants to eligible Operating Expenses. [describe FY21 estimated]
The primary categories of Operating Expenses include salaries and benefits, materials and supplies, services,
other operating expenses, intergovernmental charges, and capital outlays less than $100,000. Additionally,
Exhibit C after this Chapter presents annual Operating Expenses of the Department for the Airport System for the
period of actual FY 2020 through projected FY 2028.
73 Data for FY 2021 is estimated based on partial year data.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
132 | Landrum & Brown
Table 5-4 Historical Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays (dollars in millions)1
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
20212
CAGR
17-19
CAGR
19-20
CAGR
20-21
Salaries and Benefits $48.3 $51.0 $48.7 $48.5 0.4% (0.4%)
Materials and Supplies 11.7 11.3 12.6 12.4 3.7% (1.8%)
Services3 29.9 30.1 29.2 27.8 (1.1%) (4.8%)
Other Operating Expenses4 3.6 3.3 2.8 3.0 (11.9%) 6.6%
Intergovernmental Charges 4.9 5.1 13.5 18.1 66.5% 33.8%
Capital Outlays 2.0 1.2 1.2 2.6 (20.1%) 109.5%
Total Operating Expenses &
Capital Outlays $100.4 $102.1 $108.1 $112.4 3.8% 4.0%
Federal Grants Credits5 0.0 0.0 0.0 (3.9) (66.0)
Net Operating Expenses &
Capital Outlays $100.4 $102.1 $108.1 $108.5 3.8% 0.4%
Notes: 1 Amounts shown are those included in airline rates and charges and may vary from the Department’s
financial reports for various reasons, including the treatment of non-cash items.
2 Estimated results
3 Includes utilities
4 Includes insurance premiums
5 Includes amounts allocated to the Airport from the CARES Act and CRRSA Act that were used to reimburse
the Department for eligible Operating Expenses.
Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records, April 2021
Key Operating Expenses categories and assumptions in projecting future growth are summarized below. These
categories account for about 95% of the Airport System’s total Operating Expenses for FY 2020.
Salaries and Benefits: This expense category includes salaries, wages, and benefits associated with
Department staff. It is the largest single category of Operating Expenses at the Airport System as it
represented approximately 43% of total Operating Expenses at the Airport System for FY 2020. As
presented above, these expenses increased at a CAGR of approximately 0.4% for the period FY 2017
through FY 2019. The Department was able to keep salaries and benefits expenses relatively flat in FY
2020 as compared to FY 2019 (-0.4%). [FY21 amounts] The City and the Department agreed to transfer
the Department’s police officers to the City’s Police Department in October 2018. These expenses for
police services are now categorized as Intergovernmental Charges, which accounts for the majority of
increases in that category and decreases in salaries and benefits as this change has been incorporated.
In FY 2022, these expenses are budgeted to increase by approximately xx% from FY 2021 (estimated) to
approximately $55.1 million. Salaries and Benefits expenses are projected to increase at a CAGR of 4.9%
from budget FY 2022 through FY 2028.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 133
Services: This expense category includes costs associated with the Department’s outsourcing for
janitorial services, maintenance contracts, professional services, other contractual services, and utilities at
the Airport System. It is the second largest category of Operating Expenses at the Airport System as it
represents approximately 25% of total Operating Expenses at the Airport for FY 2020. This category of
expenses decreased at a CAGR of approximately 1.1% for the period FY 2017 through FY 2019. In FY
2020, the Department was able to further decrease these expenses by 4.8% to $27.8 million. [FY21
amounts] For FY 2022, services expenses are budgeted to increase significantly to approximately $64.5
as maintenance contracts for the new terminal facilities and the busing operation for the aircraft hardstand
operation will be in place for an entire fiscal year. Future services Operating Expenses are projected to
increase at a CAGR of approximately 1.2% through FY 2028 reflecting the elimination of the aircraft
hardstand operation when the full New SLC is operational.
Materials and Supplies: Materials and supplies expenses of the Airport System comprise approximately
11% of total Operating Expenses for FY 2020. This category of expenses increased at a CAGR of
approximately 3.7% for the period FY 2017 through FY 2019. In FY 2020, the Department was able to
decrease these expenses by 1.8% to $12.4 million. [FY21 amounts] For FY 2022, materials and supplies
expenses are budgeted to increase by approximately xx% in to approximately $14.9 million. Future
material and supplies Operating Expenses are projected to increase at a CAGR of approximately 4.0%
through FY 2028.
Intergovernmental Charges: This expense category includes charges to the Department for the use of
aircraft rescue and firefighting services, the use of the City’s Police Department effective in October 2018,
and for other allocable costs for the use of City services. Intergovernmental charges expenses at the
Airport System comprise approximately 16% of total Operating Expenses at the Airport System for FY
2020. This category of expenses decreased at a CAGR of approximately 66.5% for the period FY 2017
through FY 2019 as the City’s Police Department services began to be accounted for here during this
period. In FY 2020, these expenses increased by another 33.8% to $18.1 million as it was the first full
year with the police accounting change. [FY21 amounts] For FY 2022, intergovernmental charges are
budgeted to increase by approximately xx% in to approximately $20.0 million. Future intergovernmental
Operating Expenses are projected to increase at a CAGR of approximately 2.3% through FY 2028.
Overall, the projection of Operating Expenses is based on historical trend reviews, the anticipated impacts of
inflation, the recovery from the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, projected activity levels, and
impacts associated with the New SLC and Other Capital Projects. Exhibit C presents Operating Expenses by
category and cost center through FY 2028. Total Operating Expenses are projected to increase at a CAGR of
approximately 3.4% over the projection period from budget FY 2022 to FY 2028.
5.6 Non-Airline Revenues
Table 5-5 presents historical non-airline revenues along with growth rates for the Airport System for the period of
FY 2017 to FY 2021.74 As shown for FY 2020, the three primary categories of non-airline revenues (e.g., auto
parking, car rental, and terminal concessions) accounted for approximately 70% of the Airport System’s total non-
airline revenues. Total non-airline revenues increased from approximately $106.7 million in FY 2017 to
approximately $117.4 million in FY 2019, for a CAGR of approximately 4.9% over this period. Additionally, non-
airline revenues per enplaned passenger remained flat over this period at approximately $8.96.
74 Data for FY 2021 is estimated based on partial year data as audited data is not available.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
134 | Landrum & Brown
The significant decline in passenger traffic at the Airport associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has also had a
major effect on non-airline revenues. In FY 2020, total non-airlines revenues declined from FY 2019 levels by
14.2% to $100.7 million. However, Airport non-airline revenues did not decrease as much as enplaned
passengers and total non-airline revenue per enplaned passenger increased during this period from $8.96 to
$9.97. [add FY21 info]
Exhibit D presents non-airline revenues at the Airport System for actual FY 2020, estimated FY 2021, budgeted
FY 2022, and projections for FY 2023 through FY 2028, including assumed incremental impacts associated with
the TRP and NCP. Non-airline revenues, including Airfield and Terminal offsets to airline rates and charges, are
budgeted at approximately $108.8 million in FY 2022 and are projected to increase to approximately $156.2
million in FY 2028. This increase in non-airline revenues between FY 2022 and FY 2028 represents a CAGR of
approximately 6.2%. In general, the projection of non-airline revenues is based on historical trend reviews,
projected activity levels, the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and impacts associated with the New SLC.
Non-airline revenues are further described in the following sections.
Table 5-5 Historical Airport Non-Airline Revenues (dollars in millions)
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
20211
CAGR
17-19
CAGR
19-20
CAGR
20-21
Auto Parking $34.3 $35.3 $36.3 $28.0 2.9% (22.9%)
Car Rental 27.2 29.2 29.9 25.4 4.8% (15.1%)
Terminal Concessions 18.1 19.2 20.5 16.7 6.4% (18.5%)
Other 27.1 30.2 30.7 30.6 6.4% (0.3%)
Total Non-Airline
Revenues1 $106.7 $113.9 $117.4 $100.7 4.9% (14.2%)
Enplaned Passengers
(millions) 11.9 12.4 13.1 10.1 5.1% (22.9%)
Non-Airline Revenues per
Enplaned Passenger $8.96 $9.19 $8.96 $9.97 0.0% 11.3%
Percent of Total Revenue
Notes: 1 Estimated results.
Source: Airport records, April 2021
5.6.1 Auto Parking
Auto parking revenues represent the largest component of non-airline revenues at the Airport System, accounting
for approximately 28% of total non-airline revenues for FY 2020. As presented on Table 5-5, auto parking
revenues increased at a CAGR of approximately 2.9% from FY 2017 to FY 2019 as they increased from
approximately $34.3 million to $36.3 million. In FY 2020, parking revenues decreased to $25.4 million at a similar
rate of the decrease in enplaned passengers due to the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. [FY21
data]
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 135
The Department has implemented certain parking rate changes during this period including increases in the
Economy Lot, Parking Garage, and the implementation of Premium Reserved Parking. The Department also
opened Lot E on the eastern side of the new parking garage and QTA facility where customers can walk to the
terminal. Table 5-6 presents public parking rates at the Airport since FY 2015. As shown in the table, the
Department monitors public parking rates and implements rate changes periodically. Additionally, the Department
offers a variety of parking options to address the differing needs of its customer base. The Department has been
able to realize revenue gains resulting from these increases and the differing products as demand has continued
to increase. In addition, the new parking garage opened in September 2020, which essentially has doubled
garage parking capacity. However, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has dampened Airport parking demand and
revenues as described above.
As of April 2021, three primary off-airport parking companies also provide parking services to passengers, in
competition with the Department.
Table 5-6 Public Parking Rates at the Airport (daily maximum rates)
Parking Facility FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
Economy Lot $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $10 $10
Lot E1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $21 $21
Parking Garage2 $28 $32 $32 $32 $32 $35 $35
Premium Reserved Parking n/a $50 $50 $50 $50 $55 $55
Notes: 1 Lot E opened in September 2020.
2 The new parking garage opened in September 2020.
Source: Department records
For the period of FY 2022 through FY 2028, auto parking revenues are projected to increase at a CAGR of 9.1%
reflecting the recovery of enplaned passengers and the increased capacity of the new parking garage. The
projection assumes rate increases generally in line with inflationary trends and a one-time increase in parking
revenues during the COVID-19 recovery period because of additional capacity not yet realized with the opening of
the new parking garage.
5.6.2 Car Rental
Rental car concessions and facility rents increased at a CAGR of approximately 4.8% during the period of FY
2017 to FY 2019. In FY 2020, rental car revenues decreased primarily because of the impacts associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic to $25.4 million. The car rental revenue rate of decline of 15.1% was more favorable than
the rate of the decrease associated with enplaned passengers. [FY21 data]
For the period of FY 2022 through FY 2028, car rental revenues are projected to increase at a CAGR of 5.1%.
The projection assumes increases associated with the passenger recovery and inflationary trends.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
136 | Landrum & Brown
5.6.3 Terminal Concessions
As shown on Table 5-5, terminal concessions increased at a CAGR of approximately 6.4% from FY 2017 to FY
2019 as they increased from approximately $18.1 million to $20.5 million. Over this period, the Department has
restructured its terminal concession program, which has contributed to the improvement in revenue. In FY 2020,
terminal concessions decreased primarily because of the impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic to
$16.7 million. The revenue rate of decline of 18.5% was more favorable than the rate of the decrease associated
with enplaned passengers. [FY21 data]
Given the lack of space for terminal concessions during the period prior to COVID-19, additional revenue
improvements are expected as concessions fully comeback online. In addition to this, budgeted terminal
concession revenues for FY 2022 are also expected to increase with inflation and increases in enplaned
passengers. For the period of FY 2022 through FY 2028, terminal concession revenues are projected to increase
at a CAGR of 10.9%. The projection assumes increases related to the passenger recover, the opening of new
concessions related to the New SLC, and inflationary trends.
5.6.4 Other
Other non-airline revenues primarily include a State of Utah aviation fuel tax, other tenant leases, ground
transportation and TNC revenues, cargo building rents, hangar rents, fixed base operator rents, and other
buildings at the Airport leased by the Department. TNC revenues at the Airport have been increasing since the
Department started collecting these in September 2015. In FY 2017, TNC revenues were approximately $777,000
and grew to approximately $3.1 million in FY 2020. As of July 1, 2018, TNC operators pay a fee of $2.50 for each
Airport vehicle trip that drops off and picks up passengers. For TNC vehicles with excess of nine passengers, the
fee is $10 per vehicle trip. This updated fee schedule is an increase in rates as compared to prior fees which
ranged from $1.13 to $2.46 per trip depending on vehicle size. Many of the other revenues in the category are not
as impacted by air traffic activity as the other categories described above. In FY 2020, other revenues remained
relatively flat from the prior year at $30.6 million. [FY21 data]
The projection for other non-airline revenues assumes increases generally in line with inflationary trends.
5.7 Airline Revenues
Airline revenues at the Airport include Landing Fees and Terminal Rents. The rate-setting formulas for Landing
Fees and Terminal Rents are consistent with the rate-setting methodologies set forth in the AUA and described
earlier in this Chapter. Exhibits E and F further illustrate the rate-setting methodologies for the Landing Fees and
Terminal Rents, respectively. In addition, projected Revenue Sharing consistent with the AUA is presented on
Exhibit G. The business terms of the AUA are used as the basis for projecting airline revenues for the purposes
of this Report.
5.7.1 Landing Fees
Exhibit E presents the calculation of Landing Fees for FY 2018 through FY 2028. Per the residual rate-setting
methodology, the Department fully recovers direct and allocated indirect costs for airline use of the Airfield cost
center. The total requirement is reduced by estimated non-airline revenues projected in each FY to calculate the
Airfield Revenue Requirement.
As presented in Exhibit E, the Signatory Airline Landing Fee Rate per 1,000-pound unit of landed weight was $xxx
for FY 2021 (estimated). Throughout the period, the Signatory Airline Landing Fee rate is projected to increase up
to $5.90 by FY 2028.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 137
Total Landing Fees are projected to increase from approximately $56.9 million in FY 2022 to approximately $99.5
million in FY 2028. This represents a CAGR of approximately 9.8%.
5.7.2 Terminal Rents
Exhibit F presents the calculation of Terminal Rents for FY 2018 through FY 2028. Per the rate-setting
methodology, the Department recovers Terminal Rents from the Signatory Airlines based on a commercial
compensatory methodology. The conditioned terminal rental rate per square foot in 2021 (estimated) was $xxx.
Over the projection period, the conditioned terminal rate is expected to increase to $249.10 in FY 2024 and
further increase to $252.13 in FY 2028. Exhibit F presents the projected Terminal Rents over the projection
period.
Total Terminal Rents are projected to increase from approximately $84.1 million in FY 2022 to approximately
$168.2 million in FY 2028. This represents a CAGR of approximately 12.2% as the Terminal Rents include future
debt service and increased operating expense impacts associated with the New SLC.
5.7.3 Revenue Share
Exhibit G presents the calculation of Revenue Share pursuant to the AUA, which is allocated to each Signatory
Airline on the basis of their enplaned passenger market share. As described above in Section 4.3.3 and as shown
on Exhibit G, Revenue Sharing amounts for FY 2021 (estimated) are approximately $xxx million. Revenue
Sharing is projected to be approximately $10.2 million in FY 2023 and decrease to about $71,000 in FY 2024. For
the period of FY 2025 through FY 2028, Revenue Sharing amounts are projected to range between $10.2 million
to $7.2 million.
5.7.4 Signatory Airline Cost per Enplaned Passenger
A key indicator for airline costs at an airport is the average CPE. Exhibit H presents the projection of CPE for the
Signatory Airlines at the Airport. As shown, the Signatory Airline CPE includes the Landing Fees and Terminal
Rents less the Revenue Sharing amounts divided by total Signatory enplaned passengers. CPE for FY 2021
(estimated) was $xxx. Over the projection period, Signatory Airline CPE is expected to increase as the elements
of the New SLC become operational and the associated costs are included within the airline rate base. In FY
2024, CPE is projected to increase to $17.13 and peak in FY 2025 at $18.05. Signatory Airline CPE throughout
this period is projected to remain at levels competitive with other Large Hub airports in the western U.S.
5.8 Application of Airport Revenues
Exhibit I presents the application of Revenues for the Airport System throughout the projection period consistent
with the requirements of the Master Indenture. As presented, the City is expected to experience an annual net
surplus (amount deposited into the Surplus Fund) after the payment of Operating Expenses and debt service and
required deposits to the Operations and Maintenance Reserve Fund and the Renewal and Replacement Fund in
each year of the projection period. The deposit to the Surplus Fund for FY 2021 (estimated) was approximately
$xxx million. Over the projection period, the annual deposit to the Surplus Fund is expected to fluctuate, with the
largest projected deposit of approximately $34.0 million occurring in FY 2025. The annual deposit to the Surplus
Fund is projected to decrease to approximately $26.6 million in FY 2026 and remain in the $20 million range
throughout the rest of the projection period. Revenues deposited into the Surplus Fund are planned to be used to
fund the ongoing New SLC and Other Capital Projects throughout the projection period.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports Report of the Airport Consultant
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
138 | Landrum & Brown
5.9 Net Revenues and Debt Service Coverage
Exhibit J presents Net Revenues and debt service coverage ratio projections throughout the projection period. As
presented, the Airport System Net Revenues are projected to increase from $xxx million in FY 2021 (estimated) to
$227.2 million in FY 2028. This increase in Net Revenues is primarily driven by the increased revenue
requirements included in airline rates and charges because of the future debt service associated with the New
SLC. Per the Master Indenture, the City is able to include amounts available in the Rolling Coverage Account on
the last business day of the applicable FY for the purposes of calculating debt service coverage. Total amounts
available for debt service (e.g., Net Revenues plus amounts available in the Rolling Coverage Account) are
projected to increase from approximately $xxx million in FY 2021 (estimated) to approximately $277.2 million in
FY 2028. As the City issues additional Bonds to fund the New SLC, debt service coverage ratios are projected to
range from xxxx in FY 2021 to 1.38x in FY 2028.
As required pursuant to the Rate Covenant, Revenues must be sufficient in each FY to pay the following
amounts: (1) Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System due and payable during each FY; (2)
the Annual Debt Service on any Outstanding Bonds required to be funded by the City in each FY as required by
the Master Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture with respect to the Outstanding Bonds; (3) the required
deposits to the Common Debt Service Reserve Fund or any Series Debt Service Reserve Fund which may be
established by a Supplemental Indenture; (4) the reimbursement owed to any Credit Provider or Liquidity Provider
as required by a Supplemental Indenture; (5) the interest on and principal of any indebtedness of the Department
required to be funded during each FY, other than for Outstanding Bonds, but including Subordinate Obligations;
and (6) funding of any debt service reserve funds created with respect to any indebtedness of the Department,
other than Outstanding Bonds, but including Subordinate Obligations. As presented on Exhibit J, the City is
projected to satisfy the Rate Covenant requirement in each year.
5.10 Slower Recovery Scenario Financial Analysis
As presented in Chapter 3, L&B prepared a slower recovery enplaned passengers projection scenario in addition
to the baseline projection. This scenario was prepared because of the ongoing uncertainty related to the level of
impact and duration of the COVID-19 pandemic on air traffic recovery. The assumptions for this scenario are
described in more detail in Section 3.4.5 of this Report. For the purposes of the financial analysis, key
assumptions are as follows:
Current Airline Agreements business terms and conditions remain in effect through the projection period.
Funding and timing of the New SLC and the Other Capital Projects remain as assumed in the baseline
financial analysis.
Operating Expenses increase as projected in the baseline financial analysis.
Non-airline revenues are assumed to remain at a consistent ratio of revenues per enplanement as the
baseline financial analysis, however, projected non-airline revenues are reduced based on the assumed
slower recovery of enplaned passengers.
PFC revenues are lower as compared to the baseline financial analysis based on lower enplaned
passengers projected.
Report of the Airport Consultant Salt Lake City Department of Airports
DRAFT 4 – May 10, 2021
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021
Salt Lake City International Airport | 139
Table 5-7 presents projected debt service coverage and airline CPE for the slower recovery scenario. As shown,
under each scenario, the Department is projected to continue to satisfy its Rate Covenant set forth in the Master
Indenture throughout the projection period. However, it should be noted that, given the uncertainty regarding the
COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that airline traffic recovery could be delayed beyond what is assumed under
the slower recovery scenario. Such a scenario may require additional steps taken by the Department to reduce
Operating Expenses or undertake other financial or operational measures beyond what is contemplated in this
Report in order to continue to meet its Rate Covenant obligations and mitigate airline CPE.
Table 5-7 Sensitivity Analysis Results: Debt Service Coverage and Airline CPE
Fiscal Year Enplaned
Passengers
% of Baseline
Enplaned
Passengers
Debt Service
Coverage Ratio Airline CPE
2022 8,660 75.3% 1.34 $16.17
2023 11,035 88.1% 1.58 $12.45
2024 11,686 89.4% 1.30 $19.86
2025 12,002 89.4% 1.36 $21.09
2026 12,253 89.5% 1.31 $20.15
2027 12,487 89.5% 1.30 $20.39
2028 12,650 89.5% 1.30 $20.60
Source: Landrum & Brown.
As previously indicated, many of the factors affecting air travel demand are not necessarily quantifiable. As a
result, all projections are subject to uncertainty. While the global COVID-19 pandemic is currently ongoing, other
economic disturbances could occur over the projection period. Therefore, these projected financial results, as with
any projection, should be viewed as a general indication of future results as opposed to a precise prediction.
Actual future results are likely to vary from this projection, and such variances could be material.
Exhibit A
TRP, NCP, AND OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS - PLAN OF FINANCE SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Funding Sources (a)
Total PFC Revenues CFC Revenues Series Series Future
Project costs AIP / TSA (pay-as-you-go)(pay-as-you-go)Airport Funds 2017 Bonds (b)2018 Bonds (b)Bonds
Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP)$2,719,101 $91,642 $332,838 $199,880 $255,522 $771,632 $385,670 $681,917
North Concourse Program (NCP)1,732,873 99,015 0 0 165,619 154,117 413,163 900,959
Other Capital Projects 308,102 13,291 0 0 294,811 0 0 0
Total TRP, North Concourse Program, and Other Capital Projects $4,760,076 $203,948 $332,838 $199,880 $715,953 $925,749 $798,833 $1,582,876
Note: Amounts may not add due to rounding.
Sources: Salt Lake City Department of Airports (project costs); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (funding sources and Future Bonds); Public Financial Management (Series 2017 Bonds and Series 2018 Bonds)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
(a)Includes capital projects that have been paid for with Airport funds, PFC revenues and CFC revenues prior to fiscal year 2021 (July 1, 2020).
(b)Includes interest earnings from the Series 2017 Debt Service Fund and 2018 Debt Service Fund that is accrued prior to the first year of debt service.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit B
DEBT SERVICE SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Debt service (a)
Series 2017 Bonds $51,140 $70,288 $48,926 $56,946 $61,425 $63,590 $71,034 $73,657
Series 2018 Bonds 33,224 33,224 57,224 49,578 59,563 59,558 59,558 59,560
Debt service on future bonds (a)
Planned Bonds $0 $35,633 $20,489 $118,802 $118,802 $118,802 $118,802 $118,802
Line of Credit 0 2,100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total debt service $84,364 $141,245 $126,638 $225,325 $239,789 $241,950 $249,394 $252,019
Less: PFCs applied to debt service ($21,500)($42,432)($46,175)($48,196)($49,479)($50,500)($51,452)($52,112)
Total net debt service $62,864 $98,813 $80,463 $177,129 $190,310 $191,449 $197,942 $199,907
Allocation of debt service to Cost Centers
Airfield $9,588 $12,633 $12,191 $31,203 $33,206 $33,506 $34,537 $34,900
Terminal 49,365 79,634 61,726 139,391 150,149 150,927 156,173 157,698
Landside 3,910 6,546 6,546 6,535 6,954 7,017 7,233 7,309
Total net debt service $62,864 $98,813 $80,463 $177,129 $190,310 $191,449 $197,942 $199,907
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); Public Financial Management (Series 2017 Bonds, Series 2018 Bonds); Landrum & Brown (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
(a) Debt service is net of capitalized interest.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit C
OPERATING EXPENSES AND CAPITAL OUTLAYS SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays
Salaries and benefits $50,327 $55,068 $60,270 $62,681 $65,188 $67,796 $70,508 $73,328
Materials and supplies 14,330 14,875 15,469 16,088 16,732 17,401 18,097 18,821
Services 47,946 64,480 67,060 69,742 61,604 64,069 66,631 69,297
Other Operating Expenses 7,296 7,004 7,284 7,576 7,879 8,194 8,522 8,862
Intergovernmental charges 17,360 19,961 20,760 19,590 20,374 21,189 22,036 22,918
Capital Outlays 1,432 1,466 1,524 1,585 1,648 1,714 1,783 1,854
Subtotal Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays $138,690 $162,853 $172,367 $177,262 $173,425 $180,362 $187,577 $195,080
Less:
CARES Act Grants ($66,000)($12,610)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CRRSAA Grants 0 ($20,585)0 0 0 0 0 0
ARPA Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incremental TRP, NCP, and Other Capital Projects impact $0 $0 $0 $3,209 $3,469 $3,607 $3,752 $3,902
Total Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays $72,690 $129,657 $172,367 $180,471 $176,894 $183,970 $191,328 $198,982
Allocation of Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays to Cost Centers
Airfield $23,371 $41,034 $54,588 $56,457 $55,260 $57,470 $59,769 $62,160
Terminal 30,879 55,684 74,063 78,572 77,109 80,194 83,401 86,737
Landside 10,854 18,496 24,604 25,784 25,271 26,282 27,334 28,427
Aux. Airports 2,336 4,962 6,604 6,792 6,643 6,908 7,185 7,472
Other 2,737 4,937 6,577 6,763 6,614 6,878 7,153 7,440
General Aviation 1,239 2,143 2,856 2,937 2,872 2,986 3,106 3,230
Support 1,275 2,402 3,074 3,167 3,125 3,251 3,381 3,516
Total Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays $72,690 $129,657 $172,367 $180,471 $176,894 $183,970 $191,328 $198,982
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit D
NONAIRLINE REVENUES AND AIRFIELD AND TERMINAL OFFSETS SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Airfield offsets
Fuel farm $539 $1,805 $2,500 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600
CRDC Revenue 703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Additional Parking Expense 1,542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cargo ramp use fee 206 293 404 432 433 459 486 511
Flight kitchen 1,167 1,351 1,491 1,578 1,644 1,703 1,760 1,809
State aviation fuel tax 1,848 2,000 2,091 2,176 2,230 2,274 2,315 2,345
Fuel oil royalties 471 523 543 562 577 591 606 619
Glycol recycling sales 280 240 249 258 265 272 278 284
Other Airfield Revenues (a)542 741 769 796 815 832 848 861
Subtotal Airfield offsets $7,297 $6,953 $8,046 $9,401 $9,565 $9,731 $9,893 $10,029
Terminal offsets
Jet bridges $1,910 $1,745 $2,325 $2,391 $2,338 $2,432 $2,529 $2,630
Hardstand Passenger Boarding revenue 0 6,540 7,521 3,134 0 0 0 0
CRDC Revenue 933 1,210 1,246 1,283 1,322 1,361 1,402 1,444
Additional Parking Expense 2,213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IAB use fees 1,016 1,698 2,263 2,328 2,276 2,367 2,462 2,560
Shared tenant telephone fees 96 62 64 66 68 70 72 74
Leased site areas 350 1,160 1,160 1,160 1,160 1,160 1,160 1,160
EDS utilities and janitorial 140 547 564 581 598 616 635 654
Other Terminal Revenues (b)448 465 477 490 502 516 529 543
Subtotal Terminal offsets $7,107 $13,427 $15,621 $11,432 $8,264 $8,521 $8,788 $9,065
Other Nonairline Revenues
Car rental - commissions (c)$13,918 $19,791 $22,737 $25,403 $26,340 $27,152 $27,941 $28,582
Car rental - fixed rents (c)7,333 7,492 7,605 7,719 7,834 7,952 8,071 8,192
Auto parking 29,339 28,719 38,559 42,259 44,035 45,618 47,175 48,497
Ground transportation 4,245 3,348 4,373 6,237 6,497 6,728 6,955 7,147
General aviation hangars 1,328 1,182 1,217 1,254 1,291 1,330 1,370 1,411
FBO hangars 20 21 21 22 23 23 24 25
Cargo buildings 1,473 1,484 1,529 1,574 1,622 1,670 1,720 1,772
Other buildings 4,563 3,892 4,009 4,129 4,253 4,381 4,512 4,648
Office space 984 1,984 2,044 2,105 2,168 2,233 2,300 2,369
Food service (c)8,700 9,869 12,869 15,684 16,336 16,917 17,488 17,971
Vending/Public telephone 162 162 179 189 197 204 211 217
News & gifts (c)5,100 5,086 8,361 8,783 9,148 9,474 9,793 10,064
Leased site areas 2,360 2,653 2,733 2,815 2,899 2,986 3,076 3,168
Advertising media fees (c)759 250 265 275 282 289 297 303
Other revenues 3,151 2,499 2,554 2,593 2,629 2,671 2,713 2,755
Subtotal Other Nonairline Revenues $83,434 $88,434 $109,053 $121,040 $125,556 $129,629 $133,645 $137,120
Total Nonairline Revenues and Airfield and Terminal offsets $97,837 $108,814 $132,720 $141,873 $143,385 $147,882 $152,326 $156,214
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
(a) Includes leased areas on airfield, K-9 grants, Utah Air National Guard, and RON (overnight) fees.
(b) Includes UTA revenues, LEO charges reimbursed by TSA, and K-9 grants.
(c) Included as Select Concessions for the Revenue Sharing test.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit E
LANDING FEES SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Airfield Revenue Requirement
Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays $23,371 $41,034 $54,588 $56,457 $55,260 $57,470 $59,769 $62,160
Net debt service 9,588 12,633 12,191 31,203 33,206 33,506 34,537 34,900
Rolling Coverage Amount 2,397 742 425 (18)3,347 456 39 225
Amortization 7,145 7,592 11,193 11,647 11,248 11,558 11,849 11,849
Reserve Requirements (a)594 1,882 2,259 312 (200)368 383 398
Less: Airfield offsets (7,297)(6,953)(8,046)(9,401)(9,565)(9,731)(9,893)(10,029)
Less: Adjustments-to-Actual 366 (24)0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Airfield Revenue Requirement $36,165 $56,905 $72,610 $90,201 $93,296 $93,627 $96,684 $99,503
Landed Weight (million-pound units)9,604 14,387 15,040 15,651 16,045 16,361 16,656 16,866
Landing Fee (per 1,000-pound unit)$3.77 $3.96 $4.83 $5.76 $5.81 $5.72 $5.80 $5.90
Signatory Airline Landing Fee revenue $33,489 $51,561 $65,790 $81,729 $84,534 $84,834 $87,603 $90,157
Non-signatory Airline Landing Fee revenue 2,676 5,345 6,820 8,472 8,762 8,794 9,081 9,345
Total Landing Fee revenue $36,165 $56,905 $72,610 $90,201 $93,296 $93,627 $96,684 $99,503
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
(a) Includes deposits to the Operation and Maintenance Reserve and the Renewal and Replacement subaccounts.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit F
TERMINAL RENTS SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Net Terminal Revenue Requirement
Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays $30,879 $55,684 $74,063 $78,572 $77,109 $80,194 $83,401 $86,737
Net debt service 49,365 79,634 61,726 139,391 150,149 150,927 156,173 157,698
Rolling Coverage Amount 12,341 7,172 3,764 (155)20,119 2,743 237 1,351
Reserve Requirements (a)487 2,554 3,063 751 (244)514 535 556
Amortization 5,694 4,502 6,225 6,139 11,721 12,387 12,391 12,402
Less: Terminal offsets (7,107)(13,427)(15,621)(11,432)(8,264)(8,521)(8,788)(9,065)
Less: Adjustments-to-Actual 128 (1,377)0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Net Terminal Revenue Requirement $91,788 $134,741 $133,221 $213,266 $250,591 $238,243 $243,949 $249,680
Total rentable space (s.f.)764,733 887,183 899,594 1,083,715 1,206,010 1,248,081 1,252,466 1,252,466
Average Terminal rental rate $120.03 $151.88 $148.09 $196.79 $207.79 $190.89 $194.77 $199.35
Airline rented space (b)
Conditioned space (s.f.)328,147 345,535 348,277 419,153 471,315 486,979 490,546 490,546
Unconditioned space (s.f.)205,160 208,210 216,151 303,499 336,712 353,319 353,319 353,319
Total Airline rented space (s.f.)533,307 553,745 564,428 722,652 808,028 840,298 843,865 843,865
Airline Net Terminal Revenue Requirement $64,011 $84,100 $83,586 $142,212 $167,896 $160,402 $164,363 $168,225
Weighted Airline rented space
Conditioned space (s.f.)328,147 345,535 348,277 419,153 471,315 486,979 490,546 490,546
Unconditioned space (s.f.)102,580 104,105 108,075 151,750 168,356 176,660 176,660 176,660
Total weighted Airline rented space (s.f.)430,727 449,640 456,352 570,902 639,672 663,638 667,206 667,206
Airline rented space
Conditioned space (s.f.)328,147 345,535 348,277 419,153 471,315 486,979 490,546 490,546
Unconditioned space (s.f.)205,160 208,210 216,151 303,499 336,712 353,319 353,319 353,319
Total Airline rented space (s.f.)533,307 553,745 564,428 722,652 808,028 840,298 843,865 843,865
Airline Terminal rental rate - conditioned space $148.61 $187.04 $183.16 $249.10 $262.47 $241.70 $246.35 $252.13
Airline Terminal rental rate - unconditioned space $74.31 $93.52 $91.58 $124.55 $131.24 $120.85 $123.17 $126.07
Airline Terminal Rents - conditioned space $48,766 $64,629 $63,791 $104,411 $123,707 $117,704 $120,844 $123,683
Airline Terminal Rents - unconditioned space 15,245 19,472 19,795 37,801 44,189 42,699 43,519 44,542
Total Airline Terminal Rents (c) $64,011 $84,100 $83,586 $142,212 $167,896 $160,402 $164,363 $168,225
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); HOK (projected space); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
(a) Includes deposits to the Operation and Maintenance Reserve and the Renewal and Replacement subaccounts.
(b) Airline space assumptions are based on HOK space drawings.
(c) Assumes that all Terminal Rents are reflective of Signatory Airlines.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit G
REVENUE SHARING CALCULATION SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Per 8.07.1 (b) Revenue sharing amount rebated to Signatory Airlines for a particular Fiscal Year shall not exceed the LEAST of:
1. 30% of Net Remaining Revenues in such Fiscal Year
Net Remaining Revenues $55,302 $7,772 $33,911 $236 $33,993 $26,628 $23,850 $25,545
Percent required of Net Remaining Revenues 30%30%30%30%30%30%30%30%
30% of Net Remaining Revenues [A]$16,591 $2,332 $10,173 $71 $10,198 $7,988 $7,155 $7,664
2. Total Annual Adjusted Gross Revenues for Selected Concessions [B]$35,972 $42,651 $52,015 $58,052 $60,139 $61,989 $63,800 $65,329
3. Calculated Revenue Sharing Amount
Enplanement Detail for Credit in Future Agreement
Signatory Enplaned Passengers 8,078 11,507 12,522 13,070 13,418 13,695 13,953 14,132
Growth in Enplaned Passengers from 2015 base Enplaned Passengers (18.7%)15.9%26.1%31.6%35.1%37.9%40.5%42.3%
Enplaned Passengers over 10,000,000 (a)0 1,507 2,522 3,070 3,418 3,695 3,953 4,132
Rates:
For Enplaned Passengers of 10,000,000 or less:$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Revenue sharing rate for Enplaned Passengers over 10,000,000 (a)0.81 1.16 1.26 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.40 1.42
Calculated Revenue Sharing Amount
First 10,000,000 Enplaned Passengers 8,078 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Enplaned Passengers over 10,000,000 (a)0 1,746 3,179 4,039 4,617 5,094 5,553 5,879
Total calculated Revenue Sharing Amount [C]$8,078 $11,746 $13,179 $14,039 $14,617 $15,094 $15,553 $15,879
Total Revenue Sharing Amount to be used [Minimum of A, B, or C]$8,078 $2,332 $10,173 $71 $10,198 $7,988 $7,155 $7,664
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
(a) Increased Revenue Sharing is only applied to those Enplaned Passengers over 10,000,000.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit H
SIGNATORY AIRLINE COST PER ENPLANED PASSENGER SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Signatory Airline Terminal Rents $64,011 $84,100 $83,586 $142,212 $167,896 $160,402 $164,363 $168,225
Signatory Airline Landing Fee revenue 33,489 51,561 65,790 81,729 84,534 84,834 87,603 90,157
LESS: Revenue Sharing (8,078)(2,332)(10,173)(71)(10,198)(7,988)(7,155)(7,664)
Net passenger Signatory Airline Revenue Requirement $89,422 $133,329 $139,203 $223,870 $242,232 $237,248 $244,812 $250,719
Signatory Airline Enplaned Passengers (000s)8,078 11,507 12,522 13,070 13,418 13,695 13,953 14,132
Passenger Signatory Airline Cost per Enplaned Passenger $11.07 $11.59 $11.12 $17.13 $18.05 $17.32 $17.55 $17.74
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit I
APPLICATION OF REVENUES SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Revenues
Terminal Rents $64,011 $84,100 $83,586 $142,212 $167,896 $160,402 $164,363 $168,225
Landing Fee revenue 36,165 56,905 72,610 90,201 93,296 93,627 96,684 99,503
Nonairline revenue 97,837 108,814 132,720 141,873 143,385 147,882 152,326 156,214
Revenue Sharing Amount (8,078)(2,332)(10,173)(71)(10,198)(7,988)(7,155)(7,664)
Interest income 8,463 3,000 7,817 9,139 9,517 9,588 9,751 9,922
Total Revenues $198,398 $250,488 $286,560 $383,354 $403,896 $403,511 $415,970 $426,201
Application of Revenues (a)
1. Operation and Maintenance Subaccount $72,690 $129,657 $172,367 $180,471 $176,894 $183,970 $191,328 $198,982
2. Debt Service Funds (b)62,864 98,813 80,463 177,129 190,310 191,449 197,942 199,907
3. Debt Service Reserve Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. Subordinate Obligation Debt Service 0 2,100 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Subordinate Obligation Debt Service Reserve Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. O&M Reserve Requirement Subaccount 0 5,948 0 1,351 (596)1,179 1,226 1,276
7. Renewal and Replacement Subaccount 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Rolling Coverage Account 15,880 4,418 (182)24,166 3,295 285 1,623 491
9. Surplus Fund 46,965 9,553 33,911 236 33,993 26,628 23,850 25,545
Total Application of Revenues $198,398 $250,488 $286,560 $383,354 $403,896 $403,511 $415,970 $426,201
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
(a) Reflects only incremental amounts required for each year.
(b) Net of PFC revenues applied to debt service and capitalized interest.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
Exhibit J
NET REVENUES AND DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(Dollars in Thousands for Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Budget Budget Projected
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Revenues $198,398 $250,488 $286,560 $383,354 $403,896 $403,511 $415,970 $426,201
Operating Expenses and Capital Outlays 72,690 129,657 172,367 180,471 176,894 183,970 191,328 198,982
Net Revenues $125,708 $120,831 $114,192 $202,882 $227,002 $219,541 $224,642 $227,219
Plus: Rolling Coverage Account 15,880 20,298 20,116 44,282 47,578 47,862 49,486 49,977
Net Revenues & Rolling Coverage Account $141,588 $141,129 $134,308 $247,165 $274,580 $267,404 $274,127 $277,196
Debt service (a)$62,864 $98,813 $80,463 $177,129 $190,310 $191,449 $197,942 $199,907
Debt service coverage 2.25 1.43 1.67 1.40 1.44 1.40 1.38 1.39
Note: Amounts may not add because of rounding.
Source: Airport records (budget); Landrum & Brown, Inc. (projected)
Compiled by: Landrum & Brown, Inc.
(a) Net of PFC revenues applied to debt service and capitalized interest.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR REVIEW AND REVISION ONLY DRAFT (5/7/2021)
DRAFT
C-1
APPENDIX C
FORM OF MASTER INDENTURE
D-1
APPENDIX D
FORM OF AIRLINE USE AGREEMENT
Draft
E-1
APPENDIX E
BOOK-ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM
Book-Entry Only System
The information in this Appendix concerning DTC and DTC’s book-entry only system has been obtained
from sources the City and the Underwriters believe to be reliable, but neither the City nor the Underwriters take any
responsibility for the accuracy or completeness thereof.
DTC will act as securities depository for the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds will be issued as
fully registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC’s partnership nominee) or such other name as
may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully-registered Bond certificate will be issued for
each maturity of the Series 2021 Bonds of each Series or, if applicable, each Subseries of each in the aggregate
principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC.
DTC, the world’s largest securities depository, is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New
York Banking Law, a “banking organization” within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the
Federal Reserve System, a “clearing corporation” within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code,
and a “clearing agency” registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
DTC holds and provides asset servicing for over 3.5 million issues of U.S. and non-U.S. equity issues, corporate and
municipal debt issues, and money market instruments from over 100 countries that DTC participants (“Direct
Participants”) deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post-trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales
and other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book-entry transfers and
pledges between Direct Participants’ accounts. This eliminates the need for physical movement of securities
certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies,
clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust &
Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”). DTCC is the holding company for DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation
and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, all of which are registered clearing agencies. DTCC is owned by the users
of its regulated subsidiaries. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S.
securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a
custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly (“Indirect Participants”). DTC has a
Standard & Poor’s rating of “AA+.” The DTC Rules applicable to its Participants are on file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. More information about DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com.
Purchases of Series 2021 Bonds under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants,
which will receive a credit for the Series 2021 Bonds on DTC’s records. The ownership interest of each actual
purchaser of each Series 2021 Bond (“Beneficial Owner”) is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect
Participants’ records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase. Beneficial
Owners are, however, expected to receive written confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic
statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into
the transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in Series 2021 Bonds are to be accomplished by entries made on the
books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive
certificates representing their ownership interests in the Series 2021 Bonds, except in the event that use of the book-
entry system for the Series 2021 Bonds is discontinued.
To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Series 2021 Bonds deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are
registered in the name of DTC’s partnership nominee, Cede & Co, or such other name as may be requested by an
authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of Series 2021 Bonds with DTC and their registration in the name of
Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge
of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Series 2021 Bonds; DTC’s records reflect only the identity of the Direct
Participants to whose accounts such Series 2021 Bonds are credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners.
The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their
customers.
Draft
E-2
Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct Participants to
Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by
arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time.
Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Bonds of a Series within a maturity are being
redeemed, DTC’s practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in such maturity
to be redeemed.
Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with respect to the Series
2021 Bonds unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC’s MMI Procedures. Under its usual
procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to the City as soon as possible after the record date. The Omnibus Proxy
assigns Cede & Co.’s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts the Series 2021 Bonds
are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus Proxy).
Principal and interest payments (including redemption proceeds) on the Series 2021 Bonds will be made to
Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. DTC’s practice is
to credit Direct Participants’ accounts upon DTC’s receipt of funds and corresponding detail information from the
Trustee or the City, on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC’s records. Payments
by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case
with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in “street name,” and will be the
responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC, the Trustee or the City, subject to any statutory or regulatory
requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of principal and interest (including redemption proceeds)
to Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the
responsibility of the City or the Trustee, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility
of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect
Participants.
DTC may discontinue providing its services as securities depository with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds
at any time by giving reasonable notice to the City or the Trustee. Under such circumstances, in the event that a
successor securities depository is not obtained, certificates for the affected Series 2021 Bonds are required to be printed
and delivered.
The City may decide to discontinue use of the system of book-entry transfers through DTC (or a successor
securities depository). In that event, certificates for the affected Series 2021 Bonds will be printed and delivered.
THE TRUSTEE, ANY PAYING AGENT AND THE CITY WILL NOT HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY
OR OBLIGATION TO ANY PARTICIPANT, ANY PERSON CLAIMING A BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP
INTEREST IN ANY SERIES 2021 BONDS UNDER OR THROUGH DTC OR ANY PARTICIPANT, OR ANY
OTHER PERSON THAT IS NOT SHOWN ON THE REGISTRATION BOOKS OF THE TRUSTEE AS BEING A
BONDOWNER, WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY OF ANY RECORDS MAINTAINED BY DTC OR ANY
PARTICIPANT, THE PAYMENT BY DTC OR ANY PARTICIPANT OF ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF
PRINCIPAL OF OR PREMIUM, IF ANY, OR INTEREST ON ANY SERIES 2021 BOND, ANY NOTICE THAT
IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO BONDOWNERS UNDER THE INDENTURE (EXCEPT IN CONNECTION
WITH CERTAIN NOTICES OF DEFAULT AND REDEMPTION), THE SELECTION BY DTC OR ANY
PARTICIPANT OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE PAYMENT IN THE EVENT OF A PARTIAL REDEMPTION
OF THE SERIES 2021 BONDS, OR ANY CONSENT GIVEN OR OTHER ACTION TAKEN BY DTC OR ITS
NOMINEE AS THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE SERIES 2021 BONDS.
Draft
F-1
APPENDIX F
FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
For the Purpose of Providing
Continuing Disclosure Information
Under Section (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12
This Continuing Disclosure Agreement (this “Agreement”) is executed and delivered by Salt Lake City, Utah
(the “City”) in connection with the issuance of its $____________ Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (Non-AMT)
(the “Series 2021A Bonds”), and its $_____________ Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (AMT) (the “Series
2021B Bonds” and, collectively with the Series 2021A Bonds, the “Bonds”).
In consideration of the issuance of the Bonds by the City and the purchase of such Bonds by the beneficial
owners thereof, the City covenants and agrees as follows:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Agreement is being executed and delivered by
the City for the benefit of the Bondholders and the Beneficial Owners (hereinafter defined) and in order to assist the
Participating Underwriters (hereinafter defined) in complying with subsection (b)(5) of the Rule (hereinafter defined).
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. In addition to the definitions set forth in the Master Indenture (hereinafter
defined), which apply to any capitalized term used in this Agreement unless otherwise defined herein, the following
capitalized terms shall have the following meanings.
“Annual Report” shall mean any financial statements of the Department provided by the City pursuant to,
and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Agreement.
“Beneficial Owner” shall mean any person which has or shares the power, directly or indirectly, to make
investment decisions concerning ownership of any Bonds (including any person holding Bonds through nominees,
depositories or other intermediaries).
“Department” shall mean the City’s Department of Airports.
“EMMA” shall mean the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access System, or such other system,
Internet Web site, or repository hereafter prescribed by the MSRB for the submission of electronic filings pursuant to
the Rule.
“GAAP” shall mean generally accepted accounting principles, as such principles are prescribed, in part, by
the Financial Accounting Standards Board and modified by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and in
effect from time to time.
“Listed Events” shall mean any of the events listed in Section 5(a) of this Agreement.
“MSRB” shall mean the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
“Master Indenture” means the Master Indenture as such term is defined in the Official Statement.
“1934 Act” shall mean the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
“Obligated Person” shall mean the City (acting through the Department) and each airline or other entity using
the Airport under a lease or use agreement extending for more than one year from the date in question and including
bond debt service as part of the calculation of rates and charges, under which lease or use agreement such airline or
other entity has paid amounts equal to at least twenty percent (20%) of the Revenues of the Department for each of
the prior two (2) fiscal years of the Department.
Draft
F-2
“Official Statement” shall mean the final Official Statement for the Bonds dated October 17, 2018.
“Participating Underwriters” shall mean any of the original underwriters of the Bonds required to comply
with the Rule in connection with the primary offering of the Bonds.
“Rule” shall mean Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC pursuant to the 1934 Act, as the same may be
amended from time to time, together with all interpretive guidance or other official interpretations or explanations
thereof that are promulgated by the SEC.
“SEC” shall mean the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“SEC Reports” means reports and other information required to be filed pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14 or
15(d) of the 1934 Act.
“Securities Counsel” shall mean legal counsel expert in federal securities law, and may include, but is not
limited to Bond Counsel or Disclosure Counsel with respect to the Bonds.
“State” shall mean the State of Utah.
SECTION 3. PROVISION OF ANNUAL REPORTS.
(a) Each year, the City shall provide by January 2, commencing with January 2, 2019 for the Annual Report
for the Department’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, to the MSRB through EMMA an Annual Report for the
preceding fiscal year which is consistent with the requirements of Section 4 of this Agreement. In each case, the
Annual Report may be submitted as a single document or as separate documents comprising a package, and may
include by specific reference other information as provided in Section 4 of this Agreement; provided, however, that if
the audited financial statements of the Department are not available by the deadline for filing the Annual Report, they
shall be provided when and if available, and unaudited financial statements in a format similar to the audited financial
statements then most recently prepared for the Department shall be included in the Annual Report.
(b) If the City is unable to provide to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by
the MSRB, an Annual Report by the date required in subsection (a), the City shall send a notice, in a timely manner,
to the MSRB, through EMMA, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A.
(c) If the City’s fiscal year changes, the City shall send written notice of such change to the MSRB through
EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit B.
(d) Whenever any Annual Report or portion thereof is filed as described above, it shall be attached to a cover
sheet in substantially the form attached as Exhibit C, or such other form as may be prescribed by the SEC from time
to time.
SECTION 4. CONTENT OF ANNUAL REPORTS. The Annual Report shall contain or include by
reference the following:
(a) The audited financial statements of the Department for its fiscal year immediately preceding the due date
of the Annual Report, of substantially the same nature as that included in the Official Statement as Appendix A;
(b) Operating information for the fiscal year immediately preceding the due date of the Annual Report
otherwise presented in the Official Statement as follows:
(1) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT O&D
AND CONNECTING ENPLANED PASSENGERS”;
(2) in the table under the heading “AIRLINES OPERATING AT SALT LAKE CITY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT”;
Draft
F-3
(3) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MARKET
SHARE OF ENPLANED PASSENGERS”;
(4) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS”;
(5) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL LANDED WEIGHTS”;
(6) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL AIR CARGO AND MAIL”;
(7) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS TOTAL
ANNUAL REVENUES AND EXPENSES”;
(8) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SUMMARY OF OPERATING REVENUES”;
(9) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SOURCES OF AIRLINE REVENUES”; and
(10) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENSES.”
If any information described in this paragraph (b) is published or provided by a third party and is no
longer publicly available, the City shall include a statement to that effect as part of the Annual
Report for the year in which such lack of availability arises; and
(b)Commencing with Fiscal Year 2021 (which is the Fiscal Year
following the Fiscal Year in which the City no longer pays 100% of the interest
on the Bonds from capitalized interest and the City pays at least a portion of such
interest from Net Revenues), an annual debt service coverage calculation table for
the prior Fiscal Year in accordance with Section 5.04(b) of the Master Indenture,
substantially in the following format:
Annual Debt Service Coverage (FY_____)
Revenues $
Less Operating and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport
System $
Net Revenues $
Plus Transfers $
Total Available for Debt Service: $
Annual Debt Service on Outstanding Bonds* $
Annual Debt Service Coverage ______x
*In accordance with Section 5.04 of the Master Indenture, Annual Debt Service on Outstanding Bonds for
this purpose shall not include principal and/or interest paid with Other Moneys Available for Debt Service or Passenger
Facility Charges.
The Department’s financial statements shall be audited and prepared in accordance with GAAP; provided,
however, that the City may from time to time, in accordance with GAAP and subject to applicable federal or State
legal requirements, modify the basis upon which its financial statements are prepared. Notice of any such modification
shall be provided to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB.
Draft
F-4
Any or all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other documents that previously
have been provided to the MSRB, through EMMA. The City shall clearly identify each such other document so
included by reference.
SECTION 5. REPORTING OF LISTED EVENTS.
(a) The City covenants to provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB through EMMA, in an electronic
format as prescribed by the MSRB, in a timely manner not in excess of ten (10) business days after the occurrence of
the event, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events listed in (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule with respect to the
Bonds:
(1) principal and interest payment delinquencies;
(2) non-payment related defaults, if material;
(3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties;
(4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;
(5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
(6) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final
determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701- TEB) or other material
notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events
affecting the tax status of the Bonds;
(7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, if material;
(8) bond calls, if material, and tender offers;
(9) defeasances;
(10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material;
(11) rating changes;
(12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City, which is considered to occur when
any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer for the City
or the Department in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under
state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over
substantially all of the assets or business of the Department or the City, or if such jurisdiction has
been assumed by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but
subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order
confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority
having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the Department
or the City;
(13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the Department or the City
or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Department or the City, other than in the
ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the
termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms,
if material;
(14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material;
Draft
F-5
(15) incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants,
events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the
obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; or
(16) default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under
the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties.
(b) The City covenants that its determination of materiality will be made in conformance with federal
securities laws.
(c) Upon the occurrence of a Listed Event, the City shall promptly cause a notice of such occurrence to be
filed with the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, together with a cover sheet
in substantially the form attached as Exhibit C. In connection with providing a notice of the occurrence of a Listed
Event described in subsection (a)(9), the City shall include in the notice explicit disclosure as to whether the Bonds
have been escrowed to maturity or escrowed to call, as well as appropriate disclosure of the timing of maturity or call.
(d) The City acknowledges that the “rating changes” referred to above in Section (5)(a)(11) of this
Agreement may include, without limitation, any change in any rating on the Bonds, including changes in the ratings
of bond insurers of banks that may be providing credit enhancement on a portion of the Bonds.
(e) The City acknowledges that it is not required to provide a notice of a Listed Event with respect to credit
enhancement when the credit enhancement is added after the primary offering of the Bonds, the City does not apply
for or participate in obtaining such credit enhancement, and such credit enhancement is not described in the Official
Statement.
SECTION 6. TERMINATION OF REPORTING OBLIGATION.
(a) The City’s obligations under this Agreement shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of the Bonds under
the Master Indenture or the prior redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds. If the City’s obligation to pay the
principal of and interest on the Bonds is assumed in full by some other entity, such entity shall be responsible for
compliance with this Agreement in the same manner as if it were the City, and the City shall have no further
responsibility hereunder.
(b) This Agreement, or any provision hereof, shall be null and void in the event that the City (i) receives an
opinion of Securities Counsel, addressed to the City, to the effect that those portions of the Rule, which require such
provisions of this Agreement, do not or no longer apply to the Bonds, whether because such portions of the Rule are
invalid, have been repealed, amended or modified, or are otherwise deemed to be inapplicable to the Bonds, as shall
be specified in such opinion, and (ii) delivers notice to such effect to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic
format as prescribed by the MSRB.
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT; WAIVER.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be amended, and any
provision of this Agreement may be waived, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) if the amendment or waiver relates to the provisions of Section 3(a), (b), (c), 4 or 5(a), it may only
be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal
requirements, a change in law or a change in the identity, nature or status of the City or the
Department or type of business conducted by the City or the Department;
(2) this Agreement, as so amended or taking into account such waiver, would, in the opinion of
Securities Counsel, have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the original
issuance of the Bonds, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as
well as any change in circumstances; and
Draft
F-6
(3) the amendment or waiver either (A) is approved by the Bondholders in the same manner as provided
in the Master Indenture for amendments to the Master Indenture with the consent of the
Bondholders, or (B) does not, in the opinion of Securities Counsel, materially impair the interests
of the Bondholders.
(b) In the event of any amendment to, or waiver of a provision of, this Agreement, the City shall describe
such amendment or waiver in the next Annual Report and shall include an explanation of the reason for such
amendment or waiver. In particular, if the amendment results in a change to the annual financial information required
to be included in the Annual Report pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement, the first Annual Report that contains the
amended operating data or financial information shall explain, in narrative form, the reasons for the amendment and
the impact of such change in the type of operating data or financial information being provided. Further, if the annual
financial information required to be provided in the Annual Report can no longer be generated because the operations
to which it related have been materially changed or discontinued, a statement to that effect shall be included in the
first Annual Report that does not include such information.
(c) If the amendment results in a change to the accounting principles to be followed in preparing financial
statements as set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, the Annual Report for the year in which the change is made
shall include a comparison between the financial statements or information prepared on the basis of the new accounting
principles and those prepared on the basis of the former accounting principles. The comparison shall include a
qualitative discussion of such differences and the impact of the changes on the presentation of the financial
information. To the extent reasonably feasible, the comparison shall also be quantitative. A notice of the change in
accounting principles shall be sent by the City to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed
by the MSRB.
SECTION 8. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prevent
the City from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Agreement or
any other means of communication, or including any other information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence
of a Listed Event, in addition to that which is required by this Agreement. If the City chooses to include any
information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event in addition to that which is specifically
required by this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation under this Agreement to update such information or
include it in any future Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event.
SECTION 9. FAILURE TO COMPLY. In the event of a failure of the City to comply with any provision
of this Agreement, any Bondholder or Beneficial Owner may bring an action to obtain specific performance of the
obligations of the City under this Agreement, but no person or entity shall be entitled to recover monetary damages
hereunder under any circumstances, and any failure to comply with the obligations under this Agreement shall not
constitute a default with respect to the Bonds or under the Master Indenture.
SECTION 10. BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of the City, the
Participating Underwriters, the Bondholders and the Beneficial Owners, and shall create no rights in any other person
or entity.
SECTION 11. TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION AND NOTICES; DISSEMINATION AGENT.
Unless otherwise required by law or this Agreement, and, in the sole determination of the City, subject to technical
and economic feasibility, the City shall employ such methods of information and notice transmission as shall be
requested or recommended by the herein-designated recipients of such information and notices. Any filing with the
MSRB under this Agreement may be made by transmitting such filing to a dissemination agent.
SECTION 12. OTHER OBLIGATED PERSONS. Currently, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) is the only
Obligated Person other than the City, and Delta is required by the 1934 Act to file annual financial information in the
form of its SEC Reports with the SEC as described in the Official Statement. The City assumes no responsibility for
the accuracy or completeness of the SEC Reports or other annual financial information disseminated by Delta or any
future Obligated Person. The City shall report as part of its Annual Report any change in Obligated Persons and that
an Obligated Person’s SEC Reports constitute its annual financial information under this Agreement, if such is the
Draft
F-7
case. Unless no longer required by the Rule, the City shall use diligent efforts to cause each Obligated Person other
than the City (to the extent that such party is not required to file SEC Reports) to disseminate annual financial
information substantially equivalent to that contained in SEC Reports to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic
format as prescribed by the MSRB, not later than nine months after the last day of the Obligated Person’s fiscal year.
The City has no obligation to file or disseminate any SEC Reports relating to another Obligated Person.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By:
Name:
Title:
Dated: _______________ __, 2021.
[Signature Page to Continuing Disclosure Agreement]
F-A-1
EXHIBIT A TO CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
NOTICE TO THE MSRB
OF FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORT
Name of Obligated Person:Salt Lake City, Utah
Name of Bond Issue:Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
Date of Bonds:__________ , 2021
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City has not provided an Annual Report with respect to the above-
named Bonds as required by Section 3 of its Continuing Disclosure Agreement with respect to the Bonds. The City
anticipates that the Annual Report will be filed by ______________________.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By:
Name:
Its:
Dated: _____________________________
F-B-1
EXHIBIT B TO CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
NOTICE TO THE MSRB
OF CHANGE IN AUTHORITY’S FISCAL YEAR
Name of Obligated Person:Salt Lake City, Utah
Name of Bond Issue:Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
Date of Bonds:______________, 2021
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the fiscal year of the [City/Department] changed. Previously, the
[City/Department]’s fiscal year ended on _________________. It now ends on _________________.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By:
Name:
Its:
Dated: _____________________________
F-C-1
EXHIBIT C TO CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
MUNICIPAL SECONDARY MARKET DISCLOSURE
INFORMATION COVER SHEET
This cover sheet should be sent with all submissions made to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, pursuant
to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 or any analogous state statute.
***
Issuer’s and/or Other Obligated Person’s name: Salt Lake City, Utah
CUSIP Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary):
Nine-Digit CUSIP Number(s) to which the information relates:
Information relates to all securities issued by the City having the following six-digit number(s):
***
Number of pages of attached information: _______________________________________________
Description of Material Events Notice/Financial Information (Check One):
1. ______ Principal and interest payment delinquencies
2. ______ Material non-payment related defaults
3. ______ Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties
4. ______ Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties
5. ______ Substitution of credit or liquidity providers or their failure to perform
6. ______ Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed
or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or
other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the bonds, or
other material events affecting the tax status of the bonds
7. ______ Material modifications to rights of securities holders
8. ______ Bond calls, if material, or tender offers
9. ______ Defeasances
10. ______ Material release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the
bonds
11. ______ Rating changes
12. ______ Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Department or the
City
Draft
F-C-2
13. ______ The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the
Department or the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the
Department or the City, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action
or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than
pursuant to its terms, if material
14. ______ Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the material change of name
of a trustee
15. ______ Incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material, or
agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms
of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if
material
16. ______ Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other
similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of
which reflect financial difficulties
17. ______ Failure to provide annual financial information as required
18. ______ Other material event notice (specify)
19. ______ Financial Information: Please check all appropriate boxes:
CAFR (a) __ includes __ does not include Annual Financial Information
(b) __ audited __ unaudited
Annual Financial Information: Audited? Yes __ No __
Fiscal Period Covered: ______________
I hereby represent that I am authorized by the City or its agent to distribute this information publicly:
Signature:
Name:Title:
Employer:
Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Voice Telephone Number:()
G-1
APPENDIX G
FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL
4842-9446-9092
EXHIBIT D
[ATTACH FORM OF BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT]
DRAFT
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 Bond Purchase Agreement
BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$__________ AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021A (AMT)
$__________ AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021B (NON-AMT)
July ___, 2021
Salt Lake City
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
The undersigned Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the “Representative”), acting on
behalf of itself and as the representative of Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC [identify any other
Underwriters] (together, the “Underwriters”), offers to enter into this Bond Purchase
Agreement (this “Bond Purchase Agreement”) with Salt Lake City, Utah, a municipal
corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah (the “Issuer”) which upon
acceptance by the Issuer will be binding upon the Issuer and upon the Underwriters. On
the basis of the representations and covenants contained herein and subject to the terms
and conditions herein set forth, the Underwriters hereby offer to purchase from the Issuer
$__________ of the Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)
(the “Series 2021A Bonds”) and $__________ of the Salt Lake City, Utah Airport
Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2021B Bonds” and together with
the Series 2021A Bonds, the “Series 2021 Bonds”), to be issued under and pursuant to a
Master Trust Indenture dated as of February 1, 2017 (the “Master Indenture”), and a
Third Supplemental Trust Indenture dated as of [August 1, 2021] (the “Third
Supplemental Indenture,” and together with the Master Indenture, the “Indenture”),
each by and between the Issuer and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee (the
“Trustee”). The issuance and sale of the Series 2021 Bonds has been authorized pursuant
to Resolution No. ___ of 2021 adopted by the City Council of the Issuer on [June 1, 2021]
(the “Bond Resolution”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings
assigned to such terms in the hereinafter defined Official Statement.
The Series 2021 Bonds are being issued to (i) provide funds to finance and
refinance portions of the Terminal Redevelopment Program and the North Concourse
Program (as described in the Official Statement referenced below) and related costs of the
Salt Lake City International Airport (the “Airport”), including capitalized interest and any
necessary reserves and (ii) pay costs of issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 2 Bond Purchase Agreement
Section 1.Representations, Warranties and Agreements of the Issuer. By
acceptance hereof, the Issuer hereby represents and warrants to the Underwriters, and
agrees with the Underwriters that:
(a)The Issuer is authorized pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act,
Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”), to issue the
Series 2021 Bonds for the purposes set forth in the Indenture. The Issuer has full power
and authority to consummate all transactions contemplated by this Bond Purchase
Agreement, the Indenture, the Series 2021 Bonds, the Airline Use Agreement (the “AUA”
defined in the Official Statement), and the Continuing Disclosure Agreement executed by
the Issuer with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Continuing Disclosure Agreement”
and, collectively with the Indenture, the Airline Use Agreement, and this Bond Purchase
Agreement, the “Bond Documents”), and any and all other agreements relating thereto.
By all necessary official action of the Issuer taken prior to or concurrently with the
acceptance hereof, the Issuer has duly authorized all necessary action to be taken by it for
(i) the execution and delivery of the Third Supplemental Indenture and the issuance and
sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, (ii) the approval, execution and delivery of, and the
performance by the Issuer of its obligations contained in the Bond Documents and the
Series 2021 Bonds, (iii) the approval, distribution and use of the Preliminary Official
Statement dated [July ___, 2021] (the “Preliminary Official Statement”), and the
approval, execution, distribution and use of the Official Statement dated July ___, 2021
(the “Official Statement”), for use by the Underwriters in connection with the public
offering of the Series 2021 Bonds, and (iv) the consummation by the Issuer of all other
transactions described in the Official Statement, the Bond Documents and any and all such
other agreements and documents as may be required to be executed, delivered or received
by the Issuer in order to carry out, give effect to, and consummate the transactions
described herein and in the Official Statement.
(b)This Bond Purchase Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and
delivered, and constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Issuer, enforceable
against the Issuer in accordance with its terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, moratorium, and other similar laws and principles of equity relating to or
affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights.
(c)The Master Indenture constitutes, and the Third Supplemental Indenture
and the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, when duly executed and delivered, will
constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Issuer, enforceable against the Issuer
in accordance with their respective terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, moratorium, and other similar laws and principles of equity relating to or
affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights.
(d)The Series 2021 Bonds, when issued, delivered and paid for, in accordance
with the Indenture and this Bond Purchase Agreement, will have been duly authorized,
executed, issued and delivered by the Issuer and will constitute the valid and binding
obligations of the Issuer, enforceable against the Issuer in accordance with their terms,
subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, and other similar laws and
principles of equity relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights; upon the
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 3 Bond Purchase Agreement
issuance, authentication and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds as aforesaid, the Indenture
will provide, for the benefit of the holders, from time to time, of the Series 2021 Bonds,
the legally valid and binding pledge of and lien it purports to create as set forth in the
Indenture.
(e)The Issuer is not in material breach of or material default under any
applicable constitutional provision, law or administrative regulation of the State or the
United States relating to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds or any applicable judgment
or decree or any material loan agreement, indenture, bond, note, resolution, agreement or
other instrument to which the Issuer is a party with respect to obligations incurred or issued
by or on behalf of the Issuer, or to which the Issuer or any of its property or assets is
otherwise subject (or to which any of the Issuer’s property or assets relating to obligations
issued on behalf of the Issuer is otherwise subject), and no event which would have a
material and adverse effect upon the financial condition of the Issuer has occurred and is
continuing which constitutes or with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both,
would constitute a default or event of default by the Issuer under any of the foregoing.
(f)The execution and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds and the Bond
Documents and the adoption of the Bond Resolution, and compliance with the provisions
on the Issuer’s part contained therein, will not conflict with or constitute a material breach
of or material default under any constitutional provision, administrative regulation,
judgment, decree, loan agreement, indenture, bond, note, resolution, agreement or other
instrument to which the Issuer is a party or to which the Issuer is, or to which any of its
property or assets are, otherwise subject; nor will any such execution, delivery, adoption
or compliance result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or other security
interest or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever upon any of the property or assets of the
Issuer to be pledged to secure the Series 2021 Bonds or under the terms of any such law,
regulation or instrument, except as provided by the Series 2021 Bonds and the Indenture.
(g)All authorizations, approvals, licenses, permits, consents and orders of any
governmental authority, legislative body, board, agency or commission having jurisdiction
of the matter which are required for the due authorization of, which would constitute a
condition precedent to, or the absence of which would materially adversely affect the
approval of the Bond Documents, the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds or the due
performance by the Issuer of its obligations under the Bond Documents and the Series 2021
Bonds, have been duly obtained.
(h)The Series 2021 Bonds and the Indenture conform to the descriptions
thereof contained in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement under
the captions, “THE SERIES 2021 BONDS,” “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021
BONDS,” and in APPENDIX C to the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official
Statement; the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds will be applied generally as
described in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement under the
captions, “ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS” and “THE NEW SLC.”
(i)Except to the extent disclosed in the Preliminary Official Statement and the
Official Statement, no action, suit, or proceeding, with merit, has been served on the Issuer
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 4 Bond Purchase Agreement
or is, to the best knowledge of the Issuer, threatened against the Issuer (i) affecting the
existence of the Issuer or the titles of its officers to their respective offices, (ii) affecting or
seeking to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the sale, issuance or delivery of the Series 2021
Bonds, (iii) in any way contesting or affecting the validity or enforceability of the Series
2021 Bonds or the Bond Documents or the design and construction of the New SLC or the
procurement of contracts with respect thereto, (iv) contesting the exclusion from gross
income of interest on the Series 2021 Bonds for federal income tax purposes, (v) contesting
in any way the completeness or accuracy of the Preliminary Official Statement or the
Official Statement or any supplement or amendment thereto, or (vi) contesting the powers
of the Issuer or any authority for the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, the adoption of the
Bond Resolution, or the execution and delivery of the Bond Documents, nor, to the best
knowledge of the Issuer, is there any basis therefor, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling
or finding would materially adversely affect the validity or enforceability of the Series
2021 Bonds or the Bond Documents.
(j)The Preliminary Official Statement was in a form deemed final by the Issuer
for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 (the “Rule”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “SEC”), except for the omission of not more than the following: offering prices,
interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, delivery dates, and terms
depending on such matters (collectively, the “Omitted Information”). The Official
Statement shall be in a form which the Issuer deems final and complete for purposes of
paragraph (b)(1) of the Rule. The Issuer shall provide or cause to be provided to the
Underwriters, no later than the seventh business day after the date of this Bond Purchase
Agreement, a final Official Statement in “designated electronic format” (as defined in
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G-32) and in sufficient quantity to permit
the Underwriters to comply with the Rule and other applicable rules of the SEC and the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”). The Issuer hereby confirms that
it does not object to distribution of the Official Statement in electronic format and hereby
authorizes and directs the Underwriters to file the Official Statement with the MSRB’s
Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) system.
(k)The Preliminary Official Statement, as of its date and as of the date of this
Bond Purchase Agreement, did not and does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact (except for the Omitted Information) required to be
stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading, except no representation is made regarding
information concerning The Depository Trust Company, its book-entry only system,
CUSIP numbers, the Trustee, and the Underwriters.
(l)At the time of the Issuer’s acceptance hereof and (unless the Official
Statement is amended or supplemented pursuant to paragraph (m) of this Section) at all
times subsequent thereto during the period up to and including the Closing Date (defined
below), the Official Statement does not and will not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to
make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading, except no representation is made regarding information concerning The
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 5 Bond Purchase Agreement
Depository Trust Company, its book-entry only system, CUSIP numbers, the Trustee, and
the Underwriters.
(m)If at any time from the date hereof until the Closing Date, and for a period
of 25 days following the “end of the underwriting period” (defined below), any event
known to the Issuer relating to or affecting the Issuer or the Series 2021 Bonds or any
agreement related to the Series 2021 Bonds shall occur which might affect the accuracy or
completeness of any statement of a material fact contained in the Official Statement or any
document incorporated by reference therein, the Issuer shall promptly notify the
Representative in writing of the circumstances and details of such event. The Issuer will
cooperate with the Underwriters in the preparation of such amendments and supplements
to the Official Statement as may be advisable, in the reasonable judgment of the
Representative or the Issuer, to assure that the Official Statement as amended or
supplemented will at no time include any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made in the Official Statement,
in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. The Issuer shall
not supplement or amend the Official Statement or cause the Official Statement to be
supplemented or amended without the prior written consent of the Representative, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld (provided, however, that the providing of any
such consent by the Representative shall not limit the Underwriters’ right to cancel their
obligations hereunder pursuant to Section 4(a)).
(n)If the Official Statement is supplemented or amended pursuant to paragraph
(m), at the time of each supplement or amendment thereto and (unless subsequently again
supplemented or amended pursuant to such paragraph) at all times subsequent thereto until
25 days from the “end of the underwriting period” (defined below), the Official Statement
as so supplemented or amended will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the
statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which made, not misleading.
For purposes of this Bond Purchase Agreement, the “end of the underwriting period” shall
mean the Closing Date, unless the Representative otherwise notifies the Issuer in writing
by the Closing Date that a later date is designated as the “end of the underwriting period.”
(o)The Issuer maintains disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the Issuer generally, and in particular the Airport, is made
known to the financial officers of the Issuer that are primarily responsible for the review
and/or preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement and other
appropriate officers by others within the Issuer’s organization.
(p)The Issuer has the legal authority to apply and will apply, or cause to be
applied, the proceeds from the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds as provided in and subject to
all of the terms and provisions of the Indenture and will not take or omit to take any action
which action or omission will adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for federal
income tax purposes of the interest on the Series 2021 Bonds.
(q)The Issuer will furnish such information and execute such instruments and
take such action in cooperation with the Underwriters, at no expense to the Issuer, as the
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 6 Bond Purchase Agreement
Underwriters may reasonably request (A) to (y) qualify the Series 2021 Bonds for offer
and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other
jurisdictions in the United States as the Representative may designate and (z) determine
the eligibility of the Series 2021 Bonds for investment under the laws of such states and
other jurisdictions and (B) to continue such qualifications in effect so long as required for
the distribution of the Series 2021 Bonds (provided, however, that the Issuer will not be
required to qualify as a foreign corporation or to file any general or special consents to
service of process under the laws of any jurisdiction) and will advise the Representative
immediately of receipt by the Issuer of any written notification with respect to the
suspension of the qualification of the Series 2021 Bonds for sale in any jurisdiction or the
initiation or threat of any proceeding for that purpose.
(r)The financial statements of, and other financial information regarding, the
Issuer’s Department of Airports and the Airport in the Preliminary Official Statement and
in the Official Statement fairly present the financial position and results of the Department
of Airports as of the dates and for the periods therein set forth. The financial statements of
the Department of Airports have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles consistently applied, and except as noted in the Preliminary Official
Statement and in the Official Statement, the other historical financial information set forth
in the Preliminary Official Statement and in the Official Statement has been presented on
a basis consistent with that of the Department of Airport’s audited financial statements
included in the Preliminary Official Statement and in the Official Statement.
(s)Prior to the Closing, the Issuer will not take any action within or under its
control that will cause any adverse change of a material nature in such financial position,
results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Department of Airports or
the Airport System.
(t)Other than the Issuer’s (1) Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A (AMT)
and Series 2017B (Non-AMT) and (2) Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A (AMT), and
Series 2018B (Non-AMT) (collectively, the “Outstanding Parity Bonds”), as of the date of
the Closing, the Issuer will not have outstanding any indebtedness which indebtedness is
secured by a lien on the Net Revenues on a parity with the lien of the Series 2021 Bonds
on the Net Revenues. As of the date of the Closing, the Issuer will not have outstanding
any indebtedness which indebtedness is secured by a lien on the Net Revenues superior to
the lien of the Series 2021 Bonds and the Outstanding Parity Bonds on the Net Revenues.
(u)The Issuer will not, prior to the Closing, offer or issue any bonds, notes or
other obligations for borrowed money or incur any material liabilities direct or contingent
in each case with respect to the Airport System, except in the ordinary course of business
and without prior notice to the Representative.
(v)Any certificate, signed by any official of the Issuer authorized to do so in
connection with the transactions described in this Bond Purchase Agreement, shall be
deemed a representation and warranty by the Issuer to the Underwriters as to the statements
made therein.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 7 Bond Purchase Agreement
(w)The Issuer will enter into the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for the
benefit of owners of the Series 2021 Bonds, in substantially the form set forth as
APPENDIX F to the Official Statement. Except as described in the Preliminary Official
Statement and the Official Statement, the Issuer has not failed during the previous five
years to comply with any previous undertakings in a written continuing disclosure contract
or agreement under Rule 15c2-12.
(x)The Issuer has complied, and will at the Closing be in compliance, in all
respects, with the Act and other laws applicable to the Series 2021 Bonds and the Bond
Documents.
(y)The Issuer shall not amend, terminate, or rescind, or agree to any
amendment, termination, or rescission, of the Bond Resolution or the Bond Documents
without the prior written consent of the Representative prior to the Closing Date.
(z)The Issuer is a municipality and a public body corporate and politic duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah (the “State”) with full legal
right, power and authority to carry out and consummate all transactions contemplated by
the Bond Documents. The Issuer has lawful authority to own and operate the Airport
System facilities described in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement
and to fix and collect rents, rates, fees and other charges in connection with such facilities.
The Issuer has complied with all applicable provisions of law and has taken all actions
required to be taken by it in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Bond
Documents, except as may be required under the blue sky laws of any jurisdiction.
Section 2.Purchase, Sale and Delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds. On the basis
of the representations, warranties and covenants contained herein, and subject to the terms
and conditions herein set forth, on the Closing Date, the Underwriters agree to purchase
from the Issuer and the Issuer agrees to sell to the Underwriters (a) the Series 2021A Bonds
at a purchase price equal to $__________ (being the par amount thereof plus a [net]
reoffering premium of $__________ and less an Underwriters’ discount of $__________
and (b) the Series 2021B Bonds at a purchase price equal to $__________ (being the par
amount thereof plus a [net] reoffering premium of $__________ and less an Underwriters’
discount of $__________).
The Series 2021 Bonds shall be issued under and secured, shall mature and bear
interest and be subject to redemption, as set forth in the Indenture and the Official
Statement. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be dated their date of original issuance and
delivery and shall have the principal maturities and bear interest at the rates per annum
shown on Exhibit A hereto.
The Underwriters intend to make a bona fide initial public offering of all the Series
2021 Bonds at prices not in excess of the initial offering prices set forth in the Official
Statement. The Underwriters reserve the right to lower such initial offering prices as they
deem necessary in connection with the marketing of the Series 2021 Bonds. Subject to
Section 3 hereof, the Underwriters may offer and sell the Series 2021 Bonds to certain
dealers (including dealers depositing the Series 2021 Bonds into investment trusts) and
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 8 Bond Purchase Agreement
others at prices lower than the initial public offering price or prices set forth in the Official
Statement. The Underwriters also reserve the right to: (i) over-allot or effect transactions
which stabilize or maintain the market price of the Series 2021 Bonds at levels above those
that might otherwise prevail in the open market and (ii) discontinue such stabilizing, if
commenced, at any time without prior notice.
The Representative shall send, by electronic form or equally prompt means, a copy
of the Official Statement to the MSRB.
Payment for the Series 2021 Bonds shall be made by wire transfer in immediately
available federal funds payable to the order of the Issuer, at the time of the closing for the
Series 2021 Bonds in Salt Lake City, Utah, at approximately 9:00 a.m., on [August ___,
2021], or such other place, time or date as shall be mutually agreed upon by the Issuer and
the Representative. The date of such delivery and payment is herein called the “Closing
Date,” and the hour and date of such delivery and payment is herein called the “Closing.”
Delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds shall be made through the facilities of The
Depository Trust Company’s (“DTC”) book-entry-only system. The Series 2021 Bonds
will be delivered as fully-registered bonds, bearing CUSIP numbers, with a single bond for
each Series and maturity of the Series 2021 Bonds, and registered in the name of Cede &
Co., as nominee of DTC, which will act as securities depository for the Series 2021 Bonds.
Unless otherwise agreed by the Representative, the Series 2021 Bonds will be delivered
under DTC’s FAST delivery system.
Section 3.Establishment of Issue Price.
(a)The Representative, on behalf of the Underwriters, agrees to assist the Issuer
in establishing the issue price of the Series 2021 Bonds and shall execute and deliver to the
Issuer at Closing an “issue price” or similar certificate, together with the supporting pricing
wires or equivalent communications, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
B, with such modifications as may be appropriate or necessary, in the reasonable judgment
of the Representative, the Issuer and Bond Counsel (as defined herein), to accurately
reflect, as applicable, the sales price or prices or the initial offering price or prices to the
public of the Series 2021 Bonds.
(b)[Except for the Hold-the-Price Maturities described in subsection (c) below
and Exhibit A attached hereto], the Issuer will treat the first price at which 10% of each
maturity of the Series 2021 Bonds (the “10% test”) is sold to the public as the issue price
of that maturity (if different interest rates apply within a maturity, each separate CUSIP
number within that maturity will be subject to the 10% test). Exhibit A attached hereto
sets forth the maturities of the Series 2021 Bonds for which the 10% test has been satisfied
as of the date of this Bond Purchase Agreement (the “10% Test Maturities”) and the
prices at which the Underwriters have sold such 10% Test Maturities to the public.
(c)[With respect to the maturities of the Series 2021 Bonds that are not 10%
Test Maturities, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Hold-the-Price
Maturities”), the Representative confirms that the Underwriters have offered such
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 9 Bond Purchase Agreement
maturities of the Series 2021 Bonds to the public on or before the date of this Bond
Purchase Agreement at the offering price or prices (the “initial offering price”), or at the
corresponding yield or yields, set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. The Issuer and the
Representative, on behalf of the Underwriters, agree that the (i) the Representative shall
retain the unsold bonds of each Hold-the-Price Maturity and shall not allocate any such
bonds to any other Underwriter and (ii) the restrictions set forth in the next sentence shall
apply to the Hold-the-Price Maturities, which will allow the Issuer to treat the initial
offering price to the public of each such maturity as of the sale date as the issue price of
that maturity (the “hold-the-offering-price rule”). So long as the hold-the-offering-price
rule remains applicable to any maturity of the Hold-the-Price Maturities, the
Representative will neither offer nor sell unsold bonds of such maturity of the Hold-the-
Price Maturities to any person at a price that is higher than the initial offering price to the
public during the period starting on the sale date and ending on the earlier of the following:
(i) the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the sale date; or
(ii) the date on which the Representative has sold at least 10% of that
maturity of the Hold-the-Price Maturities to the public at a price that is no higher
than the initial offering price to the public.
The Representative shall advise the Issuer promptly after the close of the fifth (5th)
business day after the sale date whether it has sold 10% of that maturity of the Hold-the-
Price Maturities to the public at a price that is no higher than the initial offering price to
the public. ]
(d)The Representative confirms that:
(i) any agreement among underwriters, any selling group agreement
and each third-party distribution agreement (to which the Representative is a party)
relating to the initial sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the public, together with the
related pricing wires, contains or will contain language obligating each underwriter,
each dealer who is a member of the selling group and each broker-dealer that is a
party to such third-party distribution agreement, as applicable:
(A) (1) to report the prices at which it sells to the public the
unsold Series 2021 Bonds of each maturity allocated to it, whether or not
the Closing Date has occurred, until either all Series 2021 Bonds of that
maturity allocated to it have been sold or it is notified by the Representative
that the 10% test has been satisfied as to the Series 2021 Bonds of that
maturity, provided that, the reporting obligation after the Closing Date may
be at reasonable periodic intervals or otherwise upon request of the
Representative, and (2) to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if
applicable, if and for so long as directed by the Representative and as set
forth in the related pricing wires;
(B) to promptly notify the Representative of any sales of Series
2021 Bonds that, to its knowledge, are made to a purchaser who is a related
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 10 Bond Purchase Agreement
party to an underwriter participating in the initial sale of the Series 2021
Bonds to the public (each such term being used as defined below); and
(C) to acknowledge that, unless otherwise advised by the
underwriter, dealer or broker-dealer, the Representative shall assume that
each order submitted by the underwriter, dealer or broker-dealer is a sale to
the public;
(ii) any agreement among underwriters or selling group agreement
relating to the initial sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the public, together with the
related pricing wires, contains or will contain language obligating each underwriter
or dealer that is a party to a third-party distribution agreement to be employed in
connection with the initial sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the public to require
each broker-dealer that is a party to such third-party distribution agreement to (A)
report the prices at which it sells to the public the unsold Series 2021 Bonds of each
maturity allocated to it, whether or not the Closing Date has occurred, until either
all Series 2021 Bonds of that maturity allocated to it have been sold or it is notified
by the Representative or such underwriter or dealer that the 10% test has been
satisfied as to the Series 2021 Bonds of that maturity, provided that, the reporting
obligation after the Closing Date may be at reasonable periodic intervals or
otherwise upon request of the Representative or such underwriter or dealer, and (B)
comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable, if and for so long as
directed by the Representative or the underwriter or the dealer and as set forth in
the related pricing wires.
(e)The Issuer acknowledges that, in making the representations set forth in this
subsection, the Representative will rely on (i) the agreement of each underwriter to comply
with the requirements for establishing issue price of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, but
not limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable
to the Series 2021 Bonds, as set forth in an agreement among underwriters and the related
pricing wires, (ii) in the event a selling group has been created in connection with the initial
sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the public, the agreement of each dealer who is a member
of the selling group to comply with the requirements for establishing issue price of the
Series 2021 Bonds, including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-
the-offering-price rule, if applicable to the Series 2021 Bonds, as set forth in a selling group
agreement and the related pricing wires, and (iii) in the event that an underwriter or dealer
who is a member of the selling group is a party to a third-party distribution agreement that
was employed in connection with the initial sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the public,
the agreement of each broker-dealer that is a party to such agreement to comply with the
requirements for establishing the issue price of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, but not
limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable to
the Series 2021 Bonds, as set forth in the third-party distribution agreement and the related
pricing wires. The Issuer further acknowledges that each underwriter shall be solely liable
for its failure to comply with its agreement to adhere to the requirements for establishing
issue price of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply
with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable to the Series 2021 Bonds, and that no
underwriter shall be liable for the failure of any other underwriter, or of any dealer who is
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 11 Bond Purchase Agreement
a member of a selling group, or of any broker-dealer that is a party to a third-party
distribution agreement, to comply with its corresponding agreement to comply with the
requirements for establishing the issue price of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, but not
limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable to
the Series 2021 Bonds.
(f)The Underwriters acknowledge that sales of any Series 2021 Bonds to any
person that is a related party to an underwriter participating in the initial sale of the Series
2021 Bonds to the public (each such term being used as defined below) shall not constitute
sales to the public for purposes of this section. Further, for purposes of this section:
(i) “public” means any person other than an underwriter or a related
party,
(ii) “underwriter” means (A) any person that agrees pursuant to a
written contract with the Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an
underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to
the public and (B) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or
indirectly with a person described in clause (A) to participate in the initial sale of
the Series 2021 Bonds to the public (including a member of a selling group or a
party to a third-party distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the
Series 2021 Bonds to the public),
(iii) a purchaser of any of the Series 2021 Bonds is a “related party” to
an underwriter if the underwriter and the purchaser are subject, directly or
indirectly, to (A) more than 50% common ownership of the voting power or the
total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations (including direct
ownership by one corporation of another), (B) more than 50% common ownership
of their capital interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships
(including direct ownership by one partnership of another), or (C) more than 50%
common ownership of the value of the outstanding stock of the corporation or the
capital interests or profit interests of the partnership, as applicable, if one entity is
a corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including direct ownership of
the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the other), and
(iv) “sale date” means the date of execution of this Bond Purchase
Agreement by all parties.
Section 4.Conditions to the Underwriters’ Obligations. The Underwriters’
obligations hereunder shall be subject to the due performance by the Issuer of its
obligations and agreements to be performed hereunder at or prior to the Closing and to the
accuracy of and compliance with the Issuer’s representations and warranties contained
herein, as of the date hereof and as of the Closing, and are also subject to the following
conditions:
(a)The Series 2021 Bonds, the Bond Resolution and the Indenture shall have
been duly authorized, executed and delivered in the form approved by the Representative.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 12 Bond Purchase Agreement
(b)At Closing the Underwriters shall receive:
(1)(A) the unqualified approving opinion of Kutak Rock LLP,
as bond counsel to the Issuer (“Bond Counsel”), dated the Closing Date,
substantially in the form of APPENDIX G to the Official Statement and (B)
the supplemental opinion of Bond Counsel dated as of the Closing Date,
substantially in the form of Exhibit C hereto;
(2)the opinion of the City Attorney, dated the Closing Date,
substantially in the form of Exhibit D hereto;
(3)the opinion of Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, as disclosure
counsel to the Issuer, dated the Closing Date, substantially in the form of
Exhibit E hereto;
(4)the opinion of Gilmore & Bell, P.C., as Underwriters’
counsel, dated the Closing Date, substantially in the form of Exhibit F
hereto;
(5)the opinion of [Neilson Law LLC], as counsel to the Trustee,
dated the Closing Date, to the effect that: (A) the Trustee is a national
banking association, validly existing under the laws of the United States of
America and is authorized to exercise trust powers; (B) in accordance with
the laws of the State of Utah, the Trustee is authorized to exercise trust
powers in the State of Utah; (C) the Trustee has all requisite corporate
power, authority and legal right to execute and deliver the Indenture, as
trustee and to perform its obligations under the Indenture and has taken all
necessary corporate action to authorize the execution and delivery of the
Indenture, including the authentication and delivery of the Series 2021
Bonds in its capacity as trustee under the Indenture; (D) the Trustee has duly
authorized, executed and delivered the Indenture, as trustee and duly
authenticated the Series 2021 Bonds in its capacity as trustee under the
Indenture; (E) assuming the due authorization, execution and delivery
thereof by the City, the Master Indenture and the Third Supplemental
Indenture are valid and binding agreements of the Trustee, enforceable in
accordance with their terms against the Trustee; and (F) to such counsel’s
knowledge, no authorization, approval, consent or order of any
governmental agency or regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the
Trustee that has not been obtained by the Trustee is required for the
authorization, execution and delivery by the Trustee, as trustee of the
Indenture or the authentication of the Series 2021 Bonds by the Trustee, as
trustee.
(6)a certificate, satisfactory to the Representative, of the Mayor
of the Issuer and the Executive Director of the Department of Airports,
and/or any other duly authorized officers of the Issuer satisfactory to the
Representative, dated as of the Closing Date, to the effect that: (i) the Issuer
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 13 Bond Purchase Agreement
has duly performed all of its obligations to be performed at or prior to the
Closing and that each of the representations, warranties, and agreements of
the Issuer herein are true and correct as of the Closing with the same effect
as if made on the Closing; (ii) the Issuer has authorized, by all necessary
action, the execution, delivery, receipt and due performance of the Bond
Documents and any and all such other agreements and documents as may
be required to be executed and delivered by the Issuer to carry out, give
effect to and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and by the
Official Statement; (iii) to the knowledge of the Issuer no action, suit or
proceeding with merit has been served on the Issuer or is threatened: (1)
contesting or affecting the validity or authority for the issuance or delivery
of the Series 2021 Bonds or seeking to restrain or enjoin the issuance or
delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds; (2) contesting or affecting the validity or
powers of the Issuer or its right to use the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds
as contemplated or the design and construction of the New SLC or the
procurement of contracts with respect thereto; (3) contesting or affecting
the operation of the Airport System or the validity or enforceability of the
Indenture, this Bond Purchase Agreement, the Continuing Disclosure
Agreement or the Airline Use Agreement; (4) contesting, affecting or
seeking to restrain or enjoin the collection of Net Revenues pledged under
the Indenture which, if determined adversely to the Issuer, would have a
material impact on the Issuer’s collection of the income or revenues pledged
under the Indenture, or the pledge thereof; (5) contesting the completeness
or accuracy of the Official Statement; or (6) contesting the power of the
officials of the Issuer or the Department of Airports or their authority with
respect to the Indenture, the Series 2021 Bonds, the Official Statement, the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement or this Bond Purchase Agreement; (iv)
the financial statements and other financial information of the Airport
System contained in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official
Statement present fairly the financial position of the Airport System as of
the dates indicated and the results of its operations for the periods specified
therein, and such financial statements have been prepared in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles for governmental entities
applied in all material respects on a consistent basis (except as described in
the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement) with respect
to such period; (v) since June 30, 2020, there has not been any material
adverse change in the properties or financial condition of the Airport
System, except as set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement and the
Official Statement; (vi) the execution, delivery, receipt and due
performance of the Bond Documents and the other agreements
contemplated hereby and by the Official Statement under the circumstances
contemplated hereby and thereby and the Issuer’s compliance with the
provisions thereof will not conflict with or constitute on its part a material
breach of or a material default under any court decree or order or any
material agreement, indenture, lease or other instrument or, to the Issuer’s
knowledge, any existing law or administrative regulation, decree or order
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 14 Bond Purchase Agreement
to which the Issuer is subject or by which the Issuer is or may be bound;
and (vii) as of their dates, the Preliminary Official Statement and the final
Official Statement did not, and as of the Closing Date, the Official
Statement does not, contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading
(other than with respect to information relating to the DTC and the book-
entry system, CUSIP numbers, the Trustee and the Underwriters, as to
which no representation is made);
(7)Evidence satisfactory to the Representative that the Series
2021 Bonds have received ratings of “___” by S&P Global Ratings
(“S&P”), “___” by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”), and
“___” by Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Inc. (“Kroll”).
(8)executed or certified copies of the Bond Resolution, the
Indenture and the Continuing Disclosure Agreement;
(9)a letter from Eide Bailly LLP, Certified Public Accountants,
consenting to the inclusion in the Official Statement of the audited financial
statements of the Department of Airports for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2020;
(10)an executed copy of the Official Statement;
(11)evidence that the federal tax information forms 8038 and
8038-G have been prepared for filing;
(12)a tax compliance certificate relating to certain items
regarding the federal income tax implications of interest on the Series 2021
Bonds in form satisfactory to Bond Counsel, including accompanying
certificate of the Representative and municipal advisor;
(13)a Certificate, dated the Closing Date from the Trustee, to the
effect that (A) the Trustee is duly organized and existing as a national
banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United
States of America, having the full power and authority to enter into, accept
the trusts created under, and perform its duties under the Indenture and to
authenticate the Series 2021 Bonds; (B) the execution and delivery by the
Trustee of the Indenture, and compliance with the terms of the Indenture,
will not conflict with, or result in a violation or breach of, or constitute a
default under, any loan agreement, indenture, bond, note, resolution or any
other agreement or instrument to which the Trustee is a party or by which it
is bound, or, to the best knowledge of the Trustee, any law or any rule,
regulation, order or decree of any court or governmental agency or body
having jurisdiction over the Trustee or any of its activities or properties
(except that no representation, warranty or agreement is made by the
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 15 Bond Purchase Agreement
Trustee with respect to any federal or state securities or blue sky laws or
regulations); (C) there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation at law
or in equity before or by any court, public board or body, pending or, to the
best knowledge of the Trustee, threatened against or affecting the existence
of the Trustee or in any way contesting or affecting the validity or
enforceability of the Series 2021 Bonds or the Indenture, or contesting the
powers of the Trustee or its authority to enter into and perform its
obligations under any of the foregoing, or wherein an unfavorable decision,
ruling or finding would adversely affect the Trustee or the transactions
contemplated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Series 2021
Bonds, or which, in any way, would adversely affect the validity of the
Series 2021 Bonds, the Indenture or any agreement or instrument to which
the Trustee is a party and which is used or contemplated for use in the
Indenture, or the consummation of the transactions contemplated in
connection with the issuance and sale of the Series 2021 Bonds; (D) the
Series 2021 Bonds have been duly authenticated by the Trustee, as trustee
of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (E) subject to the provisions of the Indenture,
the Trustee will apply the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds to the purposes
specified in the Third Supplemental Indenture.
(14)a certificate, dated the Closing Date from Landrum &
Brown, Incorporated, the Airport Consultant to the Department of Airports,
to the effect that (A) consenting to the inclusion and publication of the
Report of the Airport Consultant in the Preliminary Official Statement and
Official Statement used in connection with the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds
and (B) consenting to the references to the Airport Consultant in the
Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement and stating that
nothing has come to the attention of the Airport Consultant in relation to the
preparation of the Report of the Airport Consultant which would cause them
to believe the Report of the Airport Consultant was, as of its date, or any
statements in the Preliminary Official Statement specifically attributed to
the Airport Consultant were, as of the date of the Preliminary Official
Statement, inaccurate in any material respect;
(15)a copy of the Letter of Representations to DTC executed by
the Issuer; and
(16)such additional legal opinions, certificates, proceedings,
instruments and other documents, as the Representative, Bond Counsel, the
City Attorney, Disclosure Counsel, or Underwriters’ Counsel may
reasonably request to evidence compliance by the Issuer with legal
requirements, the truth and accuracy, as of the Closing Date, of all
representations herein contained, the exemption of amounts received
(whether characterized as interest or discount) by holders of the Series 2021
Bonds from federal and state income taxation, and the due performance or
satisfaction by the Issuer at or prior to such date of all agreements then to
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 16 Bond Purchase Agreement
be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied as contemplated under
this Bond Purchase Agreement.
Section 5.The Underwriters’ Right to Cancel. The Underwriters shall have the
right to cancel their obligations hereunder to purchase the Series 2021 Bonds (such
cancellation shall not constitute a default hereunder) by notification from the
Representative to the Issuer if, after the execution hereof and prior to the Closing, any of
the following events shall occur in the reasonable judgment of the Representative:
(a)an event shall occur which makes untrue or incorrect in any material respect,
as of the time of such event, any statement or information contained in the Official
Statement or which is not reflected in the Official Statement but should be reflected therein
in order to make the statements contained therein in the light of the circumstances under
which they were made not misleading in any material respect and, in either such event, (a)
the Issuer refuses to permit the Official Statement to be supplemented to supply such
statement or information in a manner satisfactory to the Representative or (b) the effect of
the Official Statement as so supplemented is, in the judgment of the Representative, to
materially adversely affect the market price or marketability of the Series 2021 Bonds or
the ability of the Underwriters to enforce contracts for the sale, at the contemplated offering
prices (or yields), of the Series 2021 Bonds; or
(b)legislation shall be introduced in, enacted by, reported out of committee, or
recommended for passage by the State, either House of the Congress, or recommended to
the Congress or otherwise endorsed for passage (by press release, other form of notice or
otherwise) by the President of the United States, the Treasury Department of the United
States, the Internal Revenue Service or the Chairman or ranking minority member of the
Committee on Finance of the United States Senate or the Committee on Ways and Means
of the United States House of Representatives, or legislation is proposed for consideration
by either such committee by any member thereof or presented as an option for
consideration by either such committee by the staff or such committee or by the staff of the
Joint Committee on Taxation of the Congress of the United States, or a bill to amend the
Code (which, if enacted, would be effective as of a date prior to the Closing) shall be filed
in either House, or a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be rendered, or a
regulation or filing shall be issued or proposed by or on behalf of the Department of the
Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, or other agency of the federal
government, or a release or official statement shall be issued by the President, the
Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, in any
such case with respect to or affecting (directly or indirectly) the federal or state taxation of
interest received on obligations of the general character of the Series 2021 Bonds which,
in the reasonable judgment of the Representative, materially adversely affects the market
price or marketability of the Series 2021 Bonds or the ability of the Underwriters to enforce
contracts for the sale, at the contemplated offering prices (or yields), of the Series 2021
Bonds; or
(c)a stop order, ruling, regulation, proposed regulation or statement by or on
behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other governmental agency
having jurisdiction of the subject matter shall be issued or made to the effect that the
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 17 Bond Purchase Agreement
issuance, offering, sale or distribution of obligations of the general character of the Series
2021 Bonds (including any related underlying obligations) is in violation or would be in
violation of any provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended; or
(d)legislation introduced in or enacted (or resolution passed) by the Congress
or an order, decree, or injunction issued by any court of competent jurisdiction, or an order,
ruling, regulation (final, temporary, or proposed), press release or other form of notice
issued or made by or on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any other
governmental agency having jurisdiction of the subject matter, to the effect that obligations
of the general character of the Series 2021 Bonds, including any or all underlying
arrangements, are not exempt from registration under or other requirements of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or that the Indenture is not
exempt from qualification under or other requirements of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,
as amended, or that the issuance, offering, or sale of obligations of the general character of
the Series 2021 Bonds, including any or all underlying arrangements, as contemplated
hereby or by the Official Statement is or would be in violation of the federal securities law
as amended and then in effect;
(e)there shall have occurred (1) any outbreak or escalation of hostilities,
declaration by the United States of a national or international emergency or war; or (2) any
other calamity or crisis in the financial markets of the United States or elsewhere or
escalation thereof; or (3) a downgrade of the sovereign debt rating of the United States by
any major credit rating agency or payment default on United States Treasury obligations;
which, in the reasonable judgment of the Representative, materially adversely affects the
market price or marketability of the Series 2021 Bonds or the ability of the Underwriters
to enforce contracts for the sale, at the contemplated offering prices (or yields), of the Series
2021 Bonds; or
(f)there shall have occurred a general suspension of trading, minimum or
maximum prices for trading shall have been fixed and be in force or maximum ranges or
prices for securities shall have been required on the New York Stock Exchange or other
national stock exchange whether by virtue of a determination by that Exchange or by order
of the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other governmental agency having
jurisdiction or any national securities exchange shall have: (i) imposed additional material
restrictions not in force as of the date hereof with respect to trading in securities generally,
or to trading in the Series 2021 Bonds or similar obligations; or (ii) materially increased
restrictions now in force with respect to the extension of credit by or the charge to the net
capital requirements of underwriters or broker-dealers which, in the reasonable judgment
of the Representative, materially adversely affects the market price or marketability of the
Series 2021 Bonds or the ability of the Underwriters to enforce contracts for the sale, at the
contemplated offering prices (or yields), of the Series 2021 Bonds; or
(g)a general banking moratorium shall have been declared by federal or New
York or State of Utah state authorities or a major financial crisis or a material disruption in
commercial banking or securities settlement or clearances services shall have occurred
which, in the reasonable judgment of the Representative, materially adversely affects the
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 18 Bond Purchase Agreement
market price or the marketability for the Series 2021 Bonds or the ability of the
Underwriters to enforce contracts for the sale, at the contemplated offering prices (or
yields), of the Series 2021 Bonds; or
(h)a downgrading or suspension of any rating (without regard to credit
enhancement), or an official statement as to a possible downgrading (such as being placed
on “credit watch” or “negative outlook”), by Moody’s, S&P, Fitch, or Kroll of any debt
securities issued by the Issuer, including the Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 6.Payment of Expenses. The Issuer shall pay or cause to be paid from
the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds or other funds available to the Issuer the expenses
incident to the performance of its obligations hereunder, including but not limited to (a)
the cost of printing and mailing or delivering the Preliminary Official Statement and the
Official Statement and all other documents (other than as set forth in the next succeeding
paragraph) prepared in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby; (b) the fees
and disbursements of the Trustee and the paying agent in connection with the issuance of
the Series 2021 Bonds; (c) the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel, Disclosure
Counsel, the City Attorney, the Municipal Advisor, the Airport Consultant, and any other
experts or consultants retained by the Issuer in connection with the transactions
contemplated hereby; and (d) the costs related to obtaining ratings on the Series 2021
Bonds. The Issuer shall pay for any expenses (included in the expense component of the
Underwriters’ discount) incurred by the Underwriters on behalf of Issuer employees and
representatives in connection with this Bond Purchase Agreement or the Series 2021
Bonds, including, but not limited to, meals, transportation, and lodging of those employees
and representatives.
The Underwriters shall pay (a) the cost of preparation and printing of any blue sky
and legal investment memoranda to be used by them; (b) all advertising expenses in
connection with the public offering of the Series 2021 Bonds; (c) the fees and expenses of
any counsel employed by the Underwriters; (d) the fees of Digital Assurance Certification,
L.L.C. or any other compliance review entity for a continuing disclosure undertaking
compliance review; and (e) all other expenses incurred by them in connection with their
public offering and distribution of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Issuer acknowledges that
some or all of the expenses to be paid by the Underwriters may be included as part of the
expense component of the underwriting discount or may be reimbursed to the Underwriters
as out-of-pocket expenses.
Section 7.Conditions of the Issuer’s Obligations. The Issuer’s obligations
hereunder are subject to the Underwriters’ performance of their obligations hereunder.
Section 8.No Advisory or Fiduciary Role. The Issuer acknowledges and
agrees that (i) the purchase and sale of the Series 2021 Bonds pursuant to this Bond
Purchase Agreement is an arm’s-length commercial transaction between the Issuer and the
Underwriters, (ii) in connection therewith and with the discussions, undertakings and
procedures leading up to the consummation of such transaction, the Underwriters are and
have been acting solely as principals and are not acting as the agents or fiduciaries of the
Issuer, (iii) the Underwriters have not assumed a financial advisory or other advisory or
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 19 Bond Purchase Agreement
fiduciary responsibility in favor of the Issuer with respect to the offering contemplated
hereby or the discussions, undertakings and procedures leading thereto (irrespective of
whether the Underwriters have provided other services or are currently providing other
services to the Issuer on other matters) and the Underwriters have no obligation to the
Issuer with respect to the offering contemplated hereby except the obligations expressly
set forth in this Bond Purchase Agreement, and (iv) the Issuer has consulted its own legal,
financial and other advisors to the extent it has deemed appropriate.
Section 9.Representations, Warranties and Agreements to Survive Delivery.
All of the Issuer’s representations, warranties and agreements shall remain operative and
in full force and effect, regardless of any investigations made by the Underwriters and shall
survive delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds to the Underwriters.
Section 10.Use of Official Statement. The Issuer hereby ratifies and confirms
the Underwriters’ authority to use the Preliminary Official Statement and authorizes the
use of, and will make available, the Official Statement for use by the Underwriters in
connection with the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 11.Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for Issuer Officers and
Employees and Former Issuer Officers and Employees. The Representative represents that
the Underwriters have not: (i) provided an illegal gift or payoff to an Issuer officer or
employee or former Issuer officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (ii)
retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding
for a commission, percentage, or brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide
employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business;
(iii) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the Issuer’s conflict of
interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (iv) knowingly influenced, and
hereby promises that the Underwriters will not knowingly influence, an Issuer officer or
employee or former Issuer officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set
forth in the Issuer’s conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code.
Section 12.Notice. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Issuer
under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by mailing or delivering the same in
writing to Salt Lake City Corporation, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Attention: Mayor, with a copy to the same address Attention: City Attorney and to Salt
Lake City Department of Airports, 3920 West Terminal Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122,
Attention: Executive Director; and any notice or other communication to be given to the
Representative under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same
in writing to Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 388 Greenwich Street, Trading – 6th Floor,
New York, New York, 10013, Attention: Robert DeMichiel.
Section 13.Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Bond Purchase Agreement
constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the matters
covered hereby, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the
parties. This Bond Purchase Agreement shall only be amended, supplemented or modified
in a writing signed by both of the parties hereto.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 20 Bond Purchase Agreement
Section 14.No Third-Party Beneficiary; Non-Assignability. This Bond
Purchase Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the signatories hereto and no other
person shall acquire or have any right hereunder or by virtue hereof. This Bond Purchase
Agreement may not be assigned by the Issuer or the Underwriters.
Section 15.Execution of Counterparts. This Bond Purchase Agreement may be
executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be regarded as an original and all of
which shall constitute one and the same document.
Each party hereto acknowledges and agrees that it may execute this Bond Purchase
Agreement, and any variation or amendment hereto, using Electronic Signatures (as
defined below). Such Electronic Signatures are intended to authenticate this writing and
to have the same force and effect as handwritten signatures.
“Electronic Signature” means any electronic sound, symbol, or process attached
to or logically associated with a record and executed and adopted by a party with the intent
to sign such record, including facsimile or email electronic signatures, pursuant to the
applicable law, including the Federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act, the Utah Uniform Electronic Transaction Act, or any other similar state
laws based on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, as amended from time to time.
Section 16.Governing Law. The right and obligations of the parties to this
Agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of
the State of Utah.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows]
S-1
SIGNATURE PAGE TO BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Very truly yours,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
acting on behalf of itself and as the
representative of GOLDMAN SACHS &
CO. LLC [and _______________] as
Underwriters
By:
Managing Director
Accepted as of the date first above written:
Time of acceptance:
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, a municipal
corporation and political subdivision of the
State of Utah
By:
Deputy Mayor
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF
AIRPORTS
By:
Director of Finance
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Senior City Attorney
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
By:
City Recorder
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 A-1
EXHIBIT A
MATURITY SCHEDULE AND REDEMPTION PROVISIONS
FOR THE SERIES 2021 BONDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$__________ AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021A (AMT)
Due
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate Yield Price
_________________
* Term Bonds, subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption.
[** 10% Test Maturities]
[*** Hold-the-Price Maturities]
c Yield to the par call on July 1, 20[__]
Redemption Provisions:
Optional Redemption: The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on or before July 1, 20___, are
not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Series 2021A Bonds maturing
on or after July 1, 20___ are redeemable at the option of the Issuer on or after July 1, 20___,
in whole or in part at any time, from any moneys that may be provided for such purpose,
at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Series 2021A Bonds to
be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium.
Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption:
The Series 2021A Bonds maturing on July 1, 20___ are subject to mandatory
sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal
amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without
premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following principal amounts:
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 A-2
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*Final Maturity Date
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 A-3
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$__________ AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021B (NON-AMT)
Due
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate Yield Price
_________________
* Term Bonds, subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption.
[** 10% Test Maturities]
[*** Hold-the-Price Maturities]
c Yield to the par call on July 1, 20[__]
Redemption Provisions:
Optional Redemption: The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on or before July 1, 20___, are
not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on
or after July 1, 20___, are redeemable at the option of the Issuer on or after July 1, 20___,
in whole or in part at any time, from any moneys that may be provided for such purpose
and at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of such Series 2021B
Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without
premium.]
Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption:
The Series 2021B Bonds maturing on July 1, 20___ are subject to mandatory
sinking fund redemption in part, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal
amount thereof, plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without
premium, on July 1 of the following years and in the following principal amounts:
July 1
of the Year Principal Amount
*Final Maturity Date
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 B-1
EXHIBIT B
ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATE
$__________
Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds
Series 2021A (AMT)
$__________
Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds
Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
The undersigned on behalf of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the “Representative”),
on its own behalf and on behalf of, Goldman Sachs & Co LLC [and _______________]
(collectively, the “Underwriting Group”), hereby certifies as set forth below with respect
to the sale and issuance of the above-captioned obligations (the “Series 2021 Bonds”).
1. Sale of the 10% Test Maturities. As of the date of this certificate, for each
Maturity of the Series 2021 Bonds listed as a “10% Test Maturity” in Schedule A attached
hereto, the first price at which at least 10% of such Maturity was sold to the Public is the
respective price listed in Schedule A attached hereto.
[2. Initial Offering Price of the Hold-the-Price Maturities.
(a) The Underwriting Group offered the “Hold-the-Price Maturities”
(as listed in Schedule A attached hereto) to the Public for purchase at the respective
initial offering prices listed in Schedule A attached hereto (the “Initial Offering
Prices”) on or before the Sale Date.
(b) With respect to the Hold-the-Price Maturities, as agreed to in writing
by the Representative in the Bond Purchase Agreement, dated July ___, 2021,
between the Representative, on behalf of itself and the other members of the
Underwriting Group, and the Issuer, the Representative has (i) retained the unsold
Series 2021 Bonds of each Hold-the-Price Maturity and not allocated any such
bonds to any other member of the Underwriting Group, and (ii) not offered or sold
unsold Series 2021 Bonds of any of the Hold-the-Price Maturities to any person at
a price that is higher than or a yield lower than the respective Initial Offering Prices
for such Maturities of the Series 2021 Bonds during the Holding Period.]
3. Pricing Wire or Equivalent Communication. A copy of the pricing wire
or equivalent communication for the Series 2021 Bonds is attached to this certificate as
Schedule B.
4. Establishment of Common Reserve Fund. The establishment of the
Common Reserve Fund (as defined in the hereinafter defined Tax Compliance Certificate),
at the level of funding described in Section ___ of the Tax Compliance Certificate, in the
best judgment of the undersigned, was reasonably required to market the Series 2021
Bonds at the prices and yields listed in Schedule A attached hereto and is reasonable and
customary in marketing obligations of the same general type as the Series 2021 Bonds.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 B-2
5. Defined Terms.
(a)10% Test Maturities means those Maturities of the Series 2021
Bonds listed in Schedule A hereto as the “10% Test Maturities.”
(b)Hold-the-Price Maturities means those Maturities of the Series 2021
Bonds listed in Schedule A hereto as the “Hold-the-Price Maturities.”
(c)Holding Period means, with respect to a Hold-the-Price Maturity,
the period starting on the Sale Date and ending on the earlier of (i) the close of the
fifth business day after the Sale Date, or (ii) the date on which at least 10% of such
Hold-the-Price Maturity was sold to the Public at prices that are no higher than or
yields that are no lower than the Initial Offering Price for such Hold-the-Price
Maturity.
(d)Issuer means Salt Lake City, Utah.
(e)Maturity means Series 2021 Bonds with the same credit and
payment terms. Series 2021 Bonds with different maturity dates, or Series 2021
Bonds with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as
separate maturities.
(f)Public means any person (including an individual, trust, estate,
partnership, association, company, or corporation) other than an Underwriter or a
related party to an Underwriter.
(g)Related Party. A purchaser of any Series 2021 Bonds is a “Related
Party” to an Underwriter if the Underwriter and the purchaser are subject, directly
or indirectly, to (i) more than 50% common ownership of the voting power or the
total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations (including direct
ownership by one corporation of another), (ii) more than 50% common ownership
of their capital interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships
(including direct ownership by one partnership of another), or (iii) more than 50%
common ownership of the value of the outstanding stock of the corporation or the
capital interests or profit interests of the partnership, as applicable, if one entity is
a corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including direct ownership of
the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the other).
(h)Sale Date means the first day on which there is a binding contract in
writing for the sale of a Maturity of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Sale Date of the
Series 2021 Bonds is July ___, 2021.
(i)Tax Compliance Certificate means the Tax Compliance Certificate,
dated August ___, 2021, executed and delivered by the Issuer in connection with
the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds.
(j)Underwriter means (i) any person that agrees pursuant to a written
contract with the Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 B-3
syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the Public,
and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly
with a person described in clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial
sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to the Public (including a member of a selling group
or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the
Series 2021 Bonds to the Public).
The representations set forth in this certificate are limited to factual matters only.
Nothing in this certificate represents the Representative’s interpretation of any laws,
including specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, and the Treasury Regulations thereunder. The undersigned understands that the
foregoing information will be relied upon by the Issuer with respect to certain of the
representations set forth in the Tax Certificate and with respect to compliance with the
federal income tax rules affecting the Series 2021 Bonds, and by Kutak Rock LLP, as Bond
Counsel to the Issuer, in connection with rendering its opinion that the interest on the Series
2021 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation
of the Internal Revenue Service Form 8038 and Form 8038-G, and other federal income
tax advice that it may give to the Issuer from time to time relating to the Series 2021 Bonds.
The certifications contained herein are not necessarily based on personal knowledge, but
may instead be based on either inquiry deemed adequate by the undersigned or institutional
knowledge (or both) regarding the matters set forth herein.
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Representative of the Underwriting Group
By
Authorized Representative
Dated: [August ___, 2021].
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 B-4
SCHEDULE A
SALE PRICES
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$__________ AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021A (AMT)
Due
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate Yield Price
_________________
* Term Bonds, subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption.
[** 10% Test Maturities]
[*** Hold-the-Price Maturities]
c Yield to the par call on July 1, 20[__]
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 B-5
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$__________ AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021B (NON-AMT)
Due
(July 1)
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate Yield Price
_________________
* Term Bonds, subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption.
[** 10% Test Maturities]
[*** Hold-the-Price Maturities]
c Yield to the par call on July 1, 20[__]
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 B-6
SCHEDULE B
PRICING WIRE OR EQUIVALENT COMMUNICATION
(To be attached)
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 C-1
EXHIBIT C
(FORM OF SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL)
[August ___, 2021]
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City, Utah
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
As Representative of the Underwriters
New York, New York
$__________
Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds
Series 2021A
(AMT)
$__________
Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds
Series 2021B
(Non-AMT)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have acted as Bond Counsel to Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”) in connection
with the issuance by the City of its $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue
Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT) (the “Series 2021A Bonds”), and $__________ Salt Lake
City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2021B Bonds,”
and together with the Series 2021A Bonds, the “Series 2021 Bonds”). We are delivering
this opinion letter pursuant to Section 3(b)(1)(B) of the Bond Purchase Agreement, dated
July ___, 2021 (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”), between Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
as representative of the underwriters of the Series 2021 Bonds, and the City. Capitalized
terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings as set forth in the
Bond Purchase Agreement.
In connection with the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and the opinions set forth
below, we have examined the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2017 (the
“Master Indenture”), by and between the City and Wilmington Trust, National Association,
as trustee (the “Trustee”); the Third Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated as of [August 1,
2021] (the “Third Supplemental Indenture,” and together with the Master Indenture, the
“Indenture”), by and between the City and the Trustee; the Bond Purchase Agreement; the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement, dated [August ___, 2021] (the “Continuing Disclosure
Agreement”), by the City; the Tax Compliance Certificate, dated [August ___, 2021], with
respect to the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Tax Compliance Certificate”), by the City;
Resolution No. ___ of 2021, adopted by the City Council of the City on [June 1, 2021] (the
“Bond Resolution”); the Official Statement, dated July ___, 2021, relating to the Series
2021 Bonds (the “Official Statement”); and such other documents, instruments and
materials as we deemed necessary to render this opinion.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 C-2
The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based on an analysis of existing
laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions and cover certain matters not directly
addressed by such authorities. Such opinions or conclusions may be affected by actions
taken or omitted or events occurring after the date hereof. We have not undertaken to
determine, or to inform any person, whether any such actions are taken or omitted or events
do occur or any other matters come to our attention after the date hereof.
We have assumed the genuineness of all documents and signatures presented to us
(whether as originals or as copies) and the due and legal execution and delivery thereof by,
and validity against, any parties other than the City. We have assumed, without
undertaking to verify, the accuracy of the factual matters represented, warranted or certified
in the documents referred to in the second paragraph hereof. We have further assumed
compliance with all covenants and agreements contained in such documents.
In addition, we call attention to the fact that the rights and obligations under the
Series 2021 Bonds, the Bond Resolution, the Master Indenture, the Third Supplemental
Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement and the
Tax Compliance Certificate and their enforceability may be subject to bankruptcy,
insolvency, reorganization, arrangement, fraudulent conveyance, moratorium and other
laws relating to or affecting creditors’ rights, to the application of equitable principles, and
to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases. We express no opinion with
respect to any indemnification, contribution, penalty, choice of law, choice of forum or
waiver provisions contained in the foregoing documents. Except as expressly set forth in
numbered paragraph 3 below, we have not undertaken any responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness or fairness of the Official Statement or any other offering material relating
to the Series 2021 Bonds and express no opinion relating thereto.
From such examination we are of the opinion that:
(1) The Bond Purchase Agreement and the Continuing Disclosure
Agreement have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the City and,
assuming the due authorization, execution and delivery by the other parties thereto,
as applicable, constitute binding and enforceable obligations of the City.
(2) The Series 2021 Bonds are exempt from registration under Section
3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Master Indenture and the
Third Supplemental Indenture are exempt from qualification under the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939, as amended.
(3) The information in the Official Statement under the headings “THE
SERIES 2021 BONDS—General Provisions,” “THE SERIES 2021 BONDS—
Redemption of the Series 2021 Bonds,” “SECURITY FOR THE SERIES 2021
BONDS,” and “TAX MATTERS,” and under “APPENDIX G—FORM OF
OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL,” excluding any material that may be treated as
included under such captions by cross-reference, insofar as such statements
expressly summarize certain provisions of the Master Indenture and the Third
Supplemental Indenture and our opinions concerning certain federal tax matters and
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 C-3
certain State of Utah tax matters relating to the Series 2021 Bonds, are accurate in
all material respects.
This opinion letter is furnished by us as Bond Counsel to the City. No attorney-
client relationship has existed or exists between our firm and Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. or any of the underwriters of the Series 2021 Bonds in connection with the Series 2021
Bonds or by virtue of this opinion letter. This opinion letter is issued to and for the sole
benefit of the addressees hereof and is issued for the sole purpose of the transaction
specifically referred to herein. No person other than the addressees hereof may rely upon
this opinion letter without our express prior written consent. This opinion letter may not
be utilized by the addressees hereof for any other purpose whatsoever and may not be
quoted by such addressees without our express prior written consent. Our engagement
with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds has concluded with their issuance. We assume no
obligation to review or supplement this opinion letter subsequent to its date, whether by
reason of a change in the current laws, by legislative or regulatory action, by judicial
decision or for any other reason.
Very truly yours,
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 D-1
EXHIBIT D
(FORM OF CITY ATTORNEY OPINION)
[August ___, 2021]
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City, Utah
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
as Representative of the Underwriters
New York, New York
Re: $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A
and $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series
2021B
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am the City Attorney of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”) in connection with the
issuance, sale and delivery of the City’s Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (the “Series
2021A Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $__________ and its Airport Revenue
Bonds, Series 2021B (the “Series 2021B Bonds,” and together with the Series 2021A
Bonds, the “Series 2021 Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $__________. For
purposes of this opinion, capitalized terms used herein and not defined have the meanings
assigned to them in the Bond Purchase Agreement relating to the Series 2021 Bonds dated
July ___, 2021 (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”) between the Underwriters identified
therein and the City and in the Official Statement dated July ___, 2021, relating to the
Series 2021 Bonds.
I, or others in this office under my supervision, have examined (i) the documents
referred to in the Bond Purchase Agreement, (ii) the Airline Use Agreement (as defined in
the Official Statement), and (iii) such other documents and records of the City and any
other papers as I or they have deemed relevant and necessary as the basis for the opinions
hereinafter set forth. In this connection, I or they have examined fully executed
counterparts of such documents, original or photostatic or certified copies of records of the
City, certificates or letters of officers of the City and certificates of certain public officials.
In such examination, I or they have assumed the genuineness and authenticity of all
documents submitted to me or us as originals and the conformity to original documents of
documents submitted to me or us as certified or photostatic copies. I or they have relied
upon such certificates of public officials and such certificates of officers of the City with
respect to the accuracy of factual matters contained therein as I or they have deemed
relevant and necessary as a basis for the opinions hereinafter set forth and I know of no
reason why I or they should not rely thereon. All references herein to agreements,
instruments, documents, laws, statutes, regulations, orders, writs, decrees and injunctions
are as of the date hereof.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 D-2
Based upon the foregoing, I am of the opinion that:
1. The City has been duly and validly created as a municipality and public
body corporate and politic existing under the laws of the State of Utah, with full power and
authority (a) to enter into, execute and perform its obligations under the Indenture, the
Airline Use Agreement, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement and the Bond Purchase
Agreement; and (b) to adopt and perform its obligations under the Bond Resolution and to
authorize and issue, sell and deliver the Series 2021 Bonds under the Bond Resolution and
the Indenture.
2. The officials of the City and the Airport Board named in the Official
Statement have been duly elected or appointed and, to the best of my knowledge, are, as of
the date hereof, qualified to serve in their respective positions.
3. The Bond Resolution has been duly adopted and the Indenture, the Series
2021 Bonds, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Airline Use Agreement, and the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by
the City and assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by the other parties, if
any, thereto, all such instruments constitute valid and binding limited obligations of the
City enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, except that the enforceability
thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium, or other laws affecting
creditors’ rights generally or usual equity principles in the event equitable remedies are
sought.
4. The Indenture creates a valid first lien and charge against the Net Revenues,
moneys, securities and funds pledged therein for the benefit of the payment of the Series
2021 Bonds.
5. Other than the Series 2017 Bonds and the Series 2018 Bonds, there are no
other bonds or other obligations which are secured by a lien on the Net Revenues, moneys,
securities and funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture superior to or on a parity with the
lien of the Series 2021 Bonds on such Net Revenues, moneys, securities and funds.
6. To the best of my knowledge, the adoption or execution and delivery, as
applicable, of the Bond Resolution, the Indenture, the Series 2021 Bonds, the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement, the Airline Use Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement by
the City and compliance with the provisions thereof will not conflict with or constitute a
material breach or material default under any applicable law, administrative regulation,
court order or consent decree of the State of Utah or, to my knowledge after due inquiry,
of the United States of America or of any department, division, agency or instrumentality
of either or any ordinance, agreement, note, resolution, indenture or other instrument to
which the City is a party or by which it or its property is bound.
7. Pursuant to the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Chapter 63G, Title 7,
Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, the City does not enjoy any defense on the
grounds of immunity (sovereign or otherwise) with respect to its obligations under the
Indenture.
8. To the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry, there is no amendment or
proposed amendment certified for placement on a statewide ballot to the Constitution of
the State of Utah that would materially adversely affect the Series 2021 Bonds or any
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 D-3
holder thereof in its capacity as such or the ability of the City to perform its obligations
under the Indenture.
9. To the best of my knowledge, all approvals, consents and orders, if any, of
any governmental entity, authority, board, agency or commission having jurisdiction which
would constitute conditions precedent to the performance by the City of its obligations
under the Bond Resolution, the Indenture, the Series 2021 Bonds, the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement, the Airline Use Agreement or the Bond Purchase Agreement have
been obtained.
10. To the best of my knowledge, the use of the Airport System materially
complies with all applicable federal, state and local laws or ordinances (including rules and
regulations) relating to zoning, building, the environment and safety.
11. To my knowledge after due inquiry, except as disclosed in the Official
Statement, no action, suit, or proceeding with merit, has been served on the City or is, to
my knowledge after due inquiry, threatened: (i) in any way affecting the existence of the
City or contesting or affecting the validity or authority for the issuance of the Series 2021
Bonds or seeking to restrain or enjoin the issuance or delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds;
(ii) contesting or affecting the operation or improvement of the Airport System or the
validity of the Bond Resolution, the Indenture, the Series 2021 Bonds, the Bond Purchase
Agreement, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement or the Airline Use Agreement; (iii)
contesting or affecting or seeking to restrain or enjoin the collection of revenues or other
moneys pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of and interest on the Series 2021
Bonds or otherwise under the Indenture or the pledge thereof; (iv) contesting in any way
the completeness or accuracy of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official
Statement; or (v) contesting the title or the power of the officials of the City or the authority
of the City with respect to the Bond Resolution, the Indenture, the Series 2021 Bonds,
Preliminary Official Statement, the Official Statement, the Continuing Disclosure
Agreement, the Airline Use Agreement, or the Bond Purchase Agreement.
12. While not passing upon, and not assuming responsibility for, the accuracy,
completeness or fairness of the statements contained in the Preliminary Official Statement
and the Official Statement, no facts have come to my attention which lead me to believe
that the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement (apart from the financial,
statistical data and forecasts contained therein, and information concerning The Depository
Trust Company, its book-entry only system, the Trustee, and the Underwriters, as to which
no opinion or belief is expressed) contained at their respective dates or contain on the date
hereof any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state at its date or omits at the
date hereof to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
This opinion is furnished solely for the benefit of its addressees and may not be
relied upon by any other person.
Very truly yours,
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 E-1
EXHIBIT E
(FORM OF DISCLOSURE COUNSEL OPINION)
[August ___, 2021]
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
as Representative of the Underwriters
New York, New York
Re: $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A
(AMT) and $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds,
Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have served as Disclosure Counsel to Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”) in
connection with the issuance of the above-referenced bonds (the “Bonds”), which are today
being delivered to Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the “Representative”), acting on behalf
of and as the representative of itself and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC [and
_______________] (together with the Representative, the “Underwriters”). All capitalized
undefined terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in Bond Purchase Agreement
dated July ___, 2021, between the City and the Representative.
We have participated in the preparation and review of the Continuing Disclosure
Agreement, the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement relating to the
Bonds. We have reviewed such proceedings, records, certificates, documents and
questions of law as we have considered necessary to enable us to render this opinion.
To the extent that the opinions expressed herein relate to or are dependent upon the
determination that the proceedings and actions relating to the authorization, issuance and
sale of the Bonds are lawful and valid under the laws of the State of Utah, and that the
Bonds and the interest thereon is excluded from the gross income of the owners of the
Bonds for federal income tax purposes, we understand that you are relying upon the
opinions delivered to you on the date hereof of Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel, and the
City Attorney, and, with your permission, we have assumed the accuracy of such opinions
and we have made no independent determination thereof.
We have assumed, but not independently verified, the genuineness of the signatures
on all documents and certificates that we have examined, the authenticity of documents
submitted as originals, the conformity to originals of documents submitted as copies and
the legal capacity of all individuals or entities executing documents or certificates relied
on by us.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 E-2
Because the primary purpose of our professional engagement was not to establish
factual matters and because of the wholly or partially nonlegal character of many of the
determinations involved in the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement and the
Official Statement, we are not passing upon, and assume no responsibility for, the accuracy,
completeness or fairness of the statements contained in the Preliminary Official Statement
and the Official Statement. However, we can advise, in our capacity as Disclosure Counsel
for the City and on the basis of the information and documents we have reviewed, in the
course of our performance of the services referred to above and without having undertaken
to verify independently the accuracy, completeness or fairness thereof or of the contents of
the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, nothing has come to our
attention which leads us to believe that Preliminary Official Statement (other than with
respect to the omission of certain information permitted to be excluded from the
Preliminary Official Statement pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 prescribed under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and excluding those portions noted in the following
paragraph) as of its date or the Official Statement (excluding those portions noted in the
following paragraph) as of its date or as of this date, contained or contains any untrue
statement of a material fact or omitted or omits to state any material fact necessary in order
to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were
made, not misleading.
Reference in this opinion to the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official
Statement does not include (a) information relating to The Depository Trust Company and
its book-entry system, (b) any financial, technical, demographic or statistical data included
in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, (c) any information in the
Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement relating to the exclusion from
gross income for federal income tax purposes and other tax treatment of the interest on the
Bonds and (d) Appendices A, B, E and G, as to all of which we express no opinion.
By accepting this letter, the Underwriters acknowledge and agree that delivery of
this letter to the Underwriters does not create an attorney-client relationship with our firm.
This opinion is furnished to you solely for your benefit, and is rendered solely in connection
with the transaction to which this opinion relates. This opinion may only be relied upon
by you in connection with this transaction and may not be relied upon by anyone else
without our prior written consent. This opinion is rendered as of the date hereof and we
expressly disclaim any obligation to update any matter in this opinion or to advise you of
any matters which may be brought to our attention subsequent to the date hereof.
Respectfully submitted,
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 F-1
EXHIBIT F
(FORM OF UNDERWRITERS’ COUNSEL OPINION)
[August ___, 2021]
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
[and _______________]
(collectively, the “Underwriters”)
Re: $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A
(AMT) and $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds,
Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
We have acted as counsel to you, the Underwriters, in connection with your
purchase from Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), pursuant to that Bond Purchase
Agreement dated July ___, 2021 (the “Purchase Agreement”) between you and the City,
of $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT) (the
“Series 2021A Bonds”) and $__________ Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds,
Series 2021B (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2021B Bonds” and together with the Series 2021A
Bonds, the “Bonds”), issued under a Master Trust Indenture dated as of February 1, 2017,
as heretofore supplemented (collectively, the “Master Indenture”), and a Third
Supplemental Trust Indenture dated as of [August 1, 2021] (the “Third Supplemental
Indenture,” and together with the Master Indenture, the “Indenture”), each by and between
the City and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee. Capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to such terms in the
hereinafter defined Official Statement.
In that connection, we have examined originals, or copies certified or otherwise
identified to our satisfaction, of the Purchase Agreement, the Indenture, the Preliminary
Official Statement dated [July ___, 2021] (the “Preliminary Official Statement”) and the
Official Statement dated July ___, 2021 (the “Official Statement”) relating to the Bonds,
the Continuing Disclosure Agreement of the City relating to the Bonds dated [August ___,
2021] (the “Continuing Disclosure Agreement”), and the other documents, certificates and
opinions delivered pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Purchase Agreement.
In arriving at the conclusions hereinafter expressed, we are not expressing any
opinion or view on, but are assuming and relying on, the validity, accuracy and sufficiency
of the documents and opinions referred to above (including the accuracy of all factual
matters represented and legal conclusions contained therein) and the due authorization,
issuance, delivery, validity and enforceability of the Bonds, the exclusion of interest on the
Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes and the exemption of interest on
the Bonds from State of Utah individual income tax. We have assumed that all documents,
certificates and opinions that we have reviewed are genuine.
4836-8603-5686, v. 5 F-2
Based upon and subject to the foregoing, and in reliance thereon, we are of the
opinion that,
1. The Bonds are not subject to the registration requirements of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and the Indenture is exempt from qualification under the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939, as amended.
2. The provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement comply with the
requirements of Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
While we have not verified and are not passing upon, and do not assume
responsibility for, the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the statements contained in the
Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, we have participated in
conferences with representatives of and counsel for the City, the Salt Lake City Department
of Airports, Bond Counsel, Disclosure Counsel, the Municipal Advisor, the Airport
Consultant and your representatives at which the contents of the Preliminary Official
Statement and the Official Statement were discussed and revised. Based on our
participation in the above-mentioned conferences, and in reliance thereon, and on the
documents and other items herein mentioned and without independent verification, we
advise you that, during the course of our representation of you in connection with the
issuance of the Bonds, no facts came to the attention of the attorneys in our firm rendering
legal services in connection with such representation which caused them to believe that the
Preliminary Official Statement as of its date or the Official Statement contained as of its
date or as of the date hereof contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted or
omits (other than with respect to the omission of certain information permitted to be
excluded from the Preliminary Official Statement pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 prescribed
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) to state a material fact required
to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in any material respect (except
that no opinion or belief is expressed as to (i) the expressions of opinion, the assumptions,
the projections, the financial statements, or other financial, numerical, economic,
demographic or statistical data contained in the Official Statement; (ii) the information with
respect to DTC and DTC’s book-entry system, and (iii) the information contained in
Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D, Appendix E, or Appendix G to the
Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement).
We are furnishing this letter to you solely for your benefit. We disclaim any
obligation to update this letter. This letter is delivered to you as the Underwriters of the
Bonds, is solely for the benefit of the Underwriters and is not to be used, circulated, quoted
or otherwise referred to or relied upon for any other purpose or by any other person. This
letter is not intended to be relied upon by holders of the Bonds or any other persons other
than the Underwriters.
Respectfully submitted,
4842-9446-9092
EXHIBIT E
[ATTACH FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT]
DRAFT
1
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
For the Purpose of Providing
Continuing Disclosure Information
Under Section (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12
This Continuing Disclosure Agreement (this “Agreement”) is executed and delivered by Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “City”) in connection with the issuance of its $____________ Airport Revenue Bonds,
Series 2021A (Non-AMT) (the “Series 2021A Bonds”), and its $_____________ Airport Revenue Bonds,
Series 2021B (AMT) (the “Series 2021B Bonds” and, collectively with the Series 2021A Bonds, the
“Bonds”).
In consideration of the issuance of the Bonds by the City and the purchase of such Bonds by the
beneficial owners thereof, the City covenants and agrees as follows:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Agreement is being executed and
delivered by the City for the benefit of the Bondholders and the Beneficial Owners (hereinafter defined)
and in order to assist the Participating Underwriters (hereinafter defined) in complying with subsection
(b)(5) of the Rule (hereinafter defined).
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONSIn addition to the definitions set forth in the Master Indenture
(hereinafter defined), which apply to any capitalized term used in this Agreement unless otherwise defined
herein, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings.
“Annual Report” shall mean any financial statements of the Department provided by the City
pursuant to, and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Agreement.
“Beneficial Owner” shall mean any person which has or shares the power, directly or indirectly, to
make investment decisions concerning ownership of any Bonds (including any person holding Bonds
through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries).
“Department” shall mean the City’s Department of Airports.
“EMMA” shall mean the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access System, or such other
system, Internet Web site, or repository hereafter prescribed by the MSRB for the submission of electronic
filings pursuant to the Rule.
“GAAP” shall mean generally accepted accounting principles, as such principles are prescribed, in
part, by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and modified by the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board and in effect from time to time.
“Listed Events” shall mean any of the events listed in Section 5(a) of this Agreement.
“MSRB” shall mean the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
“Master Indenture” means the Master Indenture as such term is defined in the Official Statement.
“1934 Act” shall mean the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
“Obligated Person” shall mean the City (acting through the Department) and each airline or other
entity using the Airport under a lease or use agreement extending for more than one year from the date in
question and including bond debt service as part of the calculation of rates and charges, under which lease
DRAFT
2
or use agreement such airline or other entity has paid amounts equal to at least twenty percent (20%) of the
Revenues of the Department for each of the prior two (2) fiscal years of the Department.
“Official Statement” shall mean the final Official Statement for the Bonds dated October 17, 2018.
“Participating Underwriters” shall mean any of the original underwriters of the Bonds required to
comply with the Rule in connection with the primary offering of the Bonds.
“Rule” shall mean Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC pursuant to the 1934 Act, as the same
may be amended from time to time, together with all interpretive guidance or other official interpretations
or explanations thereof that are promulgated by the SEC.
“SEC” shall mean the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“SEC Reports” means reports and other information required to be filed pursuant to Sections 13(a),
14 or 15(d) of the 1934 Act.
“Securities Counsel” shall mean legal counsel expert in federal securities law, and may include,
but is not limited to Bond Counsel or Disclosure Counsel with respect to the Bonds.
“State” shall mean the State of Utah.
SECTION 3. PROVISION OF ANNUAL REPORTS(a) Each year, the City shall provide by
January 2, commencing with January 2, 2019 for the Annual Report for the Department’s fiscal year ended
June 30, 2021, to the MSRB through EMMA an Annual Report for the preceding fiscal year which is
consistent with the requirements of Section 4 of this Agreement. In each case, the Annual Report may be
submitted as a single document or as separate documents comprising a package, and may include by specific
reference other information as provided in Section 4 of this Agreement; provided, however, that if the
audited financial statements of the Department are not available by the deadline for filing the Annual
Report, they shall be provided when and if available, and unaudited financial statements in a format similar
to the audited financial statements then most recently prepared for the Department shall be included in the
Annual Report.
(b) If the City is unable to provide to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format as
prescribed by the MSRB, an Annual Report by the date required in subsection (a), the City shall send a
notice, in a timely manner, to the MSRB, through EMMA, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A.
(c) If the City’s fiscal year changes, the City shall send written notice of such change to the MSRB
through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, in substantially the form attached as
Exhibit B.
(d) Whenever any Annual Report or portion thereof is filed as described above, it shall be attached
to a cover sheet in substantially the form attached as Exhibit C, or such other form as may be prescribed by
the SEC from time to time.
SECTION 4. CONTENT OF ANNUAL REPORTSThe Annual Report shall contain or include
by reference the following:
(a) The audited financial statements of the Department for its fiscal year immediately preceding
the due date of the Annual Report, of substantially the same nature as that included in the Official Statement
as Appendix A;
DRAFT
3
(b) Operating information for the fiscal year immediately preceding the due date of the Annual
Report otherwise presented in the Official Statement as follows:
(1) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
O&D AND CONNECTING ENPLANED PASSENGERS”;
(2) in the table under the heading “AIRLINES OPERATING AT SALT LAKE CITY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT”;
(3) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MARKET SHARE OF ENPLANED PASSENGERS”;
(4) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS”;
(5) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL LANDED WEIGHTS”;
(6) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HISTORICAL AIR CARGO AND MAIL”;
(7) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES AND EXPENSES”;
(8) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SUMMARY OF OPERATING REVENUES”;
(9) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
SOURCES OF AIRLINE REVENUES”; and
(10) in the table under the heading “SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF
AIRPORTS SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENSES.”
If any information described in this paragraph (b) is published or provided by a third party
and is no longer publicly available, the City shall include a statement to that effect as part
of the Annual Report for the year in which such lack of availability arises; and
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2021 (which is the Fiscal Year
following the Fiscal Year in which the City no longer pays 100% of the
interest on the Bonds from capitalized interest and the City pays at least a
portion of such interest from Net Revenues), an annual debt service
coverage calculation table for the prior Fiscal Year in accordance with
Section 5.04(b) of the Master Indenture, substantially in the following
format:
Annual Debt Service Coverage (FY_____)
Revenues $
Less Operating and Maintenance Expenses of the
Airport System $
Net Revenues $
Plus Transfers $
DRAFT
4
Total Available for Debt Service: $
Annual Debt Service on Outstanding Bonds* $
Annual Debt Service Coverage ______x
*In accordance with Section 5.04 of the Master Indenture, Annual Debt Service on Outstanding
Bonds for this purpose shall not include principal and/or interest paid with Other Moneys Available for
Debt Service or Passenger Facility Charges.
The Department’s financial statements shall be audited and prepared in accordance with GAAP;
provided, however, that the City may from time to time, in accordance with GAAP and subject to applicable
federal or State legal requirements, modify the basis upon which its financial statements are prepared.
Notice of any such modification shall be provided to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format
as prescribed by the MSRB.
Any or all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other documents that
previously have been provided to the MSRB, through EMMA. The City shall clearly identify each such
other document so included by reference.
SECTION 5. REPORTING OF LISTED EVENTS(a) The City covenants to provide or cause
to be provided to the MSRB through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, in a
timely manner not in excess of ten (10) business days after the occurrence of the event, notice of the
occurrence of any of the following events listed in (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule with respect to the Bonds:
(1) principal and interest payment delinquencies;
(2) non-payment related defaults, if material;
(3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties;
(4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;
(5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
(6) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final
determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701- TEB) or other
material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other
material events affecting the tax status of the Bonds;
(7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, if material;
(8) bond calls, if material, and tender offers;
(9) defeasances;
(10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material;
(11) rating changes;
DRAFT
5
(12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City, which is considered to
occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent or similar
officer for the City or the Department in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or
in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental
authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the
Department or the City, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing
governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and
orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of
reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having
supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the Department
or the City;
(13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the Department or
the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Department or the City,
other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to
undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such
actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material;
(14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if
material;
(15) incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material, or agreement to
covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial
obligation of the obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; or
(16) default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar
events under the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which reflect
financial difficulties.
(b) The City covenants that its determination of materiality will be made in conformance with
federal securities laws.
(c) Upon the occurrence of a Listed Event, the City shall promptly cause a notice of such
occurrence to be filed with the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB,
together with a cover sheet in substantially the form attached as Exhibit C. In connection with providing a
notice of the occurrence of a Listed Event described in subsection (a)(9), the City shall include in the notice
explicit disclosure as to whether the Bonds have been escrowed to maturity or escrowed to call, as well as
appropriate disclosure of the timing of maturity or call.
(d) The City acknowledges that the “rating changes” referred to above in Section (5)(a)(11) of this
Agreement may include, without limitation, any change in any rating on the Bonds, including changes in
the ratings of bond insurers of banks that may be providing credit enhancement on a portion of the Bonds.
(e) The City acknowledges that it is not required to provide a notice of a Listed Event with respect
to credit enhancement when the credit enhancement is added after the primary offering of the Bonds, the
City does not apply for or participate in obtaining such credit enhancement, and such credit enhancement
is not described in the Official Statement.
SECTION 6. TERMINATION OF REPORTING OBLIGATION(a) The City’s obligations
under this Agreement shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of the Bonds under the Master Indenture
or the prior redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds. If the City’s obligation to pay the principal
DRAFT
6
of and interest on the Bonds is assumed in full by some other entity, such entity shall be responsible for
compliance with this Agreement in the same manner as if it were the City, and the City shall have no further
responsibility hereunder.
(b) This Agreement, or any provision hereof, shall be null and void in the event that the City (i)
receives an opinion of Securities Counsel, addressed to the City, to the effect that those portions of the Rule,
which require such provisions of this Agreement, do not or no longer apply to the Bonds, whether because
such portions of the Rule are invalid, have been repealed, amended or modified, or are otherwise deemed
to be inapplicable to the Bonds, as shall be specified in such opinion, and (ii) delivers notice to such effect
to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB.
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT; WAIVER(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Agreement, this Agreement may be amended, and any provision of this Agreement may be waived,
provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) if the amendment or waiver relates to the provisions of Section 3(a), (b), (c), 4 or 5(a), it
may only be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change
in legal requirements, a change in law or a change in the identity, nature or status of the
City or the Department or type of business conducted by the City or the Department;
(2) this Agreement, as so amended or taking into account such waiver, would, in the opinion
of Securities Counsel, have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the
original issuance of the Bonds, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations
of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances; and
(3) the amendment or waiver either (A) is approved by the Bondholders in the same manner
as provided in the Master Indenture for amendments to the Master Indenture with the
consent of the Bondholders, or (B) does not, in the opinion of Securities Counsel,
materially impair the interests of the Bondholders.
(b) In the event of any amendment to, or waiver of a provision of, this Agreement, the City shall
describe such amendment or waiver in the next Annual Report and shall include an explanation of the
reason for such amendment or waiver. In particular, if the amendment results in a change to the annual
financial information required to be included in the Annual Report pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement,
the first Annual Report that contains the amended operating data or financial information shall explain, in
narrative form, the reasons for the amendment and the impact of such change in the type of operating data
or financial information being provided. Further, if the annual financial information required to be provided
in the Annual Report can no longer be generated because the operations to which it related have been
materially changed or discontinued, a statement to that effect shall be included in the first Annual Report
that does not include such information.
(c) If the amendment results in a change to the accounting principles to be followed in preparing
financial statements as set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, the Annual Report for the year in which the
change is made shall include a comparison between the financial statements or information prepared on the
basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on the basis of the former accounting principles.
The comparison shall include a qualitative discussion of such differences and the impact of the changes on
the presentation of the financial information. To the extent reasonably feasible, the comparison shall also
be quantitative. A notice of the change in accounting principles shall be sent by the City to the MSRB,
through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB.
DRAFT
7
SECTION 8. ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONNothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to
prevent the City from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in
this Agreement or any other means of communication, or including any other information in any Annual
Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event, in addition to that which is required by this Agreement.
If the City chooses to include any information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed
Event in addition to that which is specifically required by this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation
under this Agreement to update such information or include it in any future Annual Report or notice of
occurrence of a Listed Event.
SECTION 9. FAILURE TO COMPLYIn the event of a failure of the City to comply with any
provision of this Agreement, any Bondholder or Beneficial Owner may bring an action to obtain specific
performance of the obligations of the City under this Agreement, but no person or entity shall be entitled
to recover monetary damages hereunder under any circumstances, and any failure to comply with the
obligations under this Agreement shall not constitute a default with respect to the Bonds or under the Master
Indenture.
SECTION 10. BENEFICIARIESThis Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of the City, the
Participating Underwriters, the Bondholders and the Beneficial Owners, and shall create no rights in any
other person or entity.
SECTION 11. TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION AND NOTICES; DISSEMINATION
AGENTUnless otherwise required by law or this Agreement, and, in the sole determination of the City,
subject to technical and economic feasibility, the City shall employ such methods of information and notice
transmission as shall be requested or recommended by the herein-designated recipients of such information
and notices. Any filing with the MSRB under this Agreement may be made by transmitting such filing to
a dissemination agent.
SECTION 12. OTHER OBLIGATED PERSONSCurrently, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) is
the only Obligated Person other than the City, and Delta is required by the 1934 Act to file annual financial
information in the form of its SEC Reports with the SEC as described in the Official Statement. The City
assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the SEC Reports or other annual financial
information disseminated by Delta or any future Obligated Person. The City shall report as part of its
Annual Report any change in Obligated Persons and that an Obligated Person’s SEC Reports constitute its
annual financial information under this Agreement, if such is the case. Unless no longer required by the
Rule, the City shall use diligent efforts to cause each Obligated Person other than the City (to the extent
that such party is not required to file SEC Reports) to disseminate annual financial information substantially
equivalent to that contained in SEC Reports to the MSRB, through EMMA, in an electronic format as
prescribed by the MSRB, not later than nine months after the last day of the Obligated Person’s fiscal year.
The City has no obligation to file or disseminate any SEC Reports relating to another Obligated Person.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By:
Name:
Title:
Dated: _______________ __, 2021.
DRAFT
8
[Signature Page to Continuing Disclosure Agreement]
EXHIBIT A TO CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
NOTICE TO THE MSRB
OF FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORT
Name of Obligated Person:Salt Lake City, Utah
Name of Bond Issue:Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
Date of Bonds:________ __ , 2021
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City has not provided an Annual Report with respect to
the above-named Bonds as required by Section 3 of its Continuing Disclosure Agreement with respect to
the Bonds. The City anticipates that the Annual Report will be filed by ______________________.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By:
Name:
Its:
Dated: __________________________
EXHIBIT B TO CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
NOTICE TO THE MSRB
OF CHANGE IN AUTHORITY’S FISCAL YEAR
Name of Obligated Person:Salt Lake City, Utah
Name of Bond Issue:Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A (AMT)
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B (Non-AMT)
Date of Bonds:____________ __, 2021
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the fiscal year of the [City/Department] changed. Previously,
the [City/Department]’s fiscal year ended on _________________. It now ends on _________________.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By:
Name:
Its:
Dated: __________________________
EXHIBIT C TO CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
MUNICIPAL SECONDARY MARKET DISCLOSURE
INFORMATION COVER SHEET
This cover sheet should be sent with all submissions made to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board,
pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 or any analogous state statute.
***
Issuer’s and/or Other Obligated Person’s name: Salt Lake City, Utah
CUSIP Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary):
Nine-Digit CUSIP Number(s) to which the information relates:
Information relates to all securities issued by the City having the following six-digit number(s):
***
Number of pages of attached information: ________________________________________
Description of Material Events Notice/Financial Information (Check One):
1. ______ Principal and interest payment delinquencies
2. ______ Material non-payment related defaults
3. ______ Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial
difficulties
4. ______ Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial
difficulties
5. ______ Substitution of credit or liquidity providers or their failure to perform
6. ______ Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of
proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS
Form 5701-TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the
tax status of the bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the
bonds
7. ______ Material modifications to rights of securities holders
8. ______ Bond calls, if material, or tender offers
9. ______ Defeasances
10. ______ Material release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of
the bonds
DRAFT
11. ______ Rating changes
12. ______ Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Department
or the City
13. ______ The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving
the Department or the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of
the Department or the City, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake
such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such
actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material
14. ______ Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the material change
of name of a trustee
15. ______ Incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material,
or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other
similar terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which
affect security holders, if material
16. ______ Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms,
or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated
person, any of which reflect financial difficulties
17. ______ Failure to provide annual financial information as required
18. ______ Other material event notice (specify)
19. ______ Financial Information: Please check all appropriate boxes:
CAFR (a) __ includes __ does not include Annual Financial Information
(b) __ audited __ unaudited
Annual Financial Information: Audited? Yes __ No __
Fiscal Period Covered: ______________
I hereby represent that I am authorized by the City or its agent to distribute this information publicly:
Signature:
Name:Title:
Employer:
Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Voice Telephone Number:()
4842-9446-9092
EXHIBIT F
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Salt Lake City (the “City”) shall hold a public hearing
with respect to the City’s plans to issue and/or incur, from time to time (i) the City’s Airport
Revenue Bonds, Series 2021 (with any other or additional series or title designation determined
by the City, the “Bonds”) and (ii) the City’s Subordinate Airport Revenue Short-Term Revolving
Obligations (the “Subordinate Revolving Obligations”).
PURPOSE, TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
[The City shall hold a public hearing on [July 13], 2021, at the hour of [7:00 p.m.] via
electronic means or in person at the City and County Building located as 451 South State Street,
Room 315, Salt Lake City, Utah, pursuant to the Council Chair’s determination. The purpose of
the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to (a) the issuance and/or incurrence of
the Bonds and the Subordinate Revolving Obligations, from time to time, and (b) the potential
economic impact that the Bond Projects (as hereinafter defined) and the Subordinate Obligation
Projects (as hereinafter defined) to be financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds and
the Subordinate Revolving Obligations, respectively, will have on the private sector. All members
of the public are invited to attend and participate.]
[or]
[The City shall hold a public hearing on [July 13], 2021, at the hour of [7:00 p.m.] via
electronic means pursuant to the Council Chair determination that conducting a City Council
meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may
attend in person. This hearing will not have a physical location at the City and County Building.
All attendees will connect remotely. The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public
with respect to (a) the issuance and/or incurrence of the Bonds and the Subordinate Revolving
Obligations, from time to time, and (b) the potential economic impact that the Bond Projects (as
hereinafter defined) and the Subordinate Obligation Projects (as hereinafter defined) to be financed
or refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds and the Subordinate Revolving Obligations,
respectively, will have on the private sector. Members of the public are encouraged to participate
in the hearing and may visit www.slc.gov/council/ or call 801-535-7654 to learn how to participate
by phone or on the Webex platform. The public may also watch the meeting using 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 ]
Please visit the City’s website (www.slc.gov/council) or email
council.comments@slcgov.com or call 801-535-7654 to learn how you can share your comments
F-2
4842-9446-9092
live during the hearing. Persons wishing to make comments in writing about the Bonds, the
proposed plan of financing related to the Bonds, the Bond Projects, the Subordinate Revolving
Obligations, the proposed plan of financing related to the Subordinate Revolving Obligations and
the Subordinate Obligation Projects shall do so within fourteen (14) days following the publication
hereof to: Attention: Executive Director of Airports, P.O. Box 145550, Salt Lake City, Utah,
84114-5550. This Notice is the notice required by Section 11-14-318 of Utah Code Annotated
1953, as amended, and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“IRC”).
ISSUANCE OF BONDS
Purpose for Issuing the Bonds
The public hearing with respect to the Bonds is being held in accordance with Section 11-
14-318 of Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Section 147(f) of the IRC. Pursuant to the
provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14 Utah Code Annotated
1953, as amended (the “Act”) on June 1, 2021 the City Council of the City (the “Council”), adopted
a resolution in which it authorized, among other things, a plan of financing involving the issuance
of the Bonds.
The Bonds will be issued pursuant to a plan of finance to provide proceeds to (a) finance
the Bond Projects (as described in the following paragraph), (b) repay all or a portion of the
outstanding Subordinate Revolving Obligations, (c) fund capitalized interest on all or a portion of
the Bonds, (d) fund any required deposits to a debt service reserve fund, and (e) pay costs of
issuance of the Bonds (including, but not limited to, the purchase of one or more municipal bond
insurance policies)
The “Bond Projects” to be financed and refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds include
the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, development, expansion, improvement, equipping
and/or modification, as appropriate, of various capital improvement projects at the Salt Lake City
International Airport, including: [(a) runway, taxiway, apron and other airfield improvements, (b)
utility, roadway and ground access infrastructure improvements, (c) replacement of substantially
all of the Salt Lake City International Airport’s landside and terminal complex facilities, including,
but not limited to, parking facilities, terminal buildings and concourses, and (d) other related
improvements at the Salt Lake City International Airport.]
The Bond Projects will be located at the Salt Lake City International Airport. The City
will be the owner of the Bond Projects to be financed and refinanced and also will be the initial
operator, except to the extent the use thereof is permitted by leases and other agreements with air
carriers and other tenants utilizing the Bond Projects. The proposed Bonds will be paid solely
from revenues and other moneys derived by the City from or with respect to the Salt Lake City
International Airport and the other facilities of the Salt Lake City Airport System (as defined in
the hereinafter defined Senior Indenture).
Parameters of the Bonds
The City intends to issue the Bonds in one or more series, in the aggregate principal amount
of not more than $1,000,000,000, to mature in not more than 40 years from their date or dates, to
F-3
4842-9446-9092
be sold at a price not less than 98% of the total principal amount thereof, and bearing interest at a
rate or rates not to exceed 6.00% per annum. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City
pursuant to a Master Trust Indenture (previously executed and delivered by the City) and a Third
Supplemental Trust Indenture (collectively, the “Senior Indenture”).
Net Revenues Proposed to be Pledged
The City proposes to pledge Net Revenues (as defined in the Senior Indenture) derived by
the City from the operations of the Salt Lake City Airport System (as defined in the Senior
Indenture), and certain funds and accounts established under the Senior Indenture.
The Bonds will be limited obligations of the City, payable solely from and secured by a
pledge of Net Revenues derived by the City from the operations of the Salt Lake City Airport
System and certain funds and accounts. None of the properties of the Salt Lake City Airport
System will be subject to any mortgage or other lien for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds,
and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State of Utah (the “State”)
or any political subdivision or agency of the State will be pledged to the payment of the principal
of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds.
ISSUANCE AND/OR INCURRENCE OF
SUBORDINATE REVOLVING OBLIGATIONS
The public hearing with respect to the Subordinate Revolving Obligations is being held in
accordance with Section 147(f) of the IRC. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, on January 19,
2021 the Council, adopted a resolution in which it authorized, among other things, a plan of
financing involving the establishment of a short-term borrowing program for the benefit of the
Department of Airports of the City, which program is implemented through the issuance and/or
incurrence, from time to time, of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations.
The City established the short-term borrowing program for the benefit of the Department
of Airports of the City, which is implemented through the issuance and/or incurrence, from time
to time, by the City of the Subordinate Revolving Obligations. The Subordinate Revolving
Obligations may be outstanding, at any one time, in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding
$300,000,000. The Subordinate Revolving Obligations are issued and/or incurred pursuant to a
Master Subordinate Trust Indenture, a First Supplemental Subordinate Trust Indenture and a
Revolving Credit Agreement entered into by the City and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association (the “Subordinate Bank”). The Subordinate Revolving Obligations bear interest at
variable rates, calculated pursuant to the methods set forth in the Revolving Credit Agreement.
The Subordinate Revolving Obligations are issued and/or incurred, from time to time, at a price of
100%.
The Subordinate Revolving Obligations will be issued and/or incurred, from time to time,
pursuant to a plan of finance to provide proceeds to (a) finance and refinance the Subordinate
Obligation Projects (as described in the following paragraph), (b) finance certain costs of issuance,
and (c) finance any other needs of the Department of Airports of the City permitted under the Act
and the Master Subordinate Trust Indenture (including, but not limited to, the refunding and
restructuring of indebtedness of the City issued for the benefit of the Department of Airports of
the City). The City may issue and/or incur Subordinate Revolving Obligations, from time to time,
F-4
4842-9446-9092
in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $300 million until March 1, 2024, provided that at
no time shall more than $300 million in aggregate principal amount of Subordinate Revolving
Obligations be outstanding at one time.
The “Subordinate Obligation Projects” to be financed and refinanced with the proceeds of
the Subordinate Revolving Obligations include the acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
development, expansion, improvement, equipping and/or modification, as appropriate, of various
capital improvement projects at the Salt Lake City International Airport, including: [(a) runway,
taxiway, apron and other airfield improvements, (b) utility, roadway and ground access
infrastructure improvements, (c) replacement of substantially all of the Salt Lake City International
Airport’s landside and terminal complex facilities, including, but not limited to, parking facilities,
terminal buildings and concourses, and (d) other related improvements at the Salt Lake City
International Airport].
The Subordinate Obligation Projects will be located at the Salt Lake City International
Airport. The City will be the owner of the Subordinate Obligation Projects to be financed or
refinanced and also will be the initial operator, except to the extent the use thereof is permitted by
leases and other agreements with air carriers and other tenants utilizing the Subordinate Obligation
Projects. The proposed Subordinate Revolving Obligations will be paid solely from the
Subordinate Revenues (as defined in the Master Subordinate Trust Indenture) derived by the City
from the operations of the Salt Lake City Airport System, and certain funds and accounts
established under the Master Subordinate Trust Indenture and the First Supplemental Subordinate
Trust Indenture.
The Subordinate Revolving Obligations will be limited obligations of the City, payable
solely from and secured by a pledge of Subordinate Revenues derived by the City from the
operations of the Salt Lake City Airport System and certain funds and accounts. None of the
properties of the Salt Lake City Airport System will be subject to any mortgage or other lien for
the benefit of the owners (including the Subordinate Bank) of the Subordinate Revolving
Obligations, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State or any
political subdivision or agency of the State will be pledged to the payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, interest on or other amounts payable on the Subordinate Revolving Obligations.
OUTSTANDING BONDS SECURED BY NET REVENUES
AND OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY SUBORDINATE REVENUES
In addition to the proposed Bonds, the following airport revenue bonds of the City secured
by Net Revenues on parity with the Bonds are currently outstanding: (a) Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A (AMT) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of
$826,210,000; (b) Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017B (Non-AMT)
outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $173,790,000; (c) Salt Lake City, Utah Airport
Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A (AMT) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of
$753,855,000; and (d) Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2018B (Non-AMT)
outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $96,695,000 (collectively, the “Series 2017/18
Bonds”).
F-5
4842-9446-9092
Other than the Subordinate Revolving Obligations (and certain obligations of the City set
forth in the Revolving Credit Agreement) the City has no other bonds or obligations secured by
the Subordinate Revenues.
OTHER OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE CITY
Additional information regarding the City’s outstanding bonds may be found in the City’s
financial report (the “Financial Report”) at: https://reporting.auditor.utah.gov/SearchReport. For
additional information, including any information more recent than as of the date of the Financial
Report, please contact the office of the Salt Lake City Treasurer at (801) 535-7946.
Dated this [___] day of June, 2021.
By
City Recorder
4842-9446-9092
EXHIBIT G
NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government
Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, that on June 1, 2021
the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the
“Resolution”) in which it authorized the plan of financing involving the issuance of the City’s
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2021 (with any other or additional series or title designation
determined by the City, the “Bonds”).
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING THE BONDS
The Bonds will be issued pursuant to a plan of finance to provide proceeds to (a) finance
the Projects (as described in the following paragraph), (b) repay all or a portion of the City’s
outstanding Subordinate Airport Revenue Short-Term Revolving Obligations, (c) fund capitalized
interest on all or a portion of the Bonds, (d) fund any required deposits to a debt service reserve
fund, and (e) pay costs of issuance of the Bonds (including, but not limited to, the purchase of one
or more municipal bond insurance policies)
The “Projects” to be financed and refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds include the
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, development, expansion, improvement, equipping and/or
modification, as appropriate, of various capital improvement projects at the Salt Lake City
International Airport, including: [(a) runway, taxiway, apron and other airfield improvements, (b)
utility, roadway and ground access infrastructure improvements, (c) replacement of substantially
all of the Salt Lake City International Airport’s landside and terminal complex facilities, including,
but not limited to, parking facilities, terminal buildings and concourses, and (d) other related
improvements at the Salt Lake City International Airport.]
The Projects will be located at the Salt Lake City International Airport. The City will be
the owner of the Projects to be financed and refinanced and also will be the initial operator, except
to the extent the use thereof is permitted by leases and other agreements with air carriers and other
tenants utilizing the Projects. The proposed Bonds will be paid solely from revenues and other
moneys derived by the City from or with respect to the Salt Lake City International Airport and
the other facilities of the Salt Lake City Airport System (as defined in the hereinafter defined
Indenture).
PARAMETERS OF THE BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds in one or more series, in the aggregate principal amount
of not more than $1,000,000,000, to mature in not more than 40 years from their date or dates, to
be sold at a price not less than 98% of the total principal amount thereof, and bearing interest at a
rate or rates not to exceed 6.00% per annum. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City
pursuant to a Master Trust Indenture (previously executed and delivered by the City) and a Third
Supplemental Trust Indenture (collectively, the “Indenture”), which Third Supplemental Trust
Indenture was before the Council in substantially final form at the time of the adoption of the
Resolution.
G-2
4842-9446-9092
NET REVENUES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED
The City proposes to pledge Net Revenues (as defined in the Indenture) derived by the City
from the operations of the Salt Lake City Airport System (as defined in the Indenture), and certain
funds and accounts established under the Indenture, to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Bonds.
The Bonds will be limited obligations of the City, payable solely from and secured by a
pledge of Net Revenues derived by the City from the operations of the Salt Lake City Airport
System and certain funds and accounts. None of the properties of the Salt Lake City Airport
System will be subject to any mortgage or other lien for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds,
and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State of Utah (the “State”)
or any political subdivision or agency of the State will be pledged to the payment of the principal
of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds.
OUTSTANDING BONDS SECURED BY NET REVENUES
AND OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY SUBORDINATE REVENUES
In addition to the proposed Bonds, the following airport revenue bonds of the City secured
by Net Revenues on parity with the Bonds are currently outstanding: (a) Salt Lake City, Utah
Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A (AMT) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of
$826,210,000; (b) Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017B (Non-AMT)
outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $173,790,000; (c) Salt Lake City, Utah Airport
Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A (AMT) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of
$753,855,000; and (d) Salt Lake City, Utah Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2018B (Non-AMT)
outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $96,695,000 (collectively, the “Series 2017/18
Bonds”).
In addition to the bonds secured by Net Revenues, the City established a short-term
borrowing program for the benefit of the Department of Airports of the City which has been
implemented through the issuance and/or incurrence, from time to time, by the City of its “Salt
Lake City, Utah Subordinate Airport Revenue Short-Term Revolving Obligations” (the
Subordinate Revolving Obligations”). The Subordinate Revolving Obligations may be
outstanding at any one time not to exceed an aggregate principal amount of $300,000,000. The
Subordinate Revolving Obligations are secured by Subordinate Revenues (Net Revenues
remaining after (i) the payment of debt service on the Bonds, the Series 2017/18 Bonds and any
additional bonds issued with a lien on Net Revenues, and (ii) the funding of any debt service
reserve funds for the Bonds, the Series 2017/18 Bonds and any additional bonds issued with a lien
on Net Revenues).
OTHER OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE CITY
Additional information regarding the City’s outstanding bonds may be found in the City’s
financial report (the “Financial Report”) at: https://reporting.auditor.utah.gov/SearchReport. For
additional information, including any information more recent than as of the date of the Financial
Report, please contact the office of the Salt Lake City Treasurer at (801) 535-7946.
G-3
4842-9446-9092
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
Based on the City’s current plan of finance and a current estimate of interest rates, the total
principal and interest cost of the Bonds, if held until maturity, is approximately $[___].
A copy of the Resolution and the Indenture are on file (print and electronic) in the office
of the Salt Lake City Recorder, temporarily located at 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah,
where they may be examined by appointment during regular business hours of the City Recorder
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of
publication of this notice. To schedule an appointment, please call (801) 535-7671. Additionally,
a protected, pdf copy of the Resolution and the Indenture may be requested by sending an email
to the City Recorder at SLCRecorder@slcgov.com.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date of
the publication of this notice is provided by law during which any person in interest shall have the
right to contest the legality of the Resolution, the Indenture (but only as it relates to the Bonds), or
the Bonds, or any provision made for the security and payment of the Bonds, and that after such
time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof
for any cause whatsoever.
Dated this [___] of June, 2021.
By
City Recorder
Item B2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue
CN and SR-1A to R-MU-35 PLNPCM2020-00703
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
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:June 8, 2021
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue
CN and SR-1A to R-MU-35 PLNPCM2020-00703
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for properties located at
approximately 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue from their respective zoning designations of CN
(Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use). The applicant would like to develop multi-family housing on the lots and
submitted a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties (found on pages 27-37 of the
Administration’s transmittal). It should be noted the plan is only conceptual and the rezone request is not
associated with a specific project at this point.
The subject properties are within the Avenues Local Historic District and include two structures. A gas
station/auto repair business is located at 860 East 3rd Avenue. This building was constructed in 1962 and is
listed as noncontributing to the historic district. A single-family dwelling was built in 1892 and is listed as a
contributing structure to the historic district. Any demolition, new construction or exterior modifications
would require a Certificate of Appropriateness issued administratively or through Historic Landmark
Commission approval depending on the extent of modifications.
Under the conceptual plan, the two lots would be combined, the gas station/auto repair shop would be
demolished, and the single-family dwelling would be preserved. Six for sale, three story attached
townhomes with two car garages are proposed in the plan.
Planning staff noted rezoning the properties has potential to lose a commercial node in the neighborhood
resulting in reduced services. They recommended to the Planning Commission that the rezone be
conditioned on inclusion of a commercial component on the corner. The Planning Commission found the
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 8, 2021
Set Date: June 8, 2021
Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
Page | 2
condition was not appropriate. The Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council
for the proposed rezone.
Aerial image of subject properties outlined in red.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
Is the Council supportive of the proposed rezone?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As shown on the map below, properties surrounding the subject parcels are almost exclusively zoned SR-1A
with some RMF-35 and RMF-45 (Moderate Density and Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential)
zoning to the south and southwest, closer to South Temple.
Page | 3
Zoning map with subject parcels outlined in red.
(Salt Lake City Cemetery is green area at upper right.)
Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 42-45 of the Administration’s transmittal)
includes tables outlining existing conditions and development standards, and land use comparison for the
existing SR-1A and CN zoning designations and the proposed R-MU-35 zoning.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Three key considerations were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project, neighbor and
community input, and department reviews. A summary of each is below. See pages 18-21 of the
Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis.
Consideration 1: Development Plans and Rezone Request
Rezone requests do not need to be associated with specific projects and are not typically conditioned on
one. As mentioned above, the applicant provided a conceptual plan for the properties to indicate their
intentions. Planning staff noted the development could change as the design progresses or due to
unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the rezone request should be considered on its own merits.
According to Planning staff, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning has potential to result in more density within
the combined properties than is currently attainable. Lot consolidation and single zoning designation
would allow for easier siting of a new building and provide an additional 10’ in permitted height (35’ vs.
current 25’). It is Planning’s opinion increased development potential resulting from the proposed rezone
should not increase potential negative impacts to adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
Page | 4
The proposed R-MU-35 zoning designation would require a 10’ landscape buffer on the south and east
property lines. The corner parcel’s current CN zoning requires a minimum 7’ buffer and the existing
structures are noncomplying. The increased buffer requirement could minimize impacts of the potential
rezone to neighboring properties.
Although the Avenues Master Plan discourages increased density in the neighborhood, the plan was
adopted in 1987 when there was less focus on building form. In the Planning Commission staff report it
states “Recent planning best practices show that building form has more impact in neighborhood character
than density itself, and that density can support community’s livability, walkability and promote the
efficient use of resources.” More recent master plans including Plan Salt Lake and the City’s Housing Plan,
Growing SLC encourage density in areas that can accommodate it. Planning staff’s understanding is the
Avenues Master Plan’s overall goal is to promote and protect compatible development rather than strictly
limit housing units. More information can be found in Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff
report (pages 39-41 of the Administration’s transmittal).
Regardless of whether the City Council votes to rezone the subject properties, the Historic Landmark
Commission would review scale, size, and form of new structures as well as potential modifications to
existing buildings to determine if they are appropriate for the historic district.
Increased density is often correlated with additional parking demand and traffic. The proposed zone
requires one parking stall per dwelling unit, which would be required in a new development. As noted
above, the conceptual plan includes a two-car garage for each townhome (though what is eventually built
may be different from the concept plan). Planning staff stated parking requirements for the proposed
zoning designation are appropriate for the area.
Consideration 2: Loss of Commercial Use in a Neighborhood Zone
Planning staff research indicates 868 East 3rd Avenue has been used for commercial use for more than a
century. A 1911 Sanborn map shows a store at this location, and a Sanborn map as well as an aerial
photograph from the 1950’s show a store and dwelling on this parcel. Permit records suggest the store and
dwelling were demolished prior to the 1962 service station construction.
Although the Avenues Master Plan is a main guiding document for the neighborhood, it was adopted in
1987, which is earlier than most current master plans. Planning staff noted this should be taken into
account when considering neighborhood and citywide goals. The plan has some relevancy since the area
has not changed significantly. The Avenues Master Plan recommends commercial uses in some
neighborhood nodes where long-established businesses are located.
Planning staff stated commercial uses of an appropriate scale for the neighborhood could be desirable and
serve community needs. They suggested the corner property’s existing commercial zoning provides an
opportunity for residents’ needs, support walkability and a more livable community.
Planning noted that under the proposed mixed-use zone both residential and commercial uses are allowed.
This would allow for strictly commercial or residential development or mixed-use. Planning pointed out a
distinction between R-MU-35 and CN in which the latter requires a commercial component in order to
construct a residential development.
Planning staff recommended the rezone be conditioned on future development containing a commercial
component on the corner property. As mentioned above, the Planning Commission did not include this
condition in its recommendation to the City Council.
Page | 5
Consideration 3: Expansion of nonresidential uses into residential area
As discussed above, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning allows for both residential and commercial uses without
requiring mixed-use. This would allow the 860 East 3rd Avenue property to be developed as multi-family
residential. There is also the potential for non-residential use at 868 East 3rd Avenue, which could result in
expanding commercial uses into a long-established residential area. Planning staff pointed out the 868
East 3rd Avenue structure’s contributing status to the local historic district provides some assurance. It
would be difficult to demolish the building or use it in a way that would not preserve its integrity.
Conversion to a different use would likely require improvements to comply with current code. Exterior
modifications would require a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Chapter 18.97 Salt Lake City Code requires a housing mitigation plan for property rezones permitting non-
residential uses on a parcel with housing units. The chapter does not contemplate situations where no
residential building is anticipated to be demolished, but the difference between housing value and
replacement cost was assessed for the existing dwelling unit at 868 East 3rd Avenue. This is included in
Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 50-62 of the Administration’s transmittal).
The report determined the applicant is not responsible for mitigating the housing loss resulting from this
proposed rezone.
ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON
Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 42-45 of the Administration’s
transmittal) includes a table listing existing conditions and development standards. A land use
comparison table is included as well. A summary of existing and proposed zoning designations is
included below. Please see the transmittal for additional information.
Development
Standard
CN
Existing Zoning 860
East 3rd Ave.
SR-1A
Existing Zoning 868
East 3rd Ave.
R-MU-35
(Proposed)
Lot Area 16,500 sq ft max.5,000 sq ft min 5,000 sq ft minimum
for conditional use
Maximum Height 25’23’20’ non-residential
35’ residential
*see specific
provisions below
table
Front Yard Setback 15’ minimum,
25’ maximum for
65% of façade
Average of front
yards of buildings on
block face
5’ minimum,
15’ maximum
Rear Yard Setback 10’25% of lot depth,
15’ minimum,
30’ maximum
25% of lot depth, but
need not exceed 30’
Side Yard Setback None 4’ and 10’Corner-5’ minimum,
15’ maximum.
Interior-none unless
abutting single- or
two-family
residential. Then 10’
min. and 1’ for every
1’ greater than 25’
Page | 6
Maximum Building
Coverage
None beyond setback
requirements
40%None beyond open
space requirement
Open Space None None 20%
Landscape Buffer 7’ if abutting
residential district
None 10’ if abutting
single/two-family
residential
* E. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'), except
that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections E1, E2, E3 and E4 of this section.
Buildings taller than thirty five feet (35'), up to a maximum of forty five feet (45'), may be authorized through the
design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title); and provided that the proposed height is supported by the
applicable master plan.
1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Twenty feet (20').
2. Nonresidential uses are only permitted on the ground floor of any structure.
3. Nonresidential uses in landmark sites are exempt from the maximum height for nonresidential buildings
and the maximum floor area coverage limitations.
4. For any property abutting a Single-Family or Two-Family Residential District, the maximum height is
limited to thirty five feet (35') and may not be increased through any process
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment F of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 46-47 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Planning staff found this proposal complies with applicable standards with the aforementioned condition
of maintaining commercial use at the corner 860 East 3rd Avenue property. As noted previously, the
Planning Commission did not include this condition in its recommendation to the Council. Please see the
Planning Commission staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• October 16, 2020 Notice sent to the Greater Avenues Community Council requesting comments.
The community council chair did not ask Planning staff to present at the meeting. No public
comments were provided by the community council.
• Early notice was sent October 30, 2020 to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject properties.
• Planning Commission public hearing notice was posted on the property November 19, 2020.
Public hearing notices mailed to nearby residents and property owners November 20, 2020 and
posted to City and State websites on this date.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing December 2, 2020. Four people expressed
opposition to the proposed rezone or shared concerns with parking and traffic. The Planning
Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed rezone.
• Planning staff received two additional comments on the proposed rezone. A neighboring property
owner called to express opposition citing concerns of impact to the neighborhood from increased
density and traffic. The other comment was provided by email and was supportive of the proposal.
The email is included on page 49 of the Administration’s transmittal.
• This proposed project was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021. The
commission was generally supportive of the proposal.
• As of the writing of this report, Council staff has not received comments on the proposed rezone.
Any comments received will be forwarded to the Council.
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: PLNPCM2020-00703 – Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 860 & 868 E 3rd
Avenue
STAFF CONTACT: John Anderson, Planning Manager, john.anderson@slcgov.com, (385) 226-
6479
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve
the proposed zoning map amendment.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Remarc
Investments, representing the property owner, is
requesting to rezone the properties at approximately
860 & 868 E 3rd from CN (Neighborhood
Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development
Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use). The reason for the rezone
is to allow a multi-family development to be
developed on the lots. The applicant has submitted a
conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties.
However, it is only a conceptual design and the
request is not associated with a specific project at
this time.
March 22, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 7, 2021 15:23 MDT)04/07/2021
04/07/2021
The two properties are located within the Avenues Local Historic District. The gas station and
auto repair on 860 E 3rd Avenue was built in 1962, but it is listed as a noncontributing structure.
The single-family dwelling on 868 E 3rd Avenue was built in 1892, and it is listed as a
contributing structure. Any future demolition, new construction or modifications to the exterior
of the structures must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC).
The proposed R-MU-35 zoning district could result in more density within the combined
properties than it is currently attainable. However, when compared to the current zoning and the
size of the combined properties, it is unlikely that the rezone would result in a significant
increase in the number of units.
The rezone could result in the loss of a historically established commercial node. There is limited
opportunity to add commercial zones in the neighborhood, and the loss of an already designated
commercial property could reduce services at the community level and alter the character of the
neighborhood node. Planning staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the rezone be
conditioned on new development including a commercial component on the corner. However,
Planning Commission found that the condition was not appropriate.
The rezone would also allow for the conversion of the existing single-family dwelling into a
nonresidential use. However, staff found that the contributory status of the structure makes
demolition very difficult to approve and limits the intensity of the house conversion.
The applicable master plans contain city goals and policies that support the proposed zoning map
amendment. The Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Master Plan calls for
Business/Commercial on the corner of the 3rd Avenue and N Street. The proposal is also in line
with the policies related to the preservation of residential character and existing land use patterns
found in the Avenues Master Plan and those related to smart growth and compatibility found in
Plan Salt Lake.
More information can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 3b).
PUBLIC PROCESS: Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the
Greater Avenues Community Council on October 16, 2020. Early engagement notices were also
sent to owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property on October 30, 2020. A public hearing
with the Planning Commission was held on December 2, 2020. No one from the public
commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the request and voted to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. A work session with the Historic
Landmark Commission was held on January 7, 2021. The Commission was generally supportive
of the proposal.
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Planning Commission Record
a) Hearing Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda and Minutes
4) Historic Landmark Commission Record
a) Memorandum
b) Agenda and Minutes
5) Public Comments
6) Original Petition
7) Mailing List
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2021
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to the parcels of property located at 860 and 868 East 3rd
Avenue to rezone the parcels from CN Neighborhood Commercial District and SR-1A Special
Development Pattern Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the parcels of property located at
860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue to rezone the parcels from CN Neighborhood Commercial District
and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed
Use District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00703.
WHEREAS, Remarc Investments submitted an application to rezone the parcels of
property located at 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue from CN Neighborhood Commercial District
and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed
Use District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00703; and
WHEREAS, at its December 2, 2020 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt
Lake City Council on the application; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the parcels located at 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue (Tax ID
2
Nos. 09-32-379-001 and 09-32-379-002, more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached
hereto, are rezoned from CN Neighborhood Commercial District and SR-1A Special
Development Pattern Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
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 Nielson, Senior City Attorney
February 16, 2021
3
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the properties
Tax ID No. 09-32-379-001-0000
COM AT NW COR LOT 3 BLK 24 PLAT G SLC SUR S 82.5 FT E 99 FT N 82.5 FT W 99 FT
TO BEG
Tax ID No. 09-32-379-002-0000
COM AT NE COR LOT 3 BLK 24 PLAT G SLC SUR W 4 RDS S 5 RDS E 4 RDS N 5 RDS
TO BEG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. HEARING NOTICE
B. STAFF REPORT
C. AGENDA AND MINUTES
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
A. MEMORANDUM
B. AGENDA AND MINUTES
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
6. ORIGINAL PETITION
7. MAILING LIST
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2020-00703
August 7, 2020 Petition received by the Planning Division.
August 23, 2020 Petition assigned to Mayara Lima, Principal Planner, for staff analysis
and processing.
October 15, 2020 Petition was determined to be complete.
October 16, 2020 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the
Greater Avenues Community Council.
October 30, 2020 Early notification sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet
of the property.
November 20, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of
property within 300 feet of the property.
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.
January 7, 2021 The project was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission for
input. The Commission was generally in support of the proposal.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00703 Rezone at
approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue - A request by Remarc Investments, representing
the property owner, to approve a Zoning Map Amendment from CN (Neighborhood
Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use) at the 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue. 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.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
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 https://www.slc.gov/council/ 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
Mayara Lima at (385) 377-7570 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at Mayara.lima@slcgov.com
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to participate in this hearing. 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
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Mayara Lima, Principal Planner
(801) 535-7118 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com
Date: December 2, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2020-00703 – 3rd Avenue Rezone
Zoning Map Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue
PARCEL IDs: 09-32-379-001 and 09-32-379-002
MASTER PLAN: Avenues Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: CN Neighborhood Commercial & SR-1A Special Development Pattern
Residential
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Avenues Local Historic Preservation District
REQUEST: 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. 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information included in the staff report, Planning Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council for the proposed zoning map amendment with the following condition:
• Any future development of the properties must include a commercial component at the
intersection of 3rd Avenue and N Street.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Zoning Map
B. Site Photographs
C. Application Materials
D. Master Plan Policies
E. Existing Conditions & Development Standards
F. Analysis of Standards
G. Public Process and Comments
H. Housing Loss Mitigation Report
BACKGROUND: The proposal is to change the zoning designation of the properties at 860 and 868
E 3rd Avenue from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
1
Residential) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use). The surrounding properties are predominantly
residential, zoned SR-1A, and include single-family, two-family and some multi-family dwellings.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties under the proposed
zoning district. The anticipated development would include combining the two lots, preserving the
existing single-family dwelling, demolishing the commercial structures and constructing six attached
single-family dwellings on the properties. Because the two properties are within the Avenues Local
Historic district, any future development would have to be approved by the Historic Landmark
Commission.
The gas station and auto repair on 860 E 3rd Avenue date back to 1962 when the property was given a
building permit to operate a service station. The canopy was constructed later, but the use of the
property as commercial has been consistent for almost 60 years. Despite the age, the structures are
not considered contributing to the historic district. In regard to the standards of the underlying
zoning district, the land uses are nonconforming (not permitted but created prior to the zoning) and
the structures noncomplying to the current CN zoning.
Figure 1 – Conceptual plan submitted by the applicant.
Figure 2 – Photo of the gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue
2
The house on 868 E 3rd Avenue was built in 1892 and has always been a single-family dwelling. The
house is listed as contributing to the historic district. The use of the property is permitted in the
current SR-1A zoning district, but the small east side setback renders the existing structure
noncomplying. This property is included in the rezone request because of its lot size, which remains
partially unobstructed by buildings on the west side.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
Consideration 1: Development plans and rezone request
A rezone request need not be associated with a specific project and it is not typically conditioned on
one. Even though the applicant has provided a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties that
help indicate their intentions to the community and review boards, the development could change as
the design progresses or because of unforeseen circumstances. Hence, the rezone request should be
considered on its own merits.
Attachment E shows that the existing structures on the properties would continue to be considered
noncomplying to the proposed zoning district without necessarily increasing the degree of
noncompliance. As far as future development goes, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning district could
result in more density within the combined properties than it is currently attainable. This is because
the lot consolidation and single zoning would allow for easier siting of a new building and provide an
additional 10’ in permitted building height. However, the increase in development potential resulting
from the rezone should not increase potential negative impacts to adjacent properties and the
neighborhood.
Currently, the existing SR-1A zoning of 868 E 3rd Avenue limits its development potential. The
property contains approximately 5,449 square feet and therefore, can only accommodate a single-
family dwelling. 8,000 square feet of lot area would be required for a duplex. The CN zoning of 860 E
3rd Avenue could create in a mixed-use development any density at a maximum 25’ in height that
complies with applicable codes and regulations. The subject properties combined would result in a
13,616 square-foot lot that is reasonably small but would accommodate a moderate increase in
density.
An increase landscape buffer requirement would also reduce the impact of the proposed rezone.
Under the R-MU-35 zoning, any future development would have to comply with a required 10’
Figure 3 – Photo of the single-family dwelling at 868 E 3rd Avenue
3
landscape buffer along the south and east property lines. The buffer requirement in the CN zoning
district is 7’ and the existing structures are noncomplying to this standard. This increase in buffer
requirement would help to protect the adjacent SR-1A zoned properties and preserve the residents’
enjoyment of their properties.
As discussed in Attachment D, the Avenues Master Plan discourages density increases in the
neighborhood. However, the master plan was adopted in 1987 when there was not much discussion
about building form. Recent planning best practices have shown that building form has more impact
in neighborhood character than density itself, and that density can support community’s livability,
walkability and promote the efficient use of resources. Indeed, newer master plans such as Plan Salt
Lake and the city’s Housing Plan, Growing SLC, encourage density in areas that can accommodate it.
The overall goal of the Avenues Master Plan is hence understood as being to promote and protect
compatible development, rather than strictly limit housing units.
Furthermore, the rezone would not impact the authority of the Historic Landmark Commission as
any future development of the properties would have to comply with the standards of the overlay
district and receive the appropriate approvals. HLC review will address scale, size and form of new
structures and proposed modifications to existing buildings and should be sufficient to ease density
concerns.
It is worth noting that more density is often associated with more parking demand and traffic
impacts. The proposed R-MU-35 zoning district requires 1 parking stall for every dwelling unit,
which a new development would have to comply with. This neighborhood offers many transportation
options, including public sidewalks, bike lanes and two bus lines with stops located adjacent to the
property. The smaller blocks compared to other areas in the city also encourage walking. Thus, the
proposed zoning parking requirement is appropriate for the area.
Consideration 2: Loss of a commercial use in a neighborhood node
Historic research indicates that the property at 868 E 3rd Avenue has had commercial use for over a
century. The Sanborn map shows a store siting on the corner of N street and 3rd Avenue in 1911. The
store occupied the lot with another dwelling and both structures were also documented in the 1950
Sanborn map and in a 1958 aerial photograph. The permit history of the service station suggests that
the store and the dwelling on the property were demolished prior to 1962, when the current use was
established.
Figure 4 – 1911 and 1950 Sanborn maps show a corner store and a dwelling on the property.
4
The Avenues Master plan is one of the main guiding documents for land use decisions in the
neighborhood. However, the fact that it was adopted in 1987, earlier than most current master plan
documents, should be taken into consideration when considering neighborhood and citywide goals.
The plan does maintain some relevancy given that the area has not substantially changed. In this
master plan, zoning for commercial uses is recommended in a few neighborhood nodes such as this
one, where businesses had been long established. As discussed in Attachment D, additional
commercial zones are discouraged unless the need for retail services is clearly expressed by residents.
This limitation on future commercial development raises the question of whether the loss of an
already commercially zoned property would reduce services available at the community level and
alter the character of this neighborhood node.
On one hand, large commercial uses may create negative impacts to adjacent residential uses.
However, smaller commercial uses such as those permitted in the CN zone could be desirable,
appropriate in scale with the neighborhood, and serve the community’s future needs. A proposal to
rezone another property in the Avenues to allow commercial land uses in the future could face
multiple challenges given the neighborhood’s established residential character, the policies currently
in place, and the potential impacts to abutting properties. The existing commercial zone of this
corner property offers the neighborhood an opportunity to provide for resident’s daily needs, support
walkability and promote a more livable community.
On the other hand, the applicant is proposing a mixed-use zone, where both residential and
commercial uses are allowed. The property could still be developed as strictly commercial under the
new zoning district, as well as it could be solely residential, or mixed-use. This is an important
distinction between the proposed R-MU-35 zone and the existing CN zone: the latter would require a
commercial component in order to construct a residential development. The applicant has expressed
interest in developing single-family attached dwellings on the rezoned properties, with a possibility of
creating live/work units.
Given these considerations, staff finds that it is important for a commercial land use to remain on the
corner of 3rd Avenue and N Street. Live/work units may not activate this neighborhood node to its full
potential, but it would help to increase activity on the corner. Retail shops and services would
3rd Avenue
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
Figure 5 – Aerial photograph shows that the two
structures existed at least until 1958.
5
certainly contribute more to the intended character of this node and attract more people to give life to
the street. Another possibility is to construct convertible spaces, where residential units can easily be
converted into commercial space. Understanding that zoning should not be prescriptive and that the
current zoning allows for different nonresidential uses, staff is recommending that the rezone be
conditioned on a future redevelopment containing a commercial component on the corner property.
Consideration 3: Expansion of nonresidential uses into residential area
As mentioned above, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning district allows for both residential and
commercial uses without requiring a mixed-use combination. This would allow not only for the
property at 860 E 3rd Avenue to be developed as multi-family but would also allow a nonresidential
use at 868 E 3rd Avenue. Hence, the rezone from SR-1A to R-MU-35 could mean an expansion of
nonresidential uses into an area that has long been established as residential.
The Future Land Use Map in the Avenues Master Plan is not clear on boundaries of zoning
designations because it is intended to serve as a guiding tool and not as a binding regulation. Even so,
the Business/Commercial designation on the southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and N Street seems to be
larger than the existing 860 E 3rd Avenue property, possibly encompassing 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Independently of how one reads this future map, if the two lots were to be combined, the single
zoning would simplify future redevelopment of the properties.
Any rezone that would permit nonresidential uses in a residential property containing housing units
must include a Housing Loss Mitigation plan, as outlined in Chapter 18.97 of the City Code. Even
though the chapter does not address situations where no residential building is targeted for
demolition, the difference between housing value and replacement cost was assessed for the existing
housing unit at 868 E 3rd Avenue. Attachment H includes the housing loss mitigation report
approved by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director. The report determines
that the applicant is not responsible for mitigating the housing loss resulting from this rezone.
Although the conversion of the single-family dwelling to nonresidential uses could create some
impacts to the abutting properties, the historic status of the property provides some assurances. The
existing structure is listed as contributing to the Avenues Local Historic district and therefore, it
would be difficult to demolish it or accommodate any use that cannot preserve the integrity of the
structure. A conversion to another use will likely trigger building improvements for compliance with
building and fire codes. Any exterior modifications to the structure would require a Certificate of
Appropriateness whether issued for minor modifications Administratively or major modifications by
the Historic Landmark Commission. The review would focus on design elements, however, the
limitations on reuse of the building could somewhat limit the intensity of the house conversion.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed zoning map amendment from CN and SR-1A to R-MU-35 would allow for the
redevelopment of the subject properties. The possible loss of commercial on the corner of 3rd Avenue
and N Street is a concern because that street corner has had commercial land uses for over a century
and could continue to serve the community’s future needs. The commercial zone of this node is both
an opportunity to provide services to immediate residents and an urban design strategy to promote a
livelier neighborhood. In considering these factors, staff finds that the commercial aspect of the street
corner should be maintained. The impacts of an expansion of commercial land uses further into the
east of the block and the moderate increase in density are mitigated with the assurances given by the
historic overlay district and required landscape buffers. Future development on the properties and
even modifications to the existing structures are subject to HLC review, which would limit impacts to
the adjacent properties and ensure design compatibility. Thus, staff is supportive of the proposed
rezone.
6
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration as part of the final decision on this petition. If the request is approved, any future
development of the property would need to comply with the R-MU-35 zoning regulations and would
be subject to any conditions imposed. If denied, the subject property would maintain its current
zoning designations and could potentially be redeveloped but utilizing the existing zoning standards.
7
ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity Zoning Map
8
ATTACHMENT B: Site Photographs
Figure 6 – Properties located to the south of 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 7 – Southwest view of 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 8 – West view of 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 10 – Gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 11 - Gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 9 – Properties located west of 860 E 3rd Avenue
9
Figure 12 – House on 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 14 – Properties located north of the 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 15 – Properties located north of 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 13 – Northwest view of 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue.
10
ATTACHMENT C: Application Materials
11
REMARC INVESTMENTS |
BLALOCK & PARTNERS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO
THIRD AVENUE HOMES |
SLC PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMISSION
03 SEPTEMBER 2020
12
(REC. S 89°58'59" E 423.92' ) MEAS. 89°58'04" W 424.16'
N 89°59'38" W
51.39'
S
0
0
°
0
2
'
0
0
"
W
44
.
2
1
'
W-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L
W-
L
W-
L
W-L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-LW-LW-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
W-
L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
PARCEL #09-32-379-001
OWNER, ROSE FAMILY
INVESTMENTS LLC
ADDRESS 860 E. THIRD AVE.
PARCEL # 09-32-379-002
OWNER, ROSE FAMILY
INVESTMENTS
ADDRESS 868 E. THIRD AVE.PARCEL # 09-32-379-003
OWNER GALIAN, JOHN
PARCEL # 09-32-379-009
OWNER WILL & ALEX LLC.
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
PA
D
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS
CANOPY
PILLAR
PILLAR
CANOPY
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
CONCRETE WALKWAY
CONCRETE WALKWAY
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS GRASS GRASS
3RD AVE.
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
WOOD &
WIRE FENCE
GASOLINE
VALVE
GASOLINE
VALVE
GASOLINE
VALVE
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBINGCONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
PROJECT BENCHMARK
SEWER MANHOLE
EL.= 4510.00'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4518.49'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4520.76'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4516.14'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4504.04'
FOUND & ACCEPTED
58" REBAR & CAP
SET BY McNEIL ENG.
EL.= 4515.64'
FOUND & ACCEPTED
RIVET SET IN WALKWAY
EL.= 4507.28'
BASIS OF BEARING (N 89°58'00" W 845.17' REC. ) AS PER PLAT G S.L.C. SURVEY
MON. AT M ST. & 3RD TO MON. AT O ST. 3RD AVE..
(R
E
C
.
N
0
°
0
0
'
2
4
"
4
1
3
.
0
3
4
'
)
M
E
A
S
.
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
2
2
"
W
8
2
7
.
1
6
'
STREET MON. NOT FOUND AT
INTERSECTION OF 3RD. AVE. & N ST.
S 89°52'38" W 66.00'S 89°52'38" W 99.00'
N
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
E
8
2
.
5
0
'
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
W
8
2
.
5
0
'
N 89°52'38" E 66.00'N 89°52'38" E 99.00'
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
W
8
2
.
5
0
'
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION O ST. & 2ND AVE
FOUND 2.5" FLAT BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION O ST. & 3RD AVE
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION OF N ST. & 4 TH AVE.
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION M ST. & 3RD AVE
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION OF N ST. & 2 ND AVE.
N.W. COR. BLK. 24
PLAT "G" S.L.C. SUR.
NOT FOUND P.O.B.
1.4'
2.2'
1.6'
CHAIN &
TPOST FENCE
WOOD
FENCE
CHAIN FENCE
ON PROP LINE
CHAIN
FENCE
CHAIN
FENCE
CONCRETE (
R
E
C
.
N
0
°
0
0
'
2
4
"
W
4
1
2
.
9
1
3
'
)
M
E
A
S
.
0
0
°
0
0
'
4
2
"
E
4
1
3
.
1
3
'
EXISTING BUILDING
SIGN
VALVE
BUILDING STARTLES
PROP. LINE
0.4'
CONCRETE
POURCH
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
SEWER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
WATER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
STORM DRAIN LINE
AS PER BLUESTAKE
COMMUNICATION LINE
AS PER BLUESTAKE
SEWER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
WATER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT
FILE # 1843610 BK. 1918 PG. 285
S
0
0
°
0
7
'
2
2
"
E
7.
0
0
'
S 89°52'38" W
7.00'
N
0
0
°
0
7
'
2
2
"
W
7.
0
0
'
N 89°52'38" E
7.00'
N 89°52'38" E
99.00'
SURVEYINGJOHANSON
SURVEY DESIGN SEPTIC PLANNINGSURVEYINGJOHANSONSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONSOOSOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOSOOOOOOOOOOOSOOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOSOOOOSOOOOOOSOOSSOSOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Parcel # 09-32-379-001
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 3 Block 24 Plat G Salt Lake City Survey,
Running thence South 82.5 feet; Thence East 99 feet; Thence N 82.5 feet; Thence West 99 feet to
the point of beginning.
Containing +/- Acres
Parcel # 09-32-379-002
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 3 Block 24 Plat G Salt Lake City Survey,
Running thence West 4 Rods; Thence South 5 Rods; Thence East 4 Rods; Thence N 5 Rods to the
point of beginning
Containing 15.89 +/- Acres
SHEET-1
BROCK T. CISNEROS
This drawing is and at all times remains the exclusive property of Johanson
Surveying shall not be used with out complete authorization and written support.
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NO.
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
OVERSEEN BY:SHANE R. JOHANSON P.L.S.
REV #
DESCRIPTION DATE
STAMP
09-28-2020
S-20-118
I, R. Shane Johanson, Do hereby certify that I am a Professional Land Surveyor, holding
certificate No. 7075114, as prescribed under the laws of the State of Utah, and that I have made
a survey of the described tract of land as shown on this plat and that this survey retraces lot
lines and may have adjusted said lot lines to coincide with found evidence and other
interpolations based from ground measurements and found records. Furthermore I recognize
that other unwritten rights of ownership or lines of possession may exist, I do not imply to
certify any of those rights, unless agreed upon by the appropriate parties.
S.W. 1/4 SEC. 32 T.1 N. ; R.1 E.
10
1 inch = 10 ft.( IN FEET )
1050 20
P.O. BOX 18941
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84118
Shane Johanson P.L.S. 801-815-2541
This Survey was performed at the request of Oren Hillel For the purpose to locate
contours and elevations of the ground in relationship to the intended positioning of this lot. Also
for the possible purpose of lot sales, future building and landscaping. During the course of this
survey there was an area of encroachment discovered along the East boundary line of parcel #
09-32-379-002 said encroachment is a wood fence that crosses the bundary line by approx. 1.4'.
It is advised for the client to approach the land owner and resolve this encroachment before land
sales or development.
The basis of bearing was derived from the found local street monumintation and utilized
on this survey as N 89°58'00"W as shown on Plat G Salt Lake City Survey. Survey also coincide
with local property corners found as well as survey S2006-06-0507 on file with the official
records of Salt Lake City. by McNeil Eng.
Shown are Two foot Contours Highlighted at Ten foot Intervals as labeled. Found rebars,
plugs/rivets and street monumentation have been tied, utilized and shown on this survey. The
elevation base is determined by the field G.P.S. Projection Based on Utah North NAD 1983
Projection then rounded off to the nearest 10 foot mark for a more efficient Bench Mark base.
The project bench mark is 4510.00' = Found Sewer manhole at intersection of 3rd Ave. and N
Street as shown.
1. Surveyor has made no investigation or independent search for easements of record
encumbrances restrictive covenants ownership title evidence, or any other facts, conflicts, or
discrepancies which may be disclosed by the details of a currant title insurance policy.
2. See city and county planning, and zoning maps for information regarding setback, side yard,
and rear yard instances as well as other building, use restrictions, and requirements.
3. Utility pipes, wires etc. may not be shown on this map. Utility locations shown heron are as
per Bluestake at the time of this survey. Contractors builders and excavators shall verify the
location of all existing utilities prior to construction, and/or excavation. Contact blue stakes and
refer to utility maps for additional information.
4. It was relayed to this office that the existing structure's on Parcel # 09-32-379-001 were to be
demolished, this survey has taken this into consideration and the accuracies of the
improvements on said lot are not exact.
= STREET MONUMENT
= FOUND PROPERTY MARKER
= REPRESENTS PROPERTY LINE
= EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
= EXISTING WATER METER
= EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
= EXISTING GAS METER
= EXISTING UTILITY POLE
= EXISTING LIGHT POLE
= WOOD/VINYL FENCE
= CHAINLINK/WIRE FENCE
= STORM BOX CURB
= EXISTING WATER VALVE
= EXISTING UTILITY BOX
= EXISTING ROCK RETAINING WALL
S
G M
= SURVEY CONTROL POINT
23
ATTACHMENT D: Master Plan Policies
Avenues Master Plan
The subject property is located within the Avenues Master Plan (adopted July 1987) and is designated
in the future land use map as “Business/Commercial".
The land use goal of that master plan is to:
Preserve the residential character and existing land use patterns in the Avenues
Community. Special emphasis should be placed on regulating foothill development and
preserving the historically significant sites and districts.
Relevant land use recommendations to this proposal include a general policy that additional
zoning changes to accommodate higher density multiple-family dwellings in the Avenues are
not desirable or needed, and that no immediate need exists for additional business property.
The plan indicates that additional retail services may eventually be needed. However, it
recommends that changing zoning to accommodate new retail service should not be made
until Avenues residents express the need for additional retail shopping and specific criteria
should be considered in the decision.
The historic preservation goal is also relevant to this proposal:
Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the
established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts.
Staff Discussion: The proposed rezone will continue to allow residential uses on the two properties
but could alter the existing land use pattern of the neighborhood. The difference between the current
zoning and the proposed is that for 860 E 3rd Avenue multifamily would be allowed without any
commercial component, and for 868 E 3rd Avenue multifamily and commercial uses would be
allowed. Because these properties are located in the Avenues Local Historic District and there are
tools in place for historic preservation, new land uses and new development would not diminish the
character of the area. The overlay district requires compatibility in the design of new buildings and
modifications to existing, which ensures the appropriate scale, size and form of structures. Staff is
recommending a condition to maintain a commercial component on the properties to help preserve
the already established neighborhood node. The proposed rezone, if approved with this condition, is
in line with the Avenues Master Plan, including its Future Land Use map designation.
Plan Salt Lake
This citywide master plan adopted in 2015 provides a vision and policies for the future of
Salt Lake City. The following principles and initiatives are relevant to this project:
Guiding Principle: Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for
social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
Initiative:
• Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
Guiding Principle: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about
where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
Initiative:
• Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities,
such as transit and transportation corridors.
• Encourage a mix of land uses.
• Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
24
Guiding Principle: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels
throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to
changing demographics.
Initiative:
• Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
• Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that
have the potential to be people-oriented.
• Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where
appropriate.
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm
our past.
Initiative:
• Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
• Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Guiding Principle: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an
innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to
thrive.
Initiative:
• Support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and neighborhood
business nodes.
Additionally, the proposal relates to several sustainable growth & development concepts
outlined in the master plan, including:
• Diverse mix of uses: By creating places with a diverse mix of uses, building
types, connections, and transportation options, people have the choice of where
they live, how they live, and how they get around. As our City grows and
evolves overtime, having a diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods citywide
will become increasingly important to accommodate responsible growth and
provide people with real choices.
• Density: Density and compact development are important principles of
sustainable growth, allowing for more affordable transportation options and
creating vibrant and diverse places. Density in the appropriate locations,
including near existing infrastructure, compatible development, and major
transportation corridors, can help to accommodate future growth more
efficiently. This type of compact development allows people to live closer to
where they work, recreate, shop, and carry out their daily lives, resulting in less
automobile dependency and greater mobility.
• Compatibility: Compatibility of development generally refers to how a
development integrates into the existing scale and character of a neighborhood.
New development should be context sensitive to the surrounding development,
taking into account the existing character of the neighborhood while providing
opportunities for new growth and to enhance the sense of place.
Staff Discussion: As discussed above, the rezone would not negatively impact the character of the
neighborhood. The proposal would however increase the development potential of the properties,
which could result in a land use that is more compatible with adjacent uses, serviced by existing
infrastructure, and with potential to be people-oriented. The allowance of multifamily uses would
provide a moderate increase in density that is appropriate for the area, especially considering the
25
HLC authority over the historic district. The historic preservation review required for new
construction and modifications of the properties would help to preserve the character of the area,
ensuring compatibility while allowing flexibility for growth. The proposed zoning allows for a mix of
land uses and a condition to maintain a commercial component on the intersection of 3rd Avenue and
N street would help support this neighborhood node and the city’s economy.
26
ATTACHMENT E: Existing Conditions & Development
Standards
860 E 3rd Avenue
Development
standard
Existing
conditions CN Complies R-MU-35 Complies
Land Use
Gas station/
Minor Auto
repair
Prohibited/
Conditional No Prohibited No
Lot Area 8,168 sq ft 16,500 sq ft max. Yes 5,000 sq ft min. for
conditional use Yes
Height ~15’ 25’ Yes 20’ nonresidential Yes
Yard
setback:
Front/
Corner ~ 10’ and 8.5’ 15’ min., 25’ max.
for 65% of façade No 5’ min., 15’ max. Yes
Interior ~0.5’ None Yes None Yes
Rear ~7.5’ 10’ No 25% of lot depth, 30’ max. No
Landscape
Buffer None 7’ if abutting
residential district No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Parking
setback None 30’ or behind
structure No Not permitted in
front/corner No
Open Space None None Yes 20% No
868 E 3rd Avenue
Development
standard
Existing
conditions SR-1A Complies R-MU-35 Complies
Land Use Single-family
dwelling Permitted Yes Permitted Yes
Lot Area 5,449 sq ft 5,000 sq ft min. Yes 2,500 sq ft min. for single-
family detached Yes
Lot Width 66’ 50’ Yes 25’ for single-family
detached Yes
Height ~23’ 23’ Yes 35’ residential Yes
Yard
setback:
Front ~7’ Existing Yes 5’ min., 15’ max. Yes
Interior ~45’ and 1.6’ 4’ and 10’ No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Rear ~22’ 25% of lot depth,
15’ min., 30’ max. Yes 25% of lot depth, 30’ max. Yes
Lot Coverage ~25% 40% Yes None Yes
Landscape
Buffer None None No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Open Space 65% None Yes 20% Yes
27
Land use comparison:
Use SR-1A CN R-MU-35
Accessory use, except those that are otherwise
specifically regulated elsewhere in this title
P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 P P
Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less
in floor area)
C10,11 C9
Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor
area)
C9
Animal, veterinary office C C
Art gallery P P
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
P24 P3
Bed and breakfast P
Bed and breakfast inn P
Bed and breakfast manor C3
Clinic (medical, dental) P P
Commercial food preparation P P
Community garden C P P
Crematorium C
Daycare center, adult P P
Daycare center, child C22 P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22
Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter P
Dwelling, accessory unit P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) C
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P
Dwelling, group home (large)14 C
Dwelling, group home (small)15 P P
Group home (small) when located above or below
first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the
first story where the unit is not located adjacent to
street frontage18
P
Dwelling, manufactured home P P
Dwelling, multi-family P
Dwelling, residential support (small)17 C
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C
Dwelling, single-family (attached) P
Dwelling, single-family (detached) P P
28
Dwelling, twin home and two-family P P
Eleemosynary facility C C
Financial institution P P
Funeral home P
Governmental facility C C
Government facility requiring special design features
for security purposes
P
Home occupation P24 P23 P24
Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P
Library P C
Mixed use development P P
Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P
Municipal service use, including City utility use and
police and fire station
C C
Museum P C
Nursing care facility P
Office
Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office P
Open space P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P
Park P P P
Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a
residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones)
C C
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P
Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C P C
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P P
Recycling collection station P
Restaurant P P
Retail goods establishment P P
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop
with outdoor retail sales area
P P
Retail service establishment P P
Furniture repair shop C
Reverse vending machine P
Sales and display (outdoor) P
School, music conservatory C
School, professional and vocational C
School, seminary and religious institute C C
Seasonal farm stand P P
29
Studio, art P P
Temporary use of closed schools and churches C23 C23
Theater, live performance C13
Theater, movie C
Urban farm P P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P2 P5
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P2 P5
Vehicle, Automobile repair (minor) C
* Uses marked with a footnote have qualifying provisions.
30
ATTACHMENT F: Analysis of Standards
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a
matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard.
In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following:
Factor Finding Rationale
1. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its
various adopted planning
documents;
Complies
with
condition
As discussed in Attachment D, the
proposed rezone is consistent with the
Avenues Master Plan and citywide master
plan, Plan Salt Lake. The proposal would
continue to support residential uses on
the properties while allowing for a
moderate increase in density. This
supports goals for flexible growth and
compatibility. The historic overlay district
also ensures compatibility in the design of
new construction and building
modifications. Staff is recommending a
condition that any redevelopment of the
properties must have a commercial
component at the intersection of 3rd
Avenue and N street to support the
neighborhood node envisioned and
encouraged in both master plans.
2. Whether a proposed map
amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements
of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The proposed amendment helps to foster
the city’s business and residential
development. It contributes to residential
development because it allows for a
moderate increase in density. It also
fosters businesses by potentially
supporting the redevelopment of the
property with a more attractive and
usable commercial space.
3. The extent to which a proposed
map amendment will affect
adjacent properties;
Complies
The subject properties are surrounded by
residential, including single and two-
family dwellings and some multi-family.
The proposed zoning will allow residential
and nonresidential uses on the properties.
However, it should have similar impacts
to adjacent properties as land uses
allowed by the current zoning. Impacts
created by potential nonresidential uses
on the existing home at 868 E 3rd Avenue
will be limited given the contributory
status of the structure and required HLC
review of physical modifications of the
building. Any new development will also
have comply with landscaped buffer
requirements.
4. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent with the
purposes and provisions of any
Complies
The properties are located within the
Historic Preservation overlay district. The
proposed amendment is consistent with
31
applicable overlay zoning districts
which may impose additional
standards;
the purpose of the overlay district in that
it encourages redevelopment that is
compatible with the character of existing
development patterns, fosters economic
development consistent with historic
preservation, and encourages social,
economic and environmental
sustainability. The proposed zoning
achieves these goals by providing a
moderate increase in density and allowing
for a mix of land uses on the properties.
5. The adequacy of public
facilities and services
intended to serve the
subject property, including,
but not limited to,
roadways, parks and
recreational facilities,
police and fire protection,
schools, stormwater
drainage systems, water
supplies, and wastewater
and refuse collection.
Complies
This zoning amendment is not tied to a
specific development proposal.
Nonetheless, no objections were received
from other City departments regarding
this amendment, but Public Utilities
noted that development will likely require
offsite improvements. Any redevelopment
or modifications of the properties will be
reviewed to ensure compliance with all
applicable City codes and policies.
32
ATTACHMENT G: Public Process and Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities,
related to this project:
Public Notices:
− Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Greater Avenues
Community Council on October 16, 2020 in order to solicit comments. The 45-day
recognized organization comment period expires on November 30, 2020.
− Early engagement notice was mailed to owners and tenants of properties within 300 feet on
October 30, 2020.
Public Hearing Notice:
− Public hearing notice mailed on November 20, 2020.
− Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on November 20, 2020.
− Sign posted on the property on November 19, 2020.
Public Comments:
− The Community Council Chair did not ask staff to attend a meeting to present the project and
did not provide any public comment.
− At the time of the publication of this staff report, two public comment was received. A
neighboring property owner called on November 12, 2020 to state their opposition to the
rezone because of the impact the new development would cause to the neighborhood given
the allowed density and resulting traffic. Another comment was provided via email in support
of the proposal. The email is attached. Any other comments received after the posting of this
report will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
33
34
ATTACHMENT H: Housing Loss Mitigation Report
35
Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss Report
Property Located at:
868 E 3rd Avenue
Background
The applicant, Remarc Investments, has submitted a Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss
application on behalf of the property owner, Rose Family Investments, for the property located at 868 E
3rd Avenue. The property is currently zoned SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) and is
the subject of a Zoning Map Amendment application to rezone it to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use).
The proposed zoning map amendment also involves the property at 860 E 3rd Avenue, which is zoned
CN (Neighborhood Commercial), and the purpose of the rezone is to allow for the redevelopment of the
two parcels with multi-family dwellings. While the applicant is anticipating that the existing dwelling on
868 E 3rd Avenue will be maintained, City Code section 18.97.020 requires that any petition for a
zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries
residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the
city.
Housing Mitigation Ordinance Requirements
In accordance with the provisions of the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance, the Director of
Community & Neighborhoods shall prepare a report justifying the recommended method of housing
mitigation.
The Housing Mitigation Ordinance requires that a housing impact statement includes the following
elements:
1.Identify the essential adverse impacts on the residential character of the area of the
subject petition.
Discussion: Aside from 860 E 3rd Avenue, zoned CN, the surrounding properties are zoned and
used as residential. The property is located within the Avenues Local Historic District and it is listed
as contributing. Demolition of contributing structures must comply with strict historic preservation
standards and receive approval from the Historic Landmark Commission. If the subject property at
868 E 3rd Avenue is maintained as a single-family dwelling as anticipated by the applicant, the
rezone will not create any adverse impacts to the character of the area. If the use of the property
changes with the rezone, there may be minor impacts to adjacent uses but should not create
substantial adverse impacts to the character of the area.
2.Identify by address any dwelling units targeted for demolition, following the granting
of the petition.
Discussion: No dwelling units are being targeted for demolition with the proposed rezone. A
demolition of the existing single-family on the subject property would require compliance with strict
historic preservation standards and receive approval from the Historic Landmark Commission.
36
3. State the current fair market value, if that unit were in a reasonable state of repair
and met all applicable building, fire and health codes.
Discussion: The Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office lists the market value of the single-family
dwelling on site at $111,200.
4. State the square footage of land zoned for residential use that would be rezoned for
purposes sought by the petition, other than residential housing and appurtenant uses.
Discussion: The subject property is approximately 5,449 square feet in size.
5. Specify a mitigation plan to address the loss of residential zoned land, residential
units or residential character. The Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss Ordinance outlines
three options for mitigation housing loss:
A. Construction of replacement housing,
B. Payment of a fee based on difference between the existing housing market value and the cost of
replacement, and
C. Payment of a flat mitigation fee if demonstrated that the costs of calculating and analyzing the
various methods of mitigation are unreasonably excessive in relationship to the rough estimated
costs of constitutionally permitted mitigation)
Discussion: The options outlined do not address the specific situation with this zoning map
amendment, where no residential building is targeted for demolition. However, the rezone itself
would allow for the elimination of an existing housing unit.
Option A - Staff could recommend to City Council that the rezone be conditioned on prohibiting
nonresidential uses on the property or that the applicant enters a development agreement with the
city to replace the existing housing unit.
Option B - Under this option, the applicant would pay into the City’s Housing Trust Fund an
amount calculated as the difference between the market value of the homes, as determined by the
Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office, and the replacement cost of building a new dwelling unit of
similar size and meeting all existing building, fire and other applicable law (excluding land value).
The Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office shows the market value of the single-family dwelling as
$111,200, which does not include the market value of the land.
The replacement cost is calculated using the Building Valuation Data published by the International
Code Council. The most recent data from the ICC was published in August 2020 and, indicates the
construction cost per square foot for R-3 (One- and Two-family Dwellings) Type VB is $123.68/SF
of finished floor area and $22.45/SF of unfinished floor area. This rate takes into account only the
costs of construction and does not include the land costs. Type VB is the typical construction type
for residential buildings due to the use of the building and the buildings occupant load.
Market value of the property (based on County assessment) = $111,200.00
Replacement cost = $141,920.06
Difference = -$30,720.06
Because replacement costs exceed the market value of the existing single-family homes, the
difference is a negative number and no mitigation fee is required.
37
Findings:
1.The proposed rezone could result in a net loss of one dwelling unit.
2.The proposed housing mitigation option A for the construction of replacement housing if the
existing dwelling unit is eliminated was considered. However, option B shows that the replacement
cost of the existing housing unit is greater than the market value of the structure.
3.The applicant is not required to replace the housing unit nor make a contribution to the City’s
Housing Trust Fund.
Determination of Mitigation
Based on the findings outlined in this report, the Director of Community and Neighborhood, has
determined that the applicant would not be responsible for mitigating the loss of the single dwelling
unit located at 868 E 3rd Avenue.
_______________________
Jennifer McGrath, Deputy Director
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Dated: __________________
Attachments
1.Vicinity Maps
2.Salt Lake County Assessor – Evaluation Summaries
3.International Code Council Building Valuation Data – August 2018
4.Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss Applications
Jennifer Mcgrath (Nov 19, 2020 10:12 MST)
11/19/2020
38
ATTACHMENT 1
VICINITY MAP
39
40
ATTACHMENT 2
SALT LAKE COUNTY ASSESSOR
EVALUATION SUMMARIES
41
42
ATTACHMENT 3
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL
BUILDING VALUATION DATA –
FEBRUARY 2020
43
44
45
ATTACHMENT 4
MITIGATION OF RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING LOSS APPLICATION
46
47
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes
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.
8:33:56 PM
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
Mayara Lima, 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 positive recommendation
to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Height differences
• Commercial component and whether it’s practical in the long term
• Clarification on why the house is being included in the rezone if it’s going to remain as a house
Marcus Robinson and Kevin Blalock, provided a presentation with further details.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Whether the applicant has shared their plans with the community council or the surrounding
neighborhood
PUBLIC HEARING 9:02:03 PM
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 2, 2020 Page 2
Beckie Bradshaw – Provided an email comment raising concerns with parking and traffic issues.
Brandy Dominguez – Provided an email comment stating her opposition of the request.
Jack Galian – Provided an email comment that he was interested in attending the meeting, but staff did
not see him listed in the attendee list.
Nick Gurr – Provided an email comment stating his opposition of the request.
Zack S – Provided and email comment stating his opposition of the request.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Clarification on what other zoning districts were considered and how it was settled on the current
proposal
The Commission made the following comments:
• I’m in favor of recommending approval; I’m not in favor of the condition
• I agree, I don’t think that a commercial requirement is appropriate
The Commission and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Whether there’s any off-street parking for the existing home
MOTION 9:17:28 PM
Commissioner Bell stated, Based on the information listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zoning map amendment, as presented in
petition PLNPCM2020-00703.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lee, and Paredes voted “Aye”. Commissioners Lyon, and Urquhart voted “Nay”. The motion
passed 6-2.
The meeting adjourned at 9:19:16 PM
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
A. Memorandum
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
MEMORANDUM
To: Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission
From: Mayara Lima, Principal Planner
(801) 535-7118 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com
Date: January 7, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2020-00703 – 3rd Avenue Rezone
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue
PARCEL IDs: 09-32-379-001 and 09-32-379-002
MASTER PLAN: Avenues Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: CN Neighborhood Commercial & SR-1A Special Development Pattern
Residential
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Avenues Local Historic Preservation District
REQUEST: 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 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue. 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.
Figure 1 – Zoning and vicinity map of the subject properties
1
ACTION REQUIRED: Because the subject properties are located in the Avenues Local
Historic District, Planning Staff is asking the Historic Landmark Commission to review the
request and identify any potential concerns as they relate to the integrity of the local historic
district. Any concerns identified by the HLC will be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the
City Council on December 2, 2020. The City Council has final decision-making authority on the
matter.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposal is to change the zoning designation of the
properties. 860 E 3rd Avenue is currently zoned CN and contain a gas station and auto repair. 868 E
3rd Avenue is currently zoned SR-1A and contains a single-family dwelling. The surrounding
properties are predominantly residential, zoned SR-1A, and include single-family, two-family and
some multi-family dwellings.
The gas station and auto repair on 860 E 3rd Avenue date back to 1962 when the property was given a
building permit to operate a service station. The canopy was constructed later, but the use of the
property as commercial has been consistent for almost 60 years. Despite the age, the structures are
not considered contributing to the historic district. The land uses are nonconforming (not permitted
but created prior to the zoning) and the structures noncomplying to the current CN zoning.
The house on 868 E 3rd Avenue was built in 1892 and has always been a single-family dwelling. The
house is listed as contributing to the historic district. The use of the property is permitted in the
current SR-1A zoning district, but the small east side setback renders the existing structure
noncomplying. This property is included in the rezone request because of its lot size, which remains
partially unobstructed by buildings on the west side.
Figure 2 – Photo of the gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue
Figure 3 – Photo of the single-family dwelling at 868 E 3rd Avenue
2
The applicant has submitted a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties under the proposed
zoning district. The anticipated development would include combining the two lots, preserving the
existing single-family dwelling, demolishing the commercial structures and constructing six attached
single-family dwellings on the properties. Because the two properties are within the Avenues Local
Historic district, any future development would have to be approved by the Historic Landmark
Commission.
Three key considerations were discussed with the Planning Commission:
1. Development plans and rezone request
The existing structures on the properties are considered noncomplying to its current zoning
standards. If the rezone is approved, they will continue to be considered noncomplying to the
proposed zoning district without necessarily increasing the degree of noncompliance. New
development would have to comply with the proposed zoning standards, including landscape
buffers to adjacent parcels, or request modifications to the HLC.
The proposed R-MU-35 zoning district could result in more density within the combined
properties than it is currently attainable because it allows an additional 10 feet in building
height and due to easier siting of a new building. However, when compared to the CN zoning
district, which has no density requirement for mixed-use developments, and the size of the
combined properties, it is unlikely that the rezone would result in a significant increase in
number of units.
The required landscape buffer in a new development would help reduce use impacts and
HLC review could limit impacts related to massing, size and scale of future buildings. As far
as parking goes, the proposed zoning requires one stall per residential unit. Parking for
nonresidential uses vary depending on the intensity of the use. The requirement is considered
adequate for the properties because they are served by sidewalks, bike lanes and two bus
lines.
Figure 4 – Conceptual plan submitted by the applicant.
3
2. Loss of a commercial use in a neighborhood node
The rezone could potentially result in the loss of commercial use in this node. Historic
research shows that the property at 860 E 3rd Avenue has had commercial uses for over a
century. Sanborn maps show a store siting on the corner of N street and 3rd Avenue between
1911 and 1950. A 1958 aerial photograph and permit records suggest that the store was
maintained until 1962, when the current use was established.
The Avenues Master Plan offers limited opportunities to add commercial zones in the
neighborhood, and the loss of an already designated commercial property could mean a
reduction of services available at the community level and could alter the character of this
neighborhood node. Planning staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the
rezone be conditioned on any new development including a commercial component to
maintain the neighborhood node and support activity on that corner. However, Planning
Commission found that the condition was not appropriate.
Figure 5 – 1911 and 1950 Sanborn maps show a corner store and a dwelling on the property.
3rd Avenue
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
Figure 6 – Aerial photograph shows that the two structures
existed at least until 1958.
4
3. Expansion of nonresidential uses into residential area
The rezone would also allow for the conversion of the existing single-family dwelling into a
nonresidential use. The Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Master Plan is not clear on the
vision for the specific property and could be interpreted to accommodate current and
proposed zoning. Nonetheless, when considering the impact of a change of use, staff found
that the contributory status of the structure on 868 E 3rd Avenue hinders demolition and
limits the intensity of the house conversion.
A conversion to another use will likely trigger building improvements for compliance with
building and fire codes. Any exterior modifications to the structure would require a
Certificate of Appropriateness whether issued for minor modifications Administratively or
major modifications by the Historic Landmark Commission. The review would focus on
design elements, however, the limitations on reuse of the building could somewhat limit the
intensity of the house conversion.
Overall, staff finds that the applicable master plans contain city goals and policies that support the
proposed zoning map amendment. The Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Master Plan calls for
Business/Commercial on the corner of the 3rd Avenue and N Street. The proposal is also in line with
the policies related to the preservation of residential character and existing land use patterns found in
the Avenues Master Plan and those related to smart growth and compatibility found in Plan Salt
Lake.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on this information and the applicant’s proposal, Planning Staff is asking the Historic
Landmark Commission to identify any potential concerns with these zoning map and master plan
amendment requests as they relate to the integrity of the Avenues Local Historic District and local
preservation efforts. Discussion points may relate to:
• The compatibility of the proposed uses with the historic character of the area
• The R-MU-35 zoning standards as they relate to historic structures
• The potential new development that could occur as a result of this zoning change.
Any concerns identified by the HLC – if any – will be forwarded to the City Council for review. For
reference, the City Council will look to the following standards to guide their decision (21A.50.050.B):
1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and
policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents;
2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning
ordinance;
3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties;
4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,
including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire
protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse
collection.
5
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Zoning Map
B. Site Photographs
C. Application Materials
D. Master Plan Policies
E. Existing Conditions & Development Standards
6
ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity Zoning Map
7
ATTACHMENT B: Site Photographs
Figure 7 – Properties located to the south of 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 8 – Southwest view of 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 9 – West view of 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 11 – Gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 12 - Gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 10 – Properties located west of 860 E 3rd Avenue
8
Figure 13 – House on 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 15 – Properties located north of the 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 16 – Properties located north of 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 14 – Northwest view of 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue.
9
ATTACHMENT C: Application Materials
10
REMARC INVESTMENTS |
BLALOCK & PARTNERS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO
THIRD AVENUE HOMES |
SLC PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMISSION
03 SEPTEMBER 2020
11
THANK YOU
16
(REC. S 89°58'59" E 423.92' ) MEAS. 89°58'04" W 424.16'
N 89°59'38" W
51.39'
S
0
0
°
0
2
'
0
0
"
W
44
.
2
1
'
W-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L
W-
L
W-
L
W-L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-LW-LW-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
W-
L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
PARCEL #09-32-379-001
OWNER, ROSE FAMILY
INVESTMENTS LLC
ADDRESS 860 E. THIRD AVE.
PARCEL # 09-32-379-002
OWNER, ROSE FAMILY
INVESTMENTS
ADDRESS 868 E. THIRD AVE.PARCEL # 09-32-379-003
OWNER GALIAN, JOHN
PARCEL # 09-32-379-009
OWNER WILL & ALEX LLC.
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
PA
D
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS
CANOPY
PILLAR
PILLAR
CANOPY
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
CONCRETE WALKWAY
CONCRETE WALKWAY
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS GRASS GRASS
3RD AVE.
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
WOOD &
WIRE FENCE
GASOLINE
VALVE
GASOLINE
VALVE
GASOLINE
VALVE
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBINGCONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
PROJECT BENCHMARK
SEWER MANHOLE
EL.= 4510.00'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4518.49'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4520.76'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4516.14'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4504.04'
FOUND & ACCEPTED
58" REBAR & CAP
SET BY McNEIL ENG.
EL.= 4515.64'
FOUND & ACCEPTED
RIVET SET IN WALKWAY
EL.= 4507.28'
BASIS OF BEARING (N 89°58'00" W 845.17' REC. ) AS PER PLAT G S.L.C. SURVEY
MON. AT M ST. & 3RD TO MON. AT O ST. 3RD AVE..
(R
E
C
.
N
0
°
0
0
'
2
4
"
4
1
3
.
0
3
4
'
)
M
E
A
S
.
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
2
2
"
W
8
2
7
.
1
6
'
STREET MON. NOT FOUND AT
INTERSECTION OF 3RD. AVE. & N ST.
S 89°52'38" W 66.00'S 89°52'38" W 99.00'
N
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
E
8
2
.
5
0
'
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
W
8
2
.
5
0
'
N 89°52'38" E 66.00'N 89°52'38" E 99.00'
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
W
8
2
.
5
0
'
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION O ST. & 2ND AVE
FOUND 2.5" FLAT BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION O ST. & 3RD AVE
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION OF N ST. & 4 TH AVE.
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION M ST. & 3RD AVE
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION OF N ST. & 2 ND AVE.
N.W. COR. BLK. 24
PLAT "G" S.L.C. SUR.
NOT FOUND P.O.B.
1.4'
2.2'
1.6'
CHAIN &
TPOST FENCE
WOOD
FENCE
CHAIN FENCE
ON PROP LINE
CHAIN
FENCE
CHAIN
FENCE
CONCRETE (
R
E
C
.
N
0
°
0
0
'
2
4
"
W
4
1
2
.
9
1
3
'
)
M
E
A
S
.
0
0
°
0
0
'
4
2
"
E
4
1
3
.
1
3
'
EXISTING BUILDING
SIGN
VALVE
BUILDING STARTLES
PROP. LINE
0.4'
CONCRETE
POURCH
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
SEWER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
WATER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
STORM DRAIN LINE
AS PER BLUESTAKE
COMMUNICATION LINE
AS PER BLUESTAKE
SEWER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
WATER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT
FILE # 1843610 BK. 1918 PG. 285
S
0
0
°
0
7
'
2
2
"
E
7.
0
0
'
S 89°52'38" W
7.00'
N
0
0
°
0
7
'
2
2
"
W
7.
0
0
'
N 89°52'38" E
7.00'
N 89°52'38" E
99.00'
SURVEYINGJOHANSON
SURVEY DESIGN SEPTIC PLANNINGSURVEYINGJOHANSONSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONSOOSOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOSOOOOOOOOOOOSOOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOSOOOOSOOOOOOSOOSSOSOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Parcel # 09-32-379-001
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 3 Block 24 Plat G Salt Lake City Survey,
Running thence South 82.5 feet; Thence East 99 feet; Thence N 82.5 feet; Thence West 99 feet to
the point of beginning.
Containing +/- Acres
Parcel # 09-32-379-002
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 3 Block 24 Plat G Salt Lake City Survey,
Running thence West 4 Rods; Thence South 5 Rods; Thence East 4 Rods; Thence N 5 Rods to the
point of beginning
Containing 15.89 +/- Acres
SHEET-1
BROCK T. CISNEROS
This drawing is and at all times remains the exclusive property of Johanson
Surveying shall not be used with out complete authorization and written support.
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NO.
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
OVERSEEN BY:SHANE R. JOHANSON P.L.S.
REV #
DESCRIPTION DATE
STAMP
09-28-2020
S-20-118
I, R. Shane Johanson, Do hereby certify that I am a Professional Land Surveyor, holding
certificate No. 7075114, as prescribed under the laws of the State of Utah, and that I have made
a survey of the described tract of land as shown on this plat and that this survey retraces lot
lines and may have adjusted said lot lines to coincide with found evidence and other
interpolations based from ground measurements and found records. Furthermore I recognize
that other unwritten rights of ownership or lines of possession may exist, I do not imply to
certify any of those rights, unless agreed upon by the appropriate parties.
S.W. 1/4 SEC. 32 T.1 N. ; R.1 E.
10
1 inch = 10 ft.( IN FEET )
1050 20
P.O. BOX 18941
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84118
Shane Johanson P.L.S. 801-815-2541
This Survey was performed at the request of Oren Hillel For the purpose to locate
contours and elevations of the ground in relationship to the intended positioning of this lot. Also
for the possible purpose of lot sales, future building and landscaping. During the course of this
survey there was an area of encroachment discovered along the East boundary line of parcel #
09-32-379-002 said encroachment is a wood fence that crosses the bundary line by approx. 1.4'.
It is advised for the client to approach the land owner and resolve this encroachment before land
sales or development.
The basis of bearing was derived from the found local street monumintation and utilized
on this survey as N 89°58'00"W as shown on Plat G Salt Lake City Survey. Survey also coincide
with local property corners found as well as survey S2006-06-0507 on file with the official
records of Salt Lake City. by McNeil Eng.
Shown are Two foot Contours Highlighted at Ten foot Intervals as labeled. Found rebars,
plugs/rivets and street monumentation have been tied, utilized and shown on this survey. The
elevation base is determined by the field G.P.S. Projection Based on Utah North NAD 1983
Projection then rounded off to the nearest 10 foot mark for a more efficient Bench Mark base.
The project bench mark is 4510.00' = Found Sewer manhole at intersection of 3rd Ave. and N
Street as shown.
1. Surveyor has made no investigation or independent search for easements of record
encumbrances restrictive covenants ownership title evidence, or any other facts, conflicts, or
discrepancies which may be disclosed by the details of a currant title insurance policy.
2. See city and county planning, and zoning maps for information regarding setback, side yard,
and rear yard instances as well as other building, use restrictions, and requirements.
3. Utility pipes, wires etc. may not be shown on this map. Utility locations shown heron are as
per Bluestake at the time of this survey. Contractors builders and excavators shall verify the
location of all existing utilities prior to construction, and/or excavation. Contact blue stakes and
refer to utility maps for additional information.
4. It was relayed to this office that the existing structure's on Parcel # 09-32-379-001 were to be
demolished, this survey has taken this into consideration and the accuracies of the
improvements on said lot are not exact.
= STREET MONUMENT
= FOUND PROPERTY MARKER
= REPRESENTS PROPERTY LINE
= EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
= EXISTING WATER METER
= EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
= EXISTING GAS METER
= EXISTING UTILITY POLE
= EXISTING LIGHT POLE
= WOOD/VINYL FENCE
= CHAINLINK/WIRE FENCE
= STORM BOX CURB
= EXISTING WATER VALVE
= EXISTING UTILITY BOX
= EXISTING ROCK RETAINING WALL
S
G M
= SURVEY CONTROL POINT
22
ATTACHMENT D: Master Plan Policies
Avenues Master Plan
The subject property is located within the Avenues Master Plan (adopted July 1987) and is designated
in the future land use map as “Business/Commercial".
The land use goal of that master plan is to:
Preserve the residential character and existing land use patterns in the Avenues
Community. Special emphasis should be placed on regulating foothill development and
preserving the historically significant sites and districts.
Relevant land use recommendations to this proposal include a general policy that additional
zoning changes to accommodate higher density multiple-family dwellings in the Avenues are
not desirable or needed, and that no immediate need exists for additional business property.
The plan indicates that additional retail services may eventually be needed. However, it
recommends that changing zoning to accommodate new retail service should not be made
until Avenues residents express the need for additional retail shopping and specific criteria
should be considered in the decision.
The historic preservation goal is also relevant to this proposal:
Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the
established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts.
Staff Discussion: The proposed rezone will continue to allow residential uses on the two properties
but could alter the existing land use pattern of the neighborhood. The difference between the current
zoning and the proposed is that for 860 E 3rd Avenue multifamily would be allowed without any
commercial component, and for 868 E 3rd Avenue multifamily and commercial uses would be
allowed. Because these properties are located in the Avenues Local Historic District and there are
tools in place for historic preservation, new land uses and new development would not diminish the
character of the area. The overlay district requires compatibility in the design of new buildings and
modifications to existing, which ensures the appropriate scale, size and form of structures.
Plan Salt Lake
This citywide master plan adopted in 2015 provides a vision and policies for the future of
Salt Lake City. The following principles and initiatives are relevant to this project:
Guiding Principle: Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for
social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
Initiative:
• Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
Guiding Principle: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about
where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
Initiative:
• Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities,
such as transit and transportation corridors.
• Encourage a mix of land uses.
• Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
23
Guiding Principle: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels
throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to
changing demographics.
Initiative:
• Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
• Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that
have the potential to be people-oriented.
• Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where
appropriate.
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm
our past.
Initiative:
• Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
• Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Guiding Principle: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an
innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to
thrive.
Initiative:
• Support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and neighborhood
business nodes.
Additionally, the proposal relates to several sustainable growth & development concepts
outlined in the master plan, including:
• Diverse mix of uses: By creating places with a diverse mix of uses, building
types, connections, and transportation options, people have the choice of where
they live, how they live, and how they get around. As our City grows and
evolves overtime, having a diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods citywide
will become increasingly important to accommodate responsible growth and
provide people with real choices.
• Density: Density and compact development are important principles of
sustainable growth, allowing for more affordable transportation options and
creating vibrant and diverse places. Density in the appropriate locations,
including near existing infrastructure, compatible development, and major
transportation corridors, can help to accommodate future growth more
efficiently. This type of compact development allows people to live closer to
where they work, recreate, shop, and carry out their daily lives, resulting in less
automobile dependency and greater mobility.
• Compatibility: Compatibility of development generally refers to how a
development integrates into the existing scale and character of a neighborhood.
New development should be context sensitive to the surrounding development,
taking into account the existing character of the neighborhood while providing
opportunities for new growth and to enhance the sense of place.
Staff Discussion: As discussed above, the rezone would not negatively impact the character of the
neighborhood. The proposal would however increase the development potential of the properties,
which could result in a land use that is more compatible with adjacent uses, serviced by existing
infrastructure, and with potential to be people-oriented. The allowance of multifamily uses would
provide a moderate increase in density that is appropriate for the area, especially considering the
HLC authority over the historic district. The historic preservation review required for new
24
construction and modifications of the properties would help to preserve the character of the area,
ensuring compatibility while allowing flexibility for growth. The proposed zoning allows for a mix of
land uses and would help support this neighborhood node and the city’s economy.
25
ATTACHMENT E: Existing Conditions & Development
Standards
860 E 3rd Avenue
Development
standard
Existing
conditions CN Complies R-MU-35 Complies
Land Use
Gas station/
Minor Auto
repair
Prohibited/
Conditional No Prohibited No
Lot Area 8,168 sq ft 16,500 sq ft max. Yes 5,000 sq ft min. for
conditional use Yes
Height ~15’ 25’ Yes 20’ nonresidential Yes
Yard
setback:
Front/
Corner ~ 10’ and 8.5’ 15’ min., 25’ max.
for 65% of façade No 5’ min., 15’ max. Yes
Interior ~0.5’ None Yes None Yes
Rear ~7.5’ 10’ No 25% of lot depth, 30’ max. No
Landscape
Buffer None 7’ if abutting
residential district No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Parking
setback None 30’ or behind
structure No Not permitted in
front/corner No
Open Space None None Yes 20% No
868 E 3rd Avenue
Development
standard
Existing
conditions SR-1A Complies R-MU-35 Complies
Land Use Single-family
dwelling Permitted Yes Permitted Yes
Lot Area 5,449 sq ft 5,000 sq ft min. Yes 2,500 sq ft min. for single-
family detached Yes
Lot Width 66’ 50’ Yes 25’ for single-family
detached Yes
Height ~23’ 23’ Yes 35’ residential Yes
Yard
setback:
Front ~7’ Existing Yes 5’ min., 15’ max. Yes
Interior ~45’ and 1.6’ 4’ and 10’ No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Rear ~22’ 25% of lot depth,
15’ min., 30’ max. Yes 25% of lot depth, 30’ max. Yes
Lot Coverage ~25% 40% Yes None Yes
Landscape
Buffer None None No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Open Space 65% None Yes 20% Yes
26
Land use comparison:
Use SR-1A CN R-MU-35
Accessory use, except those that are otherwise
specifically regulated elsewhere in this title
P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 P P
Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less
in floor area)
C10,11 C9
Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor
area)
C9
Animal, veterinary office C C
Art gallery P P
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
P24 P3
Bed and breakfast P
Bed and breakfast inn P
Bed and breakfast manor C3
Clinic (medical, dental) P P
Commercial food preparation P P
Community garden C P P
Crematorium C
Daycare center, adult P P
Daycare center, child C22 P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22
Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter P
Dwelling, accessory unit P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) C
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P
Dwelling, group home (large)14 C
Dwelling, group home (small)15 P P
Group home (small) when located above or below
first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the
first story where the unit is not located adjacent to
street frontage18
P
Dwelling, manufactured home P P
Dwelling, multi-family P
Dwelling, residential support (small)17 C
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C
Dwelling, single-family (attached) P
Dwelling, single-family (detached) P P
27
Dwelling, twin home and two-family P P
Eleemosynary facility C C
Financial institution P P
Funeral home P
Governmental facility C C
Government facility requiring special design features
for security purposes
P
Home occupation P24 P23 P24
Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P
Library P C
Mixed use development P P
Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P
Municipal service use, including City utility use and
police and fire station
C C
Museum P C
Nursing care facility P
Office
Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office P
Open space P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P
Park P P P
Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a
residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones)
C C
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P
Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C P C
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P P
Recycling collection station P
Restaurant P P
Retail goods establishment P P
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop
with outdoor retail sales area
P P
Retail service establishment P P
Furniture repair shop C
Reverse vending machine P
Sales and display (outdoor) P
School, music conservatory C
School, professional and vocational C
School, seminary and religious institute C C
Seasonal farm stand P P
28
Studio, art P P
Temporary use of closed schools and churches C23 C23
Theater, live performance C13
Theater, movie C
Urban farm P P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P2 P5
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P2 P5
Vehicle, Automobile repair (minor) C
* Uses marked with a footnote have qualifying provisions.
29
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
B. Agenda/Minutes
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
January 7, 2021 at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that
conducting the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting at a physical location presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location.
We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can
still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the
Historic Landmark 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; historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex
at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-01072021
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
Approval of Minutes for December 3, 2020
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Director’s Report
Public Comments - The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed
on the agenda.
Work Session
1. Rezone at approximately 860 and 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. This is a work session only to solicit Historic Landmark Commission
input. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council on December 2, 2020 and the City Council will make the final decision at a later date.
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
2. Saxton-Bartlett Addition at approximately 732 East 200 South - The petitioners Nancy
Saxton and Jan Bartlett are requesting a Major Alteration and Special Exception approval for
the construction of a new rear addition to a contributing structure on the Freeze Mansion
Landmark Site, located at 732 E. 200 S. The subject property is listed on the Salt Lake City
Register of Cultural Resources as a Landmark site. The proposed addition is approximately
726 square feet in size and would result in an overall building height of 22'9" feet. The property
is located within the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential) Council
District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist (385) 226-7227
or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNHLC2019-01151 & PLNHLC2019-
01088
The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2021, unless
a special meeting is scheduled prior to that date.
For Historic Landmark 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 Historic
Landmark Commission.
Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision
Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a
decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer
within ten (10) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued.
The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal
with the appeals hearing officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of
decision is issued
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Thursday, January 7, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission
meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete
commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Robert Hyde; Vice
Chairperson, Michael Vela; Commissioners, Babs De Lay, Jessica Maw, Kenton Peters, Victoria Petro-
Eschler, and David Richardson.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Molly Robinson,
Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Mayara Lima, Principal Planner; and Kelsey Lindquist, Senior
Planner.
Chairperson Robert Hyde read the emergency proclamation.
APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 3, 2020, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION
Commissioner Richardson moved to approve the December 3, 2020 meeting minutes.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Hyde stated he had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Vela stated he had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director, stated Wasatch Community Gardens contacted Planning Staff
stating they are excited about their property and extended an invitation to the Commission for a tour.
Rezone at approximately 860 and 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. This is a work session only to solicit Historic Landmark Commission
input. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on
December 2, 2020 and the City Council will make the final decision at a later date. 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
Mayara Lima, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file).
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021 Page 2
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Current use of the property East of the gas station
• Clarification on whether the existing property will be demolished
• Clarification on conceptual plan
• Whether there has been a study on how removing the gas station would affect the community
Marcus Robinson, Kevin Blalock and Ren Hillel, applicants, provided a presentation along with further
information.
The Commission, Applicants and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether the property will be condo units or rentals
• Clarification on whether the property is a PUD
• Whether the buildings would be zero setback to lot lines
• Landscape area and whether there are any common areas
• Parking
• Distance between the proposed development and the existing contributing structure
• Clarification on the distance to nearest gas station
• Clarification on height of historic house that’s part of the development
• Proposed footprint of the individual six units
• Whether a flat roof will be used
The Commission made the following comments:
• I believe that the proposal has been respectful in two directions to the existing property
• I don’t see any issue with the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood
• I don’t think adding retail is necessary
• I think the commercial component is critical to the Avenues
• I think requiring the developer to put in mixed use with commercial residential is unrealistic
The commission were all in favor that they are not opposed to the rezone, but they do have concerns
about height and mass. They intend to address them at their later approval process and hope the Council
will take it into account when making their own decision.
Saxton-Bartlett Addition at approximately 732 East 200 South - The petitioners Nancy Saxton and
Jan Bartlett are requesting a Major Alteration and Special Exception approval for the construction of a
new rear addition to a contributing structure on the Freeze Mansion Landmark Site, located at 732 E.
200 S. The subject property is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources as a Landmark
site. The proposed addition is approximately 726 square feet in size and would result in an overall building
height of 22'9" feet. The property is located within the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family
Residential) Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist (385)
226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNHLC2019-01151 & PLNHLC2019-
01088
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file).
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on previous work session
Commissioner Maw recused herself due to possible conflict of interest.
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021 Page 3
Wayne Gordon, applicant, provided a presentation with further details.
Jan Barlett, Nancy Saxton and Angela Dean were also available or questions.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether all structure on landmark sites are considered to be contributing
• Clarification on the rear addition to the structure and whether it has gained historic significance
• Clarification on attachment D
The Commission made the following comments:
• What is being shown now is a lot more respectful to the existing original front structure than what
was proposed in March of 2020
• I’m wondering if it’s not in the Commission’s best interest to give the applicant a little more relief
with setbacks
The Commission and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Height of fence separating the lot line from the condo
The Commission further made the following comments:
• I agree with previous comments; I don’t have an issue with this proposal
• I just want to say thank you to the owners and architects for really taking to heart some hard things
to hear from the previous work session
The meeting adjourned.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
From:Amy Davidson
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00703 Letter of Support
Date:Wednesday, November 25, 2020 9:14:33 AM
As an Avenues resident, I would like to fully support the zoning map amendment proposed at 860 E
3rd Ave. I walk by this corner on a daily basis and I love the idea of bringing in some homes that fit in with
the neighborhood but in a new and unique way. It would really help this neighborhood thrive. I am also
interesting that there might be some mixed-use added in. Anything we can do to keep our neighborhoods
walkable. I would love to have some new places I can shop and eat and meet with friends. This kind of
friendly environment is an absolute necessity for our community.
Amy Davidson
Avenues Resident since 2005
From:Leo Masic
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 3rd Ave and N St
Date:Sunday, November 29, 2020 12:54:56 PM
Hi Mayara,
I’m an Avenues resident. I’d like to express my support for the proposed rezoning at 3rd Ave
and N Street.
The Avenues has a wonderful location between downtown and the university. This makes it an
appealing place for young professionals like myself who work downtown, and for students
going to the U (which I’m also currently doing.) But the cost of housing up here is pretty high.
Anything that can be done to ameliorate this situation is welcome, including the addition of
housing in the lower Avenues. This proposal is located close to multiple bus lines, and UTA
has plans to increase high-frequency bus routes in the Avenues in their recently adopted five-
year plan (including on 3rd Ave, South Temple, and 6th Ave)—which makes multifamily
even more viable.
Thanks,
Leo Masic
89 C St
From:Tamara Pitman
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) case PLNPCM2020-00703
Date:Friday, November 27, 2020 2:49:48 PM
As the owner of a property at the corner of n st, and third ave, and another home only two
blocks away on n st and first ave, I am deeply distressed at the idea of the loss of our gas
station and repair shop which adds so much to the neighborhood.
the last thing we need is another apartment building.
pls note to Chris Warton that i am unable to attend the public hearing meeting but ask that my
objections, as a direct neighbor, be noted.
From:Norris, Nick
To:Planning (All)
Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Dec 2nd Meeting
Date:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 8:03:29 AM
FYI, comments from the same person on each item on the PC agenda tomorrow. If you have one of
these items, please add it to your record.
NICK NORRIS
Director
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
CELL 801-641-1728
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.OurNeighborhoodsCAN.com
From: Zachary Dussault
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:26 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Dec 2nd Meeting
Hello,
I am unable to attend the meeting this Wednesday and I just wanted to provide a few comments to
the commission regarding the agenda items. I know individual emails are usually attached to each
proposal, but I just wanted to combine them all into one as I usually speak to all the items.
1. I am in favor of this project and hope it is approved. It is important to remember what is being
requested as a variance to the code and what is allowed by right. The applicant is asking for 3' of
height and a total building size of over 15,000sqft. I understand that parking is the main issue that
neighbors have, and I just wanted to offer a counter to that in saying that I believe that this project
has too much parking. We are building housing today that will hopefully be around 50-60 year from
now at a minimum. If in 50-60 years we still live in a city where every family owns one or more cars,
we have failed. If we care about the things we claim to care about as a community; climate change,
housing affordability, improved public transit, more walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, racial
equity, air quality, ect; We need to start taking radical action now. Car-orientated development is
not sustainable. It has done immense damage to our city, our air, and our people. Salt Lake City used
to have a world-class streetcar system, but we ripped up all the rails to make more room for cars.
Dense, human-oriented development not only works, it improves lives by every metric imaginable.
I realize a lot of that last bit got a little manifesto-ish, but I think it's important to realize that city
planning is a science, not a matter of opinion. When you go to your doctor, you don't say to him/her
"I think I need a higher dose of that medication." I think it's time we start listening to the experts
who universally agree that American cities have way too much parking. The leading authority on
parking in cities, Donald Shoup, argues that mandatory parking minimums not only encourage
sprawl, but subsidize cars as a form of transportation by hiding the real costs of providing parking in
the form of higher rents and retail prices. He has many published works on the subject of parking,
and I encourage the commission and those in favor requiring developers to provide more parking to
examine his work.
Sorry for the long winded response to this item, I'm sure I would have gone over my minute here, I'll
try to keep the rest brief.
2. I am in favor of this project, again it appears parking is the main issue. I think I covered my stance
on parking adequately in the previous response.
3.I am in support of this request. I think the planned development would be a welcome addition to
the densifying N Temple Corridor. The current alley does not provide a mid-block walkway, thus I
think the vacation would not negatively affect the public.
4.I love the low parking count. No reason to have excessive parking in this area of downtown with
the proximity of TRAX, Frontrunner, and frequent bus service. However, I think the facade facing
600W is absolutely horrid. I would like to see the commercial space on the corner of 600W and 200S
rotated so the entrance is facing 600W and some of the balconies facing that direction. In this
current design 600W has ZERO street engagement besides the windows of the 1st floor commercial
space facing west. It looks like those window slats facing west are at the end of internal corridors
that no one will ever be looking out. I know the view in that direction is not very pleasant right now,
but we must think long term here. I hate to be against this project because it has so many good
things going for it, and I love nothing more than seeing surface parking lots go away. If these
modifications made the project unviable I would prefer this version over nothing, but I hope these
issues can be addressed easily, and at a minimum have the corner retail space rotated to face 600W.
5.I support this rezone. I also love the condition of requiring a retail space on the corner. I think this
would facilitate great street interaction.
Well I think that's everything. Really bummed I can't make this meeting, looks like a lot of great
projects. I'll see everyone on the next one!
Zachary Dussault
YIMBY
Salt Lake City Resident - District 4
From:Merrilee Morgan
To:Zoning
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Project on 3rd Avenue and N Street/ PLNPCM2020-00703
Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 4:26:29 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to weigh in on my opinion regarding the above named project. As a real estate
professional, I see a need for this product. I worked to help sell the townhouses at 271 No.
Vine Street for the last 90 days and it consistently surprised me how many potential clients
came from the Avenues area, looking to downsize.
When the upper Avenues area was originally developed, the homes were typically larger than
3000 square feet. Now, those same homeowners, many of whom grew up in the Avenues,
raised their families in the Avenues, are looking to downsize and stay in the Avenues. They
are faced with very few options and often leave the area to accommodate their current lifestyle
needs.
As a long time resident with a history in the Avenues, I'd like to see smaller developments
approved like the one named in an effort to keep the area looking and feeling historic while
providing area residents a smaller home choice. I think the plans presented to the Greater
Avenues Community Council in November are in alignment with the area and are in keeping
with the historic neighborhood.
As a resident of the Avenues, I am fully aware of the rage my neighbors felt when Ivory
Homes presented their plan to develop F Street. I am sensitive to the residents wanting to
preserve the integrity of our community. With that, I feel the proposed project serves the
community well.
Please contact me if you want to know more about me or how I feel about the proposed
development.
Warmest Regards,
Merrilee Morgan
From:mroot89y
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00703 LETTER OF SUPPORT
Date:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:24:16 PM
Hi Mayara,
I am an Avenues resident and I wanted to take a moment to express my
support in favor of the proposed zoning amendment for the properties at 860
and 868 E 3rd Avenue. The proposed change will bring vitality and energy to
this corner location, and improve the overall walkability of the
neighborhood. I am in favor of saving the existing historic home, as well, and
welcome single-family home ownership instead of more for-rent apartments.
Matt Ripperton
From:kathia dang
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00703
Date:Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:19:07 AM
Dear Mayara,
It has been brought to my attention that a zoning map amendment has been proposed for the property
located at 860 East 3rd Ave. My husband and I moved our family to the avenues in 2005. As an Avenues
resident, I would like to fully support the zoning map amendment proposed at 860 E 3rd Ave.
This proposal brings to life an underutilized gas station corner with single family homes that are
intended to align with the rest of the neighborhood. The proposal also includes keeping and
renovating the adjacent historic home instead of demolishing it. A project of this nature will bring
long-term residents that add value to the community. This development will better the walkability of
3rd Avenue and replace expanses of concrete with planting and greenery.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kathia Dang
1405 East Penrose Drive
SLC, Utah 84103
From:Jared M
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) case number PLNPCM2020-00703
Date:Friday, December 4, 2020 8:59:40 AM
Hello, Maya.
I just picked up my mail from my PO Box here in Houston yesterday and
found a post card in it from the SLC Planning Commission regarding a
proposed / requested change of zoning on a piece of property directly
across the street from me.
Unfortunately the meeting was 2 days ago... and I'm in Houston right now
anyway.
However, two things:
(1) It sure would be nice if these notices were sent out SOONER. My post
card is post-marked Nov 20th... the meeting was Dec 2nd. Let's say it
takes 4 of 5 days even to get into my mailbox--and I happen to check my
mail that day--that's still only a week's notice.
So, unless the city really just doesn't WANT people to show up at these
meetings... which I suspect is the case... then there should be a longer
notice period required--and really, even multiple notices and / or
multiple forms of notices. (This is 2020 for god's sake. Everyone has
a cell phone / text... everyone has email... most people still have a
mailing address... so it probably wouldn't be that difficult to start
and maintain a database with multiple contact forms--particularly for
people who opt in / WANT to stay more informed about what's going on
around them.
I would think at least THIRTY days would be a normal, legal notification
period. A week is simply not respectful or sufficient.
(2) I jumped online and can see that the "decision" of the planning
commission on this particular matter was "a positive recommendation was
forwarded to the City Council". But what I don't know--that I'd like to
know--is what a change in zoning from the current "CN" and "SR-1A" would
mean in terms of not just what COULD be built on those lots... but what
WOULD be built on those lots.
In general, I'm not opposed to reasonable, smart, respectful
re-development. I'm a builder. I've asked for--been granted--and been
denied--variances and permits for various projects in the course of my
own businesses. And sometimes I've been granted them... sometimes not.
But where there is currently a corner gas station and a house--across
the street from me--I certainly don't want a modern, multi-story
apartment building.
This area is a historic district... so I'm sure there will be many more
steps in the process before anything is approved. But I do think it's a
little early in the game to be granting this applicant a blanket change
in zoning--without any specific project or proposal attached. So,
though I wouldn't be opposed to a change in zoning for the right
project... I would oppose granting them essentially a blank check. So,
IF I am given ample notice and opportunity for the next meeting /
hearing about this proposed re-zoning, I would likely appear and that
would be my input: "First tell me what you want to build here--then
we'll tell you if we'll let you build it--if it does not meet the
current zoning guidelines for this parcel."
We have zoning for a reason. And though I don't always agree with all
zoning classifications... I also don't agree with just granting most
developers any changes to the zoning that they ask for. In this
particular case, they aren't asking for a specific reason--the owner /
seller is essentially asking for the change in zoning simply to make
more money on the sale of their property... which shouldn't really be
the concern of the city / planning / zoning commission. Right?
So, lastly, is there any way--now that there is a specific proposal /
case number attached to this thing--to be automatically and digitally
notified of any and all future hearings, filings, decisions, etc
regarding this proposal? Aside from snail mail... which is not very
reliable these days.
Thank you.
Jared Meadors
Owner, 851 / 855 E 3rd Ave, SLC 84103 (the property directly across the
street from the subject property)
7. MAILING LIST
Name Address Unit City State ZIP
175 O STREET LLC PO BOX 268 ESCALANTE UT 84726
3RD & M TOWNHOUSES CONDM C 154 N 'M' ST # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ALE GICQUEAU 1930 VILLAGE CENTER CIR LAS VEGAS NV 89134
ALEXANDER M MCCOMBS 90 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ANDREA GLOBOKAR 863 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ANNE MARIE L ALFRED; CAROL 122 N N ST #9 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BECKIE A BRADSHAW LIVING T 878 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BUSHWEEK, LLC PO BOX 2753 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
COLOMBIA‐WASATCH LLC 535 SW WINTER CIR PULLMAN WA 99163
DANIELLE A ANGLE 122 N N ST #6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID & TAMARA PITMAN FAMI 860 E FIRST AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID E BONE; CAROLYN A BO 874 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID R BEAUFORT; M LINDA 116 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DOMINIC J SMITH; SHALENE A 1820 E SIGGARD DR MILLCREEK UT 84106
DP FAM TRUST 888 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DREW SHARP; SARAH WILLS (J 821 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DRW FAM TR 122 N N ST # 3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
EDUARDO A VALDEZ; MARTHA T 879 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
FRED J EVANS 133 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
G & A ENTERPRISES LC PO BOX 58493 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158
GREATER AVENUES APARTMENTS 910 E KINGSMILL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
HAO NGOC EVANS TRUST 12/23 887 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JALEENA A FISCHER‐JESSOP; 859 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JAMES CARRINGTON; PATRICK 933 S 270 E SALEM UT 84653
JAMES EDWARD HUGHES; HA NA 903 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JARED MEADORS PO BOX 541842 HOUSTON TX 77254
JEAN‐JACQUES D GROSSI; SON 124 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JEFFREY A GOSZTYLA 876 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JERRY D GODWIN; LISA L GOD 122 N N ST #7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JO ANN WHIRLEDGE 103 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JOHN C CANDELARIA 1564 W ALMOND LN WEST JORDAN UT 84088
JOHN GALIAN 872 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JOHN SPEED & GINETTE IRENE 124 N M ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JONATHAN E HOLLOWAY 2671 W EDSBROOK PL TUCSON AZ 85741
JULIAN CHAN 4120 BONA VILLA DR OGDEN UT 84403
JUNE B HANSEN 119 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JUSTIN B ROSENGREEN; ALICI 172 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KATHERINE G HOLMSTROM; SCO 879 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KIMBERLY FRAZER MCKINLEY 89 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KIRSTEN E HEPBURN; KIRSTEN 870 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LANDWEST LLC; B A W LV TR 2074 E MARYLAND CIR HOLLADAY UT 84124
LESLIE G KELEN; JOYCE A KE 128 N M ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LINDA GAIL KUHN LERUTH; MI 122 N N ST #1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MARY A STONEMAN 865 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MICHAEL G CRANDALL 118 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NATHAN R DUNCAN; STACEY MC 1077 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NOTTING COURT CONDOMINIUMS 1949 E MURRAY HOLLADAY RD HOLLADAY UT 84117
PAIGE M HEYN 122 N N ST #10 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PATRICIA OWEN 884 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PAUL J SVENDSEN; MARY L PI 903 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
R&JKFT 827 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RACHEL LEGREE 853 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROBERT B LEA; KIMBERLY M L 122 N N ST # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROBERT D HANSEN; MARYAN HA 659 N LOMA VISTA CIR MESA AZ 85213
ROGER BORGENICHT; KATHERIN 881 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROSE FAMILY INVESTMENTS LL 2082 E 9060 S SANDY UT 84093
SANDRA KOPANON 859 E THIRD AVE # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SEBLASER, LLC 1768 S RIDGE POINT DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010
SIERRA P HENDRIKSEN 122 N N ST # 5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
STEVEN E SWENSON 120 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SUSAN L DICKINSON 818 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TERESA WHARTON; KYLE WHART PO BOX 263 MIDWAY UT 84049
THE VICTORIAN APARTMENTS, 1582 E PARK PLACENORTH HOLLADAY UT 84121
THIRD AVENUE INVESTMENTS, 11113 S OLD ROSEBUD LN SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095
TOTH‐STOESSER LLC 327 N I ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRISTAN KM MOORE; KRISTY L 817 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1791 E MICHIGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 164 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 881 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 111 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 868 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 868 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED; ROBE PO BOX 11959 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84147
VICTORIA ALMEIDA 86 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WALTER M WILHELM; NATALIE 871 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WALTER S PALMER; SANDRA K 81 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WILL & ALEX LLC 10799 LAS POSAS RD CAMORILLO CA 93012
WILLIAM THOMAS XANDO NEVIN 118 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ZACHARY E IMEL; KAREN W TA 870 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
Current Occupant 167 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 821 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 825 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 827 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 829 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 173 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 182 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 166 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 870 E 4TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 874 E 4TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 876 E 4TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 175 N O ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 167 N O ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 851 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 859 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 867 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 873 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 879 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 879 E 3RD AVE #EAST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 881 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 887 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 801 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 818 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 820 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 817 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 823 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 827 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 149 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 127 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 123 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 823 E 2ND AVE #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 109 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 860 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 868 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 872 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 878 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 884 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 886 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 888 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 119 N O ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 128 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 117 N O ST #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 853 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 859 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 863 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 865 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 871 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 879 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 881 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 866 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 870 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 868 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #2 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #3 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #4 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #5 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #8 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 903 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 906 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 903 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE: Sugar House Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendment at
Approximately 850 & 870 East 2100 South CC to CSHBD2
PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
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:June 15, 2021
RE: Sugar House Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendment at
Approximately 850 & 870 East 2100 South CC to CSHBD2
PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map and Sugar House Master Plan
Future Land Use Map for properties located at approximately 850 and 870 East 2100 South from the
current CC (Corridor Commercial) zoning designation to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District).
Previous uses of the property were a Nestle factory and offices (previously Snelgrove’s ice cream store and
factory) at 850 East and an office building at 870 East. Buildings on the property are now vacant. The
applicant proposes construction of a mixed-use development including residential and commercial space
on the approximately 3.24 acres.
Two petitions are associated with this request:
•Master Plan Amendment-The Sugar House Community Master Plan designates the subject
properties as “Mixed Use-Low Intensity.” The request is to amend the future land use map for the
parcels to “Business District Mixed Use-Neighborhood Scale.”
•Zoning Map Amendment-The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment for the subject
properties from their current CC designation to CSHBD2.
The Planning Commission found there are no specific policies in the 2005 Sugar House Master Plan to
support or prohibit the proposed future land use map amendment.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 15, 2021
Set Date: June 15, 2021
Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
Page | 2
Vicinity map with subject parcels outlined in yellow
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Is the Council supportive of the proposed rezone?
2.The Council may wish to ask if affordable housing units are planned for the proposed
development.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As shown on the map below, properties surrounding the subject parcels are a mix of zoning designations
including:
•CC: Corridor Commercial
•CSHBD2: Sugar House Business District
•FB-SE: Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict
•R-1-5000: Single-Family Residential
•RMF-35: Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential
Page | 3
Vicinity zoning map with subject parcels outlined in yellow.
MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff found the requested change to the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map is not
particularly significant as both current and proposed land use designations are mixed-use. The primary
reason for the master plan and zoning designation changes are to allow an additional 15’ of building height.
Planning staff also reviewed Plan Salt Lake (2015) which outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth
and development in the city. They found the proposed zoning map amendment and overall project aligns
with the plan’s vision and guiding principles and are supported by policies and strategies in the plan.
ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON
A table comparing building size limits, yard requirements, and some design requirements for the
current CC and proposed CSHBD2 zoning designations is below.
Corridor Commercial (CC) –
Existing Zoning
Sugar House Business
District (CSHBD2) –
Proposed Zoning
Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width: 75’
No minimum lot area or width is
required.
Minimum Yard
Requirements
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front and Corner Side Yard: 15’
2. Interior Side Yard: None required.
3. Rear Yard: 10’
4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front and Corner Side Yard: No
minimum yard is required.
2. Maximum Setback: 15'
3. Interior Side Yard: None
Page | 4
property in a Residential District shall
conform to buffer yard requirements in
chapter 21A.48.
4. Rear Yard: No minimum yard is
required.
5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a
lot in a Residential District shall
conform to buffer yards and
landscape requirements in chapter
21A.48. In addition, for those
structures located on properties
zoned CSHBD that abut properties
in a Low Density, Single-family
Residential Zone, every 3’ in
building height above 30’ shall
require a corresponding 1’ setback
from the property line at grade.
The additional required setback
area can be used for landscaping
or parking.
Landscape Yard
Requirements
A landscape yard of 15’ shall be required
on all front and corner side yards,
conforming to the requirements of
section 21A.48.090 and subsection
21A.48.100C.
None required.
Maximum Building
Height
Maximum Building Height: No building
shall exceed 30’. Additional building
height of 15’ may be granted through the
Design Review in conformance with
chapter 21A.59 for a maximum of 45’, and
subject to additional landscaping
requirements.
The Maximum Building Height in
the CSHBD2 zone shall not exceed
30’ for buildings used
exclusively for nonresidential
purposes.
Additional square footage may be
obtained up to a maximum of 60’
if a residential component is
included in the development.
Buildings used exclusively for
residential purposes may be built
to a maximum of 60’.
First Floor/Street Level
Requirements
None The first floor of street level space
of all buildings with this area shall
be required to provide uses
consisting of residential, retail
goods establishments, retail
service establishments, public
service portions of businesses,
restaurants, taverns/brewpubs,
bar establishments, art galleries,
theaters or performing art
facilities.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment C of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 35-36 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Planning staff found this proposal complies with applicable standards. Please see the Planning Commission
staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• January 6, 2021 The applicant presented and discussed the proposal at the Sugar House
Community Council meeting. The community council sent a letter to the Planning Commission in
Page | 5
support of the proposed rezone.
• February 10, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing notice was posted on the property.
• February 11, 2021 Public hearing notices mailed to nearby residents and property owners and
posted to City and State websites on this date.
• February 12, 2021 Newspaper notice of public hearing.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing February 24, 2021. Several people spoke
primarily expressing opposition to the proposed rezone citing concerns with affordable housing,
density, and traffic. The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation
to the City Council for the proposed rezone.
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: Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925
Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory –
Sugar House Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments
850 & 870 E. 2100 South
STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner
(385)226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the master plan & zoning map as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and
General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for Master Plan Future Land Use
Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E.
2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The
applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from
“Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale” and to
change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2
(Sugar House Business District).
April 15, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (May 5, 2021 16:34 MDT)
05/05/2021
05/05/2021
The Planning Commission found that there are no specific policies in the Sugar House Master
Plan (2005) that support the proposed future land use map amendment nor are there any specific
policies that would prohibit the proposed amendment. The basis for the request for the zoning
map amendment is based on additional building height (15’) that cold be realized should the
amendment be approved.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
● Early Notification – Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and
tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on December 16, 2020. In addition,
the Sugar House Community Council was also provided notification.
● Sugar House Community Council – The applicant presented and discussed the proposal
at the Sugar House Community Council meeting on January 6, 2021. Planning Staff was
in attendance. A letter from the Sugar House Community Council is attached in the
Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 24, 2021 (Exhibit 3b). The SHCC is
in favor of the proposed amendments.
● Planning Commission Meeting – On February 24, 2021, the Planning Commission held
a public hearing regarding the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation regarding
the proposal on to the City Council for decision. The staff report and minutes of the February
24, 2021 Planning Commission are found in Exhibit 3b & 3c respectively.
EXHIBITS:
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
a) ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK – February 12, 2021
b) NEWSPAPER NOTICE – February 12, 2021
c) STAFF REPORT – February 24, 2021
d) AGENDA & MINUTES – February 24, 2021
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
5. MAILING LIST
6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning of the properties located at approximately 850 and 870 East 2100 South
Street from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) and
amending the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the properties located at 850 and
870 East 2100 South Street from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House
Business District) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00906 and amending the Sugar House
Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00925.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on February
24, 2021 on an application submitted by Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and
General Business Machines, LLC to rezone the properties located at 850 and 870 East 2100
South Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-20-129-023 and 16-20-129-009) (the “Properties”) from CC
Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2020-00906, and to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map
with respect to those parcels from Mixed Use - Low Intensity to Business District Mixed-Use -
Neighborhood Scale pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00925; and
WHEREAS, at its February 24, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House
Business District).
SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of
the Sugar House Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use
designation of the Properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Mixed Use - Low Intensity to
Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale.
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 ______________,
2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 201x.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending zoning and MP 850 and 870 E 2100 S
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
April 14, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description for the Properties to be Rezoned and Subject to the Sugar House Master Plan
Future Land Use Map Amendment:
Address: 850 E. 2100 South
Tax ID No. 16-20-129-023
0610 BEG S 0^21'12" W 203.50 FT FR THE NE COR OF LOT 10, BLK 44, 10 AC PLAT A,
BIG FIELD SUR; S 0^21'12" W 67.10 FT; N 89^50'35" W 727.89 FT; N 0^20'03" E 115.16 FT;
E 139.31 FT; N 145.*
Contains 130,244 sq feet or 2.99 acres more or less.
Address: 870 E. 2100 South
Tax ID No. 16-20-129-009
0505 COM 9 RD W & 10 FT S FR NE COR LOT 10 BLK 44 10 AC PLAT A BIG FIELD SUR
W 4.59 RD S 142 FT E 4.59 RD N 142 FT TO BEG 6090-1450 6754-1107 8361-2124,2118
Contains 10,890 sq feet or .25 acres more or less.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A) ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK – February 12, 2021
B) NEWSPAPER NOTICE – February 12, 2021
C) STAFF REPORT – February 24, 2021
D) AGENDA & MINUTES – February 24, 2021
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
5. MAILING LIST
6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory –
Sugar House Community Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments
Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925
November 12, 2020 Petitions received by the City.
December 10, 2020 Petitions assigned to and received by Lex Traughber.
December 10, 2020 The Sugar House Community Council was emailed notification of the
proposal.
December 16, 2020 Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within
300 feet of the subject property boundaries.
January 6, 2021 The applicant formally presented the proposal to the Sugar House
Community Council at their regularly scheduled monthly meeting.
February 10, 2021 Property posted with signs for the February 24, 2021 Planning
Commission hearing.
February 12, 2021 Notice of the Planning Commission’s May 22, 2019 Public Hearing
mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission agenda
emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites
February 12, 2021 Newspaper notice appears in the newspaper.
February 24, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation regarding the
requests on to the City Council for a decision.
March 1, 2021 Sent a draft ordinance to the City Attorney’s Office for review reflecting
the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the master plan
& zoning map amendments. Requested review of the draft ordinance.
Received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
March 12, 2021 Transmittal submitted to CAN.
2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925–
Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory – Sugar House Community Master Plan
& Zoning Map Amendments – Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and
General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use
Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E.
2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The
applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan
from "Mixed Use - Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale" and to
change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2
(Sugar House Business District). The intent of the request is to change the zoning of the
property to allow more flexibility to develop future multi -family residential, office or mixed-use
development. This project requires both a Master Plan and a Zoning Map amendment. The
subject property is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex
Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com).
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: Room 315
City & County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex
Traughber at (385) 226-9056 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@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. Original Notice & Postmark
February 12, 2021
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Newspaper Notice
February 12, 2021
Order Number:
Referral Code:
From:Rankins, Marlene
To:Traughber, Lex
Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Order modified confirmation.
Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:33:05 AM
Hey Lex,
This is the type of confirmation they provide us with now for your file.
Thank you,
MARLENE RANKINS
Administrative Secretary
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6171
Email marlene.rankins@slcgov.com
www.OurNeighborhoods.CAN.com
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as
possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding
and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning
Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with
development rights.
From: legals@deseretnews.com <legals@deseretnews.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:24 AM
To: Rankins, Marlene <Marlene.Rankins@slcgov.com>
Cc: ltapusoa@utahmediagroup.com
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Order modified confirmation.
THANK YOU for your business.
This is your confirmation that your order has been changed. Below are the details of your transaction. Please save this confirmation for
your records.
Job Details
DN0010647
Classification:
Other Notices
Package:
Legals
Order Cost:
$126.92
PC 2.24.21 NOTICE
Account Details
Planning Division
PO Box 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480
801-533-6171
marlene.rankins@slcgov.com
Planning Division
Schedule for ad number DN00106470
Fri Feb 12, 2021
Deseret News Legals
All Zones
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Staff Report
February 24, 2021
1
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
_____________ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Lex Traughber – Senior Planner
(801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com
Date: February 24, 2021
Re: Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory –
Sugar House Community Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments
Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925
MASTER PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 850 & 870 E. 2100 South
PARCEL IDs: 16-20-129-009 & 023
ZONING DISTRICT: CC – Commercial Corridor
MASTER PLAN: Mixed Use – Low Intensity
REQUEST: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has
submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels
located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential
and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan
from “Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale” and to change the
zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business
District). The following two petitions are associated with this request:
a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House Community
Master Plan currently designates the subject properties as "Mixed Use – Low Intensity". The
petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to " Business District
Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Scale ". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925
b. Zoning Map Amendment - The subject properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial
Corridor District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the
properties to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906
The Planning Commission’s role in these applications is to provide a recommendation to the City Council, who has final
decision making authority.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation regarding the proposed amendments on to the City Council for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Maps
B. Applicant Information
2
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
C. Analysis of Standards
D. Public Process and Comments
E. City Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business
Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments
for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type
development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the
Sugar House Master Plan from “Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood
Scale” and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2
(Sugar House Business District). The intent of the request is to change the zoning of the property to allow more
flexibility to develop future multi-family residential, office or mixed-use development. The map below indicates the
approximate area to be potentially affected by the proposals.
The applicant has submitted detailed rationales for the proposed amendments in their applications. This
information is attached for review (Attachment B). Potential master plan and zoning amendment approvals
would allow for residential, commercial, or mixed-use type land uses in the future. A specific development plan
has been submitted to the City for “Design Review” (Petition PLNPCM2021-00025) consideration, and will be
presented to the Planning Commission for a decision at a later date. The task at hand for the Planning
Commission at this time is to consider whether or not an amendment to the Future Land Use Map adopted as part
of the Sugar House Master Plan, and a rezone of the subject property, is appropriate based on adopted City master
plan policies and the adopted standards for entertaining rezone requests.
3
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
PHOTOS OF SUBJECT SITE:
The Snelgrove property
as viewed from 2100
South looking
southwest.
Another view of the
Snelgrove property as
viewed from 2100
South looking
east/southeast.
4
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
View across the street
from the subject property
on 2100 South.
View of the southwest
corner of the property
from the 800 East and
Commonwealth Avenue
intersection looking east.
5
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
View of the southeast
corner of the property
along Commonwealth
Avenue looking
northwest.
View looking east down
Commonwealth Avenue
opposite the rear of the
Snelgrove factory.
6
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
The garages that front
on Commonwealth
Avenue opposite the
Snelgrove factory
building.
Looking west down
Commonwealth Avenue;
Snelgrove factory
building on the right
hand side of the photo.
7
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
The corner of 900 East
and Commonwealth
Avenue looking west.
ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING:
The subject property is currently zoned “Corridor Commercial” and is a parcel of property approximately 3.23
acres in size located between 2100 South and Commonwealth Avenue, and between 800 and 900 East. Please
refer to Attachment A – Vicinity Maps. An abandoned factory and vacant office buildings are currently sitting on
the property.
Surrounding zoning includes CC (Corridor Commercial) to the north, CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District)
adjacent and to the east, FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District) adjacent and to the west, and R-
1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and FB-SE to the south. With the exception of the residentially zoned
property located to the south, all surrounding adjacent property is used commercially.
Planning Staff notes that abutting residentially zoned property to the south of the subject property is separated by
Commonwealth Avenue, a city street. Commonwealth Avenue essentially functions as an alley in this case, with
garage access for the homes on Elm Avenue located on Commonwealth as demonstrated in the above photos. A
home located on the southeast corner of 800 East and Commonwealth is oriented toward 800 East.
The requests for the master plan future land use map amendment and the zoning map amendment are reasonable
requests based on consistency with surrounding land use and zoning.
Comparison of the Existing CC (Corridor Commercial) and the CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business
District) Zoning Districts
The subject property is zoned CC – Corridor Commercial. The purpose of the Corridor Commercial zoning district is:
The purpose of the CC Corridor Commercial District is to provide an environment for efficient and
attractive commercial development with a local and regional market area along arterial and major
collector streets while promoting compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through design standards.
This district provides economic development opportunities through a mix of land uses, including retail
sales and services, entertainment, office and residential. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that
8
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary. Access should
follow a hierarchy that places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and automobile third. This district is
appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to
promote a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment to all users.
The applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to CSHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. The purpose of
the Sugar House Business District is:
The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a
transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty four (24) hour population. The
CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high
density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar
House master plan and the Sugar House Business District.
The major difference, and the primary reason for the master plan and zoning amendments, between the CC –
Corridor Commercial District and the CSHBD2 – Sugar House Business District lies in the maximum building
height allowed between the two zones. As shown in the table below, the maximum building height that could be
realized in the CC – Corridor Commercial District is 45’, and the maximum building height that could be realized
in the CSBD2 – Sugar House Business District is 60’. The land uses allowed in these two Districts per chapter
21A.33 – Land Use Tables are virtually identical.
Secondary differences between the two zones are that the CC requires more setbacks and associated landscaping,
while the CSHBD2 requires active ground floor uses along the public street frontages. The former would result in
a more open and suburban condition, while the latter would result in a more urban condition.
Finally, should the property be rezoned to CSHBD2, any new construction on the subject that exceeds 30’ in
height or twenty thousand square feet in size would be subject to the Design Review process, which is a public
process requiring Planning Commission action. In short, should the property be rezoned, the proposed building
would fall under review in a public setting.
Comparison of Zoning Ordinance Standards
A simplified table showing a comparison of the building size limits and yard requirements as well as some of the design
requirements for both zones is included below. This is extracted from the more detailed requirements for each zone
found in the Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 21A.32.080 – I – Institutional and Chapter 21A.24.180 – R/O – Residential/
Office.
Corridor Commercial (CC) –
Existing Zoning
Sugar House Business District
(CSHBD2) – Proposed Zoning
Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width: 75’
No minimum lot area or width is required.
Minimum Yard
Requirements
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front and Corner Side Yard: 15’
2. Interior Side Yard: None required.
3. Rear Yard: 10’
4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting
property in a Residential District shall
conform to buffer yard requirements in
chapter 21A.48.
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front and Corner Side Yard: No minimum
yard is required.
2. Maximum Setback: 15'
3. Interior Side Yard: None
4. Rear Yard: No minimum yard is required.
5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a
Residential District shall conform to buffer
9
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
Comparing two key development standards, building height and setbacks, the CSHBD2 zone allows for more
building height than the CC Zone by 15’, the building setbacks are very similar (15’) with the difference being that
buildings in the CSHBD2 Zone may be built to the property line if so desired.
CITY WIDE MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS:
Sugar House Master Plan (2005)
The subject property is located within the Sugar House Master Plan (SHMP) area (see SHMP Future Land Use
Map – Attachment A). The associated Sugar House Future Land Use Map currently designates the property as "Mixed
Use – Low Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the property is designated
as "Business District Mixed Use – Neighborhood Scale". Note that both future land uses are similar as they are both
mixed-use designations. According to the SHMP on page 5, the “Neighborhood Scale Mixed- Use” designation is “lower
in scale (in reference to the “Town Center Scale Mixed Use” designation) but still orients directly to the street. Uses
include residential, retail, and commercial businesses or primarily small tenants. It is focused around a
transit/pedestrian oriented commercial/retail area with a strong street presence, wide sidewalks, street furnishings,
lighting and landscaping. The street level businesses are commercial and retail in nature, while the upper level can be
either residential or office depending on compatibility of the adjacent uses. Neighborhood Scale Mixed Use occurs
along the perimeter of the Business District, and acts as a transition to the adjacent residential and commercial areas.”
Several policies in the SHMP relate to the requested master plan amendment on various levels. The plan outlines the
following policies:
- Providing space for small tenants in the retail and office buildings that are developed (page 4).
- Increasing a residential presence through a mixed use land pattern (page 4).
- Directing development to be transit and pedestrian oriented (page 4).
yards and landscape requirements in chapter
21A.48. In addition, for those structures
located on properties zoned CSHBD that
abut properties in a Low Density, Single-
family Residential Zone, every 3’ in building
height above 30’ shall be required a
corresponding 1’ setback from the property
line at grade. The additional required
setback area can be used for landscaping or
parking.
Landscape Yard
Requirements
A landscape yard of 15’ shall be required on
all front and corner side yards, conforming
to the requirements of section 21A.48.090
and subsection 21A.48.100C.
None required.
Maximum Building
Height
Maximum Building Height: No building
shall exceed 30’. Additional building
height of 15’ may be granted through the
Design Review in conformance with
chapter 21A.59 for a maximum of 45’,
and subject to additional landscaping
requirements.
The Maximum Building Height in the CSHBD2
zone shall not exceed 30’ for buildings used
exclusively for nonresidential purposes.
Additional square footage may be obtained up
to a maximum of 60’ is a residential component
is included in the development. Buildings used
exclusively of residential purposes may be built
to a maximum of 60’.
First Floor/Street Level
Requirements
None
The first floor of street level space of all
buildings with this area shall be required to
provide uses consisting of residential, retail
goods establishments, retail service
establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar
establishments, art galleries, theaters or
performing art facilities.
10
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
Discussion: The requested change to the future land use map in the SHMP is not particularly significant given
that the current and proposed land use designations are both mixed-use in nature. There are no specific policies
in the SHMP that support the proposed future land use map amendment nor are there any specific policies that
would prohibit the proposed amendment. As previously noted, the basis for the requested change to the SHMP
and the rezone request are based on additional building height (15’) that could be realized should the amendment
be approved.
Plan Salt Lake (2015)
Plan Salt Lake outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. This includes the
development of a diverse mix of uses which is essential to accommodate responsible growth. At the same time,
compatibility, how new development fits into the scale and character of existing neighborhoods is an important
consideration. New development should be sensitive to the context of surrounding development while also providing
opportunities for new growth.
Guiding Principles specifically outlined in Plan Salt Lake include the following:
Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and
how they get around.
A beautiful city that is people focused.
A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and foster an environment for commerce, local
business, and industry to thrive.
The proposed zoning map amendment and overall project is aligned with the vision and guiding principles
contained in Plan Salt Lake and are supported by the policies and strategies in the document.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed master plan and zoning map amendments meet or are able to meet standards for these types of
requests as outlined in Attachment C.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as part
of the final decision on these petitions.
11
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAPS
12
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
AREA ZONING
13
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT INFORMATION
14
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT C: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS
State Law, Utah Code Annotated, Title 10 Chapter 9a, requires that all municipalities have a master plan. However,
there is no specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. The City does not have specific criteria relating to
master plan amendments. However, City Code Section 21A.02.040 – Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans
addresses this issue in the following way:
All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or
for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of
this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the
applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-4), 1995)
In this case, the master plan is being amended in order to provide consistency between the Sugar House Master Plan and
the proposed zoning designation of the subject property. State Law does include a required process in relation to a public
hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission in relation to a master plan amendment. The required
process and noticing requirements have been met.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed
to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to
amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following:
Factor Finding Rationale
1. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through
its various adopted
planning documents.
Complies Based on the existing land uses in the vicinity of the subject
property, the development pattern of the surrounding
neighborhood, and the adopted master plans, amending the zoning
map for the subject parcels from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to
CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) is appropriate.
2. Whether a proposed map
amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements
of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and
future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of
the city, and, in addition:
A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads;
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers;
C. Provide adequate light and air;
D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and
utilization;
E. Protect the tax base;
F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures;
G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential
development; and
H. Protect the environment. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-3), 1995)
The proposed zone change from CC to CSHBD2 would support the
purposes of the zoning ordinance found in Chapter 21A.02.030:
Purpose and Intent as outlined above. The change would help to
distribute land and utilizations (D.), while helping to support the
city’s residential and business development (G.)
15
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
3. The extent to which a
proposed map amendment
will affect adjacent
properties;
Complies
It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning map
amendment could have a positive impact on adjacent properties
with thoughtful future development with an emphasis on
appropriate and compatible design.
4. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent
with the purposes and
provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts
which may impose
additional standards
N/A
The subject property is not located within any designated overlay
zoning districts.
5. The adequacy of public
facilities and services
intended to serve the
subject property, including,
but not limited to,
roadways, parks and
recreational facilities,
police and fire protection,
schools, stormwater
drainage systems, water
supplies, and wastewater
and refuse collection.
Complies The proposal was reviewed by the various city departments tasked
with administering public facilities and services (see comments –
Attachment E). The city has the ability to provide services to the
subject property. The infrastructure may need to be upgraded at the
owner’s expense in order to meet specific City requirements.
If the rezone is approved, the proposal will need to comply with
these requirements for future development or redevelopment of the
site. Public Utilities, Engineering, Transportation, Fire, and Police
and other departments will also be asked to review any specific
development proposals submitted at that time.
16
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT D: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Meetings & Public Notice
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the
proposed project.
January 6, 2021 – The applicant presented and discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council
meeting. Planning Staff was in attendance. A letter from the Sugar House Community Council is attached for
review. The SHCC is in favor of the proposed amendments.
Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposal include:
• Property posted on February 10, 2021.
• Notices mailed on February 11, 2021.
• Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on February 11, 2021.
• Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing – February 12, 2021
Letter to PC Sugar Town Rezone.doc www.sugarhousecouncil.org 1
February 2, 2020
TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM: Judi Short, First Vice Chair and Land Use Chair
Sugar House Community Council
RE: PLNPCM2020-00906 Snelgrove Property – Sugar House Master Plan (SHMP) and Zoning Map Amendments
We are writing you concerning the proposed Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment for the two parcels at
850 and 870 East 2100 South. This parcel has long been known as Snelgrove’s Ice Cream, with a store and ice cream factory. More
recently, it was Nestle’s with just a factory. I’ve often wondered why we had a factory in the heart of Sugar House. The parcels are
zoned CC Commercial Corridor, the purpose of which is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive automobile oriented
commercial development along arterial and major collector streets. However, the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map calls
for it to be Business District Mixed Use – Neighborhood Scale. The petitioner is asking that this be rezoned to CSHBD2. The purpose of
that zone is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four-hour
population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high-density residential
land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business
district.
We have a bus route on 2100 south with 15-minute service now, and this is a block from the S-Line. Our Transportation Committee is
working with the city to try to add bike lanes along 2100 South, which could make it more comfortable for pedestrians.
At the time the SHMP was updated in 2005, we talked about bringing the CSHBD2 zone all along 2100 South (the Lincoln Highway) to
700 East. However, there were businesses along that section from 900 East to 700 East, that would then be non-conforming, and it
didn’t go any further. That zone stopped at 900 East. A number of us have been talking about doing extending the CSHBD2 since that
time. Please note this petition is only for these two parcels. The rest of the parcels on this block and across the street, and west of
800 East will remain CC for now.
The CC zone allows most of the same uses as CSHBD2, but it also allows things like bus stations, warehouses, and other things that
really don’t fit along that corridor. The advantage of the CSHBD2 zone is that it has design guidelines, so that new development has to
be consistent with the standards set in the master plan, those are evident in the newly built parts of the Sugar House Business District.
The other advantage of the rezone is it would allow for additional height, and the applicant has said that will allow him to build a floor
of affordable housing to the project. The applicant says he has convinced the property owner that it is the right thing to do. One thing
we especially like it that it will allow the community to have some input into the design of anything that is built in this zone.
We have met with the applicant at two SHCC Land Use and Zoning meetings and he presented his plans at least on community council
meeting. This is on our website, and a link has been in our newsletter at least twice. I have attached the comments that we received.
I know at least once, I asked the group of about 35 on the zoom call if anyone had any objections to the rezone, and not a word was
spoken.
We are in favor of this rezone.
17
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT E: CITY COMMENTS
Date Task/Inspection Status/Result Action By Comments
11/12/2020 Pre-Screen Accepted Anglin, Anna John,
Thank you for submitting your zoning
amendment application. It appears to be a
complete application as a preliminary review.
However, once the planner assigned to it does a
thorough review, they may ask for additional
information. There is a fee balance of $283.25
for processing 1+ acres and noticing fees. I
have attached instructions on how to pay for
the balance on line through the Citizens Access
Portal. The project number is PLNPCM2020-
00906 – Snelgrove Ice Cream Plant in
Sugarhouse Rezone.
Thanks,
ANNA ANGLIN
Principal Planner
12/2/2020 Staff Assignment Assigned Traughber, Lex
12/10/2020 Planning Dept Review In Progress Traughber, Lex
12/10/2020 Staff Assignment Routed Traughber, Lex
1/8/2021 Engineering Review Complete Weiler, Scott No objections.
1/27/2021 Building Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the
proposed amendments – This would include
Zoning, Fire and Building Code.
1/27/2021 Community Council Review Complete Traughber, Lex The applicant met with the Sugar House
Community Council on 1/6/2021.
1/27/2021 Fire Code Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the
proposed amendments – This would include
Zoning, Fire and Building Code.
1/27/2021 Police Review Complete Traughber, Lex PD has no issues with these plans per Lamar
Ewell - SLC Police
1/27/2021 Public Utility Review Complete Draper, Jason No objection to the proposed Master Plan and
Zoning Map amendments. The proposed
development or others that would fit the
proposed zoning may require water, sewer, and
storm drain improvements. The site will need
to meet stormwater requirements for detention
and green infrastructure.
1/27/2021 Staff Review and Report In Progress Traughber, Lex
1/27/2021 Transportation Review Complete Barry, Michael Transportation has no comments on these
proposals.
1/27/2021 Zoning Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the
proposed amendments – This would include
Zoning, Fire and Building Code.
2/4/2021 Community Council Review Complete Traughber, Lex
2/4/2021 Planning Dept Review Complete Traughber, Lex
2/4/2021 Staff Review and Report Draft Traughber, Lex
Work Flow History Report
PLNPCM2020-00906
850 E 2100 S
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
D. Agenda & Minutes
February 24, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
February 24, 2021 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-02242021
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 10, 2021
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Modifications to Izzy South Design Review 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 received Design Review approval on December 9, 2020 for
a building over 15,000 square feet in size and Special Exception approval to allow 3' of additional
building height. Since that time, the applicants modified their design to include additional building
materials on the south and north facades. In accordance with section 21A.59.080, these types of
modifications to the approved Design Review plans require approval from the Planning Commission.
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 number: PLNPCM2020-00222
2. Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory Property MP and Rezone at approximately 850 & 870 East 2100
South - Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC,
has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for
the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type
development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land
Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from "Mixed Use-Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed-
Use-Neighborhood Scale" and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor
Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The following two petitions are
associated with this request:
a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House
Community Master Plan currently designates the properties as "Mixed Use – Low
Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to
"Business District Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Scale". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925
b. Zoning Map Amendment - The properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial Corridor
District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the properties
to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906
The subject project site is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex
Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com)
3. Reilly Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision Plat at approximately 1159 E 1300 S -
A request by Anthony Reilly, property owner, for approval of a preliminary subdivision plat as a
planned development to divide one existing lot into two lots at the above-mentioned address. Planned
development approval is required for reduced lot width (from 50 feet to 46 and 40.25 feet) and a
reduced side yard setback on Lot 1 (4 feet to 3 feet). The property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family
Residential) and within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman
at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00681 &
PLNSUB2020-00683
4. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1395 E Michigan Avenue – Prescott Muir, property
owner, is requesting Conditional Use approval for an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) located
in the basement of the existing single-family dwelling at the above-listed address. The applicant is
proposing a two-bedroom apartment measuring 963 square feet in size. The property is zoned R-
1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff
contact: Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00944
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 February 24, 2021 Page 2
Judi Short – Stated the purpose of a Design Review is to get a better result; she does not believe that
the proposal is doing that.
Devin O’Donnell – Stated his opposition of the request and raised concern with lack of low -income
housing.
Eli Kauffman – Stated her opposition of the request.
Eoin Daxter – Stated his opposition of the request and raised concerns with the affordabilit y.
Soren Simonsen – Raised concern with proposed material.
Michelle Mower – Stated her opposition of the request.
Paula Mendoza – Stated her opposition of the request.
Lynn Schwartz – Provided an email comment stating opposition of the request.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission made the following comments:
• The purpose of these projects are to build density
MOTION
Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report and the information
received in the meeting I move that the Planning Commission approve the requested modification
to petition numberPLNPCM2020-00222 for Izzy South located at approximately 534 East 2100
South.
With the following modification:
1. That the applicant
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lee,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory Property MP and Rezone at approximately 850 & 870 East 2100
South - Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has
submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two
parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 210 0 South in anticipation of a mixed -use type
development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use
Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from "Mixed Use -Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed -Use-
Neighborhood Scale" and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial
District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The following two petitions are associated with this
request:
a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House
Community Master Plan currently designates the properties as "Mixed Use – Low
Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to
"Business District Mixed -Use – Neighborhood Scale". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 3
b. Zoning Map Amendment - The properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial Corridor
District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the properties
to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906
The subject project site is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex
Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com)
Lex Traughber, Senior 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 positive recommendation to
the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether there is an intent to
Mark Isaac, applicant, provided further information.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• I would like to suggest that
• Clarification on setback requirements
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Judi Short, Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council – Stated her support of the rezone request.
David Fernandez – Stated his opposition of the request.
Eli Kauffman – Stated her opposition of the request.
Eoin Daxter – Stated concerns with affordable housing in the neighborhood.
Michelle Mower – Stated concerns with affordable housing.
Soren Simonsen – Stated his opposition of the request.
Lexi Langford – Stated her opposition of the request.
Tom Greenleigh – Stated his opposition of the request.
Tyler Adams – Raised concerns with affordable housing.
Stephanie Christian – Provided an email comment stating her opposition of the request.
Hollie Brown – Provided an email comment stating her opposition of the request and raised concerns
with added traffic.
Kimia Golchin – Stated her opposition of the request.
Annie Lim – Stated her opposition of the request and raised concerns with affordable housing.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 4
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on sidewalk requirements
• Clarification on whether parking is included
• Clarification on whether there has been a requirement for affordable housing
MOTION
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom stated, based on the analysis and findings in the staff report
that amendments for Master Plans and the standards for Zoning Map Amendments have been
substantially met, testimony and the proposal presented, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council in suppor t of the proposed amendments
located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South. PLNPCM-00906 & 00925
Commissioner Bell seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lee,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passe d unanimously.
The Commission took a short break.
Reilly Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision Plat at approximately 1159 E 1300 S -
A request by Anthony Reilly, property owner, for approval of a preliminary subdivision plat as a planned
development to divide one existing lot into two lots at the above -mentioned address. Planned
development approval is required for reduced lot width (from 50 feet to 46 and 40.25 feet) and a
reduced side yard setback on Lot 1 (4 feet to 3 feet). The property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family
Residential) and within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at
(385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com ) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00681 &
PLNSUB2020-00683
Amanda Roman, 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 with the
conditions listed in the staff report.
Anthony Reilly, applicant, provided further information.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Barry stated, based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
approve the Planned Development petition (PLNPCM2020 -00681) and Preliminary Subdivision
Plat (PLNSUB2020-00683) as proposed, subject to complying with the conditions listed in the staff
report.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lee, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Vice Chairperson Barry continued the meeting.
4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS
5. MAILING LIST
MOUNTAIN STATE TEL & TEL CO
OLATHE, KS 66063
PO BOX 2599
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION
INCORPORATED
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2060 S WINDSOR ST
NUPETCO ASSOCIATES
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
PETTY INVESTMENT CO.
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
PETTY MOTOR COMPANY
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORP.
HIGHLAND, UT 84003
5455 W 11000 N # 202
ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORP.
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
777 E 2100 S
BICYCLE ENTERPRISES LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
803 E 2100 S
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
A & A FUNK, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2582 S ELIZABETH ST # 4
FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION
INCORPORATED
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2060 S WINDSOR ST
YOUNG S LEE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
825 E 2100 S
BICYCLE ENTERPRISES, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
803 E 2100 S
CORP OF PB OF CH OF JC OF LDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84150
50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST
MELISSA L SOUTHWICK
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2152 S 800 E
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2160 S 800 E
JILL C HALL
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2166 S 800 E
A SERIES OF 2172 S
SANDY, UT 84092
11289 S WYNGATE LN
774 ASSOCIATES LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
774 E 2100 S
ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMERICAN FORK, UT 84003
5455 W 11000 N #202
NUPETCO ASSOCIATES LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
NUPETCO ASSOCIATES LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
HOWTON PROPERTIES LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30355
PO BOX 52427
PHOENIX OF SALT LAKE CITY, LLC
DEERFIELD, IL 60015
PO BOX 1159
NUPETCO ASSOCIATES, LLC; UINTAH
INVESTMENT, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
GENERAL BUSINESS MACHINES, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108
1828 S WASATCH DR
921 PROPERTIES LC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124
4070 S EVELYN DR
SUGARHOUSE VILLAGE, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
1165 E WILMINGTON AVE
2010 VENTURES, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
812 E 2100 S
SKH REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC
PARK CITY, UT 84098
1280 FOXCREST CT
DALE F BONDARUK
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104
1455 W WASATCH AVE
ALEXA LANGFORD
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
833 E ELM AVE
SHAUN FUHRIMAN
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
837 E ELM AVE
KAYCEE NIPPER; LANDY NIPPER; PAUL
NIPPER (JT)
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
841 E ELM AVE
ELM AVENUE HOME LLC
OGDEN, UT 84402
1680 NAVAJO DR
HEIDI M BEINTEMA; RACHEL BRUNO
SAN DIEGO, CA 92116
4223 MEADE AVE
JLF VENTURES LLC
DRAPER, UT 84020
13827 S SPRAGUE LN
GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP LLLP
PARK CITY, UT 84068
PO BOX 680365
AURELIO RUELAS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
1015 E ELM AVE
WASATCHRENTALPROPERTIES, LLC
PARK CITY, UT 84098
110 MATTERHORN DR
AURELIO RUELAS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
1015 E ELM AVE
SALT LAKE COUNTY
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114
PO BOX 144575
ELIZABETH M HUELSKAMP
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2151 S 800 E
3AS SUGARHOUSE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116
867 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR
TARTARO REVOCABLE LIVNG TRUST
06/17/2015
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2167 S 800 E
ALICE U ESPINOSA
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
820 E ELM AVE
KIMIA GOLCHIN; MAGGIE NARTOWICZ (JT)
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
826 E ELM AVE
RHAMA RENTALS LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103
524 N MAIN ST
ROBERT V HARRELL
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
836 E ELM AVE
DEBRA S GRIMES
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
840 E ELM AVE
LA BREDIN LEGACY TRUST 9/15/2017
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
844 E ELM AVE
KAIA ANNE RAGNHILDSTVEIT; OYVIND
RAGNHILDSTVEIT; TIFFANY RAGNHILD
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
850 E ELM AVE
BARBARA L MCCAULEY
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
854 E ELM AVE
MARK R MORRIS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
35 E 100 S # 602
MATTHEW P MANES; MARK MORRIS (JT)
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
35 E 100 S
GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP LLLP
PARK CITY, UT 84060
3642 OAKWOOD DR
GRODNIK PROPERTIES, LLC
PARK CITY, UT 84060
3642 OAKWOOD DR
SMITH'S FOOD KING PROPERTIES INC
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR
Current Occupant
2023 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2027 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2027 S 800 E #NFF1
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2029 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2021 S WINDSOR ST
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2035 S WINDSOR ST
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2030 S 900 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
767 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
809 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
815 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
837 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
827 E 2100 S #NFF1
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
724 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2172 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
790 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
863 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
867 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
875 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
909 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
935 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
870 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
880 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
850 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
823 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
829 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
847 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
851 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
857 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
859 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2141 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2147 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
818 E COMMONWEALTH AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
820 E COMMONWEALTH AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2165 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
830 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
858 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
866 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2148 S 900 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2166 S 900 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
922 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
From:george chapman
To:Traughber, Lex
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments against Case PLNPCM2020-00906, PLNPCM2020-00925 at Planning Commission
Date:Monday, February 22, 2021 4:38:12 PM
I am concerned but supportive of the project on the former Snelgrove site due to the need for
wide sidewalks since the only safe way to ride a bike on 2100S. is on a raised and wide
sidewalk. In addition, any entrance and/or exit should be away from 2100S 900E intersection
for safety reasons (and an important bus stop).
Otherwise, this project is an important and much needed addition to Sugar House. If needed,
please give the developer flexibility in height to allow wider sidewalks.
From:Mark Morris
To:Planning Public Comments; Traughber, Lex
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Email in support of Petition PLNPCM2020-00906: Snelgrove Site Rezone
Date:Friday, February 19, 2021 12:24:58 PM
SLC Planning Commission-
I'm emailing in support of the petition to update the city's land use map and zoning
ordinance to permit the 'Snelgrove Ice Cream' parcel in Sugar House to proceed.
I have owned a home on Elm Avenue directly south of this parcel for the last 15 years. I have
welcomed the investments and added activity in the Sugar House business district over the last
decade. With each new project, we've added much desired housing and walkability for the
neighborhood. Having been in this part of the city for many years, the walkability has much
improved over time, and it makes this neighborhood one of the most walkable in the entire
state. With the city's investments to update 900 East through this neighborhood this year, its
clear that the prioritizing of walkability/bikeability of the community is a priority, which I
applaud.
Having looked at the back of the Snelgrove factory out my front window for many years, I see
the potential for the site, and welcome the change to the neighborhood with housing and the
new liquor store.
I have participated as a neighborhood resident in the discussions with the Sugar House Land
Use committee with the developer, and have seen many of the community's suggestions
integrated into site plan changes and improvements. I think the addition of walking routes
through the block go a long way to improving access to all, and chopping up a large block in
the neighborhood. From my experience, the development team is acting in good faith to bring
a well-designed and context sensitive project to an urban neighborhood, encouraging more
residents to move to a neighborhood where they can walk to many destinations, and live a less
car-centric life. With easy access to bus, train, bike, and walking, from my experience this is
one of the most liveable neighborhoods in the city.
I certainly wish there was more space along 2100 South in the project for retail/services space,
rather than just the building's gym and leasing office. No doubt there are other retailers or
service providers who would be more than interested in space next door to one of the city's
few liquor stores. I appreciate the inclusion of public art in the project, and look forward to
seeing it come together.
Thank you for the city's attention to this neighborhood. I know you hear a lot of resistance to
new projects in Sugar House, but that is certainly not a unanimous opinion.
Mark Morris, PLA, LEED™AP, ASLA
VODA Landscape + Planning
159 West Broadway #200
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone (385)429-2858
Email mark@vodaplan.com
Web www.vodaplan.com
From:Landon Clark
To:Traughber, Lex; Anderson, John
Subject:(EXTERNAL)
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:01:21 PM
Hi Lex or John,
My name is Landon Clark with the Sugar House Community Council.
I won't be able to make the planning commission meeting tonight but wanted to send a
paragraph from the SHCC for you to read tonight to the planning commission.
Speaking on behalf of the Sugar House Community Council we would like to talk about the
level of outreach this developer has done with our community. They have presented at our
general community council meeting a couple of times, our Land Use and Zoning a couple of
times and have met with a group of us countless times. Their level of community engagement
has been outstanding. For the most part we have had a very positive response throughout the
community. There is a lot of discussion about bringing more affordable housing to Sugar
House. When this group had the idea of including work force housing in exchange for an
extra floor of height the response was overwhelming positive, even George Chapman gave a
thumbs up.
Thank you
Landon Clark
Sugar House Community Council Chair
GO UTES!
From:Anderson, John
To:Della Rae Riker
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:31:45 PM
Thanks for the additional comments. I will make sure that the commission receives them.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Della Rae Riker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Anderson, John <John.Anderson@slcgov.com>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
John,
Thank you for your quick response and the meeting information.
The only additional comments I have are that 2100 S is already stressed with traffic. Many of the
roads in Sugarhouse are heavily trafficked and in need of repair as a result. We haven't even seen
the traffic impact from the occupation of the new apartments between McClelland and Highland
Drive. Also, for neighbors who love the cozy feel of their Sugarhouse street having to look at a 60'
building will have an emotional impact. In a time when people's lives have been drastically impacted
by COVID now seems the time to maintain the integrity of our community as much as possible.
Again, many thanks,
Della Rae
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:32 PM Anderson, John <John.Anderson@slcgov.com> wrote:
Della Rae,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are
instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021
agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to
questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the
counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which
may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or
preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Della Rae Riker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
Please don't. Sugarhouse is becoming much too crowded and losing the community charm. Keep
it as small as possible.
--
Della Rae Riker
--
Della Rae Riker
raeriker@gmail.com
801-891-3238
From:Anderson, John
To:Della Rae Riker; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:32:10 PM
Della Rae,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there
are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Della Rae Riker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
Please don't. Sugarhouse is becoming much too crowded and losing the community charm. Keep it
as small as possible.
--
Della Rae Riker
From:Robinson, Molly
To:Stephanie Christian; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) 21st south snelgrove
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:33:50 PM
Thanks, Stephanie. We will read your comments into the record during the public hearing.
MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP
Planning Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7261
CEL 385-226-8656
EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Christian
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:31 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) 21st south snelgrove
I am writing to express my opposition to the reasoning proposal on 21st south near the old snelgroves. Adding the
proposed amount of housing to that area of 21st south will create an unsustainable amount of congestion. The
congestion is already an issue that needs to be addressed. I am not opposed to dense housing however the additional
traffic and needs need to be addressed more thoroughly than what is proposed.
-Stephanie Christian
Sent from my iPhone
From:Anderson, John
To:David Fernandez; Planning Public Comments
Cc:"Judi Short"; Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Deny the Sugar Town Zoning Change
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:27:23 AM
David,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at
tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on
how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: David Fernandez
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:13 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Cc: 'Judi Short'
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Deny the Sugar Town Zoning Change
I call for the Salt Lake Planning Commission to deny the request for the change of zoning and
prevent the development of the apartment complex known as “Sugar Town” to proceed.
Furthermore, I would call for the Salt Lake Planning Commission, the Salt Lake City Council and the
Mayor to find the courage to move heaven and earth to re-open the Snelgrove factory as a local
boutique ice cream parlor. I ask this not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Regards,
David Fernandez
From:Robinson, Molly
To:Hollie Brown; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) No more condos in Sugarhouse!!
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:54:42 PM
Thank you for your comments, Hollie. We will read your comments into the record during the public hearing
tonight.
MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP
Planning Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7261
CEL 385-226-8656
EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollie Brown
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:49 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) No more condos in Sugarhouse!!
The proposed plan for the old Snelgrove site is a bad idea. Sugarhouse is getting so built out and the charm that once
made this neighborhood so desirable is all but gone. Traffic is insane especially on 2100 s from 700 e to 1300 e. The
roads aren’t designed for the drastic increase in traffic. I have lived in Sugarhouse for 48 years and have watched it
deteriorate. Cramming another condo into the area only benefits the developers because it certainly isn’t benefiting
residents. When will enough be enough? How about focusing on open spaces and developing unique features that
will add to the community instead of another chain restaurant or retail store that will be out of business in six
months? Instead of telling taxpayers of proposed building, how about asking area residents what we’d like to see? I
guarantee no one will say more condos and retail.
Thank you,
Hollie Brown
From:Anderson, John
To:Carling Mars; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Opposing luxury redevelopment of area near Snelgrove
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:35:31 AM
Carling,
Good morning, I’m assuming that you’re referencing the proposed zoning changes at the
former Snelgrove ice cream plat which is located at 850 E. 2100 S. That project would not
remove any existing housing as currently proposed. It would only remove the existing
nonconforming industrial site. You can learn more about the project here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/00906.00925StaffRep
ort.pdf I hope this is helpful. If you have additional questions please let me know.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Carling Mars
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Opposing luxury redevelopment of area near Snelgrove
Hello!
I am opposed to getting rid of the somewhat affordable options around 2100 S and 800 E in the
interest of building a luxury apartment building. We have an affordable housing crisis in SLC and we
need to be building more housing that is accessible to people making minimum wage or even
amounts much higher than minimum wage, as these people are being priced out of many
neighborhoods by luxury developments that demolish existing more affordable housing. All new
housing developments should be required to include subsidized housing for low income people. We
are not going to fix the homelessness crisis by erecting luxury apartments. We need more affordable
housing, not less.
Best,
Carling Mars
SLC resident
From:Anderson, John
To:The Greenleighs; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Request to speak at hearing Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:53:08 AM
Thomas,
In order to participate in tonight’s meeting there are instructions on how to connect on the
meeting’s agenda found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf If for some reason you are unable to connect to tonight’s meeting,
please send an email to this address, and I can read your comments aloud to the
commission. Please let me know if you have any questions.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: The Greenleighs
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:48 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Request to speak at hearing Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925
I would like to speak briefly at tonight's meeting of the Planning Commission regarding two concerns we
have as a close neighbor to the proposed SugarTown project.
1) The proposed 2019-style modernistic design conflicts with the 1920's -1950's look of the surrounding
neighborhood, the look that made Sugarhouse a desirable location for the development in the first place.
2) Due to the proximity of the development to our homes (18 feet), and the age of much of the building
being demolished, we request that a specific plan be added to the proposal to protect the neighbors
from toxic dust and debris, and that there be a specific plan for noise mitigation during demolition and
construction.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Thomas Greenleigh
From:Anderson, John
To:Devin; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Re-zoning
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:53:45 AM
Devin,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. I do
also want you to know that Salt Lake City leaders and staff are certainly aware of the current housing affordability
crisis and we are working hard looking for solutions to mitigate a significant problem. If you would like to
participate in the meeting this evening there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be
found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: Devin
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:19 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re-zoning
Hello,
I am writing today to as you to oppose the snelgrove re-zone. Honestly, as a long time resident of SLC I find it
beyond troubling how much new development has pushed lower income people out of the city. We’ve seen such a
large amount of new development in the last 5-10 years. Each time a building goes up, seeing that a studio
apartment is over $1200, 1br $1300+ and 2 br $1500+ is scary. Doing this with even $15/hr is a stretch. It’s making
renting anything else difficult as well with the prices being driven up by these luxury buildings.
When you look at the generally accepted 50/20/30 plan for budgeting it’s not in your citizens’ interest to allow this
to continue. That rule states 50% of income should go to your essentials (food, transport, housing, utilities). A
$15/hr worker brings in ~$2400 a month leaving $1200 for the necessities. Rent alone just broke that so now your
other life expenses like food and utilities are taking away from what should be saved income. You’d need two
people at that income level to make it possible. At minimum wage... forget it. A $1600/mo income would take 2
people just to afford a studio.
So, I beg of you, please stop this and any other re-zones. Stop giving breaks to these high cost apartments. In fact,
pressure the existing ones to offer a higher percentage of not just low income but also affordable rates. Many people
fall in the middle that are left out because they can’t afford market rate but make to much to qualify as low income.
Lining the city’s pockets by bringing out of state residents in can’t be more important than supporting existing
residents and adding to our homeless population.
Thank you,
Devin O'Donnell
From:Anderson, John
To:Angie Witzel; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Development
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:31:09 AM
Angie,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. If you
would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be
found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: Angie Witzel
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 8:37 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Development
I am very concerned about the proposed 60 Unit housing and business development on the former Snelgrove site.
The Sugar House area does not have the infrastructure to support the existing multi unit homes and businesses.
I drive on dilapidated roads in desperate need of repair every day. The traffic in Sugarhouse is terrible as most roads
are one lane with the exception of 21st South.
Until major improvements in infrastructure are made, this development should not move forward. As much as the
planning community thinks Sugar House is a walking community, it is not.
Thank You
Angie Witzel
From:Anderson, John
To:Kim Lee; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Lot
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:04:46 PM
Kim,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission before
tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the
meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Lee
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:07 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Lot
Please do allow plans for more condos or apartments in the sugarhouse area. It is ruining what has been a great
place to live and shop. There is not enough parking as is. And the traffic patterns are horrendous at certain hours of
the day! Please rethink this!.
thanks,
From:Anderson, John
To:Kim Kendall; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:29:24 AM
Kim,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at
tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on
how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Kim Kendall
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:38 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property
This plan to rezone the Snelgrove property for yet MORE high density housing and retail is a
disaster!! Please reconsider and understand that 2100 S. is a main thorough fair, the existing
infostructure is absolutely not capable of supporting what you are planning. Please be conscious of
the people and businesses that fit into current infostructure. 2100 S. from 2300 East west to State
street has already become more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians, crime has skyrocketed and it
is absolutely ridiculous to think that it can support the traffic that comes with additional housing and
retail.
Regards,
Kim Kendall
From:Anderson, John
To:Kristin Kraus; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:15:06 AM
Kristin,
Good morning, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there
are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Kristin Kraus
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:00 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property
I'm very disappointed to read about the plans to convert the former Snelgrove ice cream
property to another mixed use facility with shops and living units of up to 60 feet. Aren't
there enough of those in Sugarhouse? I feel like we are turning into NYC, which is not a
good thing!
The great thing about Sugarhouse used to be that it wasn't suburbia with the same stores
and fast food restaurants as everywhere else. There were quaint shops and cute buildings.
This is what we want for our neighborhood, NOT more rezoned ridiculousness.
Sincerely,
Kristin Kraus
84106
From:Robinson, Molly
To:Scott Sartor; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property Proposal
Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 2:26:56 PM
Mr. Sartor,
Thank you for your comment. The Planning Commission made a positive recommendation
to the City Council regarding the matter at their meeting last Wednesday, February 24th.
We will forward your comment in our packet to the City Council. You will have future
opportunities to give comment as the City Council will also hold a public hearing prior to
making a decision to approve or deny the request.
Thanks,
Molly
MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP
Planning Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7261
CEL 385-226-8656
EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
From: Scott Sartor
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2021 4:54 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property Proposal
To Whom it May Concern,
I am against any more apartments or condos in this area. Traffic is already at capacity on 2100
South from 700 East to 1300 East. Please go drive and walk around the block there before you do
anything that involves more condos/ affordable housing!
Thanks very much,
Scott Sartor
From:Anderson, John
To:Ann Haynes; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:28:42 AM
Ann,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. If you
would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be
found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Haynes
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:57 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property
To whom it may concern,
Please do not change the zoning of the snelgrove parcel. Sugarhouse, and 2100 south, do not need more traffic and
tall buildings. Keep the corridor designation please! We are just overwhelmed with the model of business on the
bottom floor and apartments above.
Ann Haynes
Sent from my iPhone
From:Anderson, John
To:devwright@gmail.com; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove redevelopment
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:00:41 PM
Devin,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there
are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: devwright@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:31 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove redevelopment
Hello,
I want to state my support for the redevelopment of the Snelgrove property in Sugarhouse. I think
that a mixed use development would be a perfect addition to this neighborhood and would replace
an unsightly industrial building. Salt Lake City needs more density so an additional floor and
extension to 60” height is reasonable.
Thank you for your attention,
Devin Wright
From:Anderson, John
To:Lucy Houser; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove rezone
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:01:42 PM
Lucy,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there
are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Lucy Houser
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove rezone
Hello,
I oppose the rezoning of the Snelgrove property.
I live right around the corner at 1982 South 800 East. The traffic is already terrible on 2100 South,
and that enormous apartment building where Granite Furniture used to be next to Fairmont Park
hasn't even opened yet. Adding yet another large apartment building to Sugar House will very
negatively affect the traffic situation.
In addition, a 60' building is simply too high. It will shadow and overlook the neighborhood, affecting
our access to natural light and will impinge on our privacy.
Please do not give permission to the developers to go ahead with this project as it is currently
planned. Send them back to the drawing board.
Lucy Houser
I oppose
Item B4
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE: Rezone & Master Plan Amendment
810 East 800 South R-2 to CB
PLNPCM2020-00740 &
PLNPCM2020-00741
MOTION 1
I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2
I move the council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: July 13, 2021
RE: Rezone & Master Plan Amendment
810 East 800 South R-2 to CB
PLNPCM2020-00740 &
PLNPCM2020-00741
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing June 15, 2021
Set Date: June 15, 2021
Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
Work Session Summary
The Council did not raise any significant concerns or questions during the work session briefing. The
public hearing was set for July 13, 2021.
The following information was provided for the June 15 work session briefing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on a proposal to rezone property located at approximately 810 East 800 South.
from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and amend the Central
Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial.
The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the Council.
The property is currently vacant. The city’s permit card files show that a single-family home was
demolished in 1989. The applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a two-story building that
would have commercial space on the first floor, residential units on the second floor, and parking located to
Page | 2
the rear.
Vicinity Map
(From Attachment A, Planning Commission Staff Report)
Page | 3
Zoning Map
Page 2 of the Transmittal Letter
Page | 4
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Planning Commission Staff Report
Page | 5
Pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff report identify three main issues for review. A short
description of each issue and the finding is provided below for reference. Please see the Planning
Commission staff report for full analysis.
Issue 1: Compatibility with adopted planning documents
This section reviewed the proposal for compatibility with existing master plans such as the East Central
Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake.
•The preliminary plans for a mixed-use development require the zoning map and master plan
amendments.
•The CB zoning district and Community Commercial land use designation are consistent with the
proposed development. They are also consistent with the zoning and land use on the adjacent
Smith’s property.
•There is a commercial use on the adjacent Smith’s property and on the corner of 800 East and 800
South. As such, the proposed amendments are appropriate for the context and the neighborhood.
•The current zoning and small size of the parcel limits the property to a single-family residence.
•The proposed master plan amendment and zoning map amendment are also compatible with the
citywide Plan Salt Lake in that it would provide a mix of uses, redevelopment of a vacant property,
and additional commercial space and residential units in the central area of the city.
Issue 2: Zoning compatibility with adjacent properties
•The existing zone, R-2, generally permits single- and two-family residential properties.
•The CB zone, consistent with the Smith’s property to the east, allows for a variety of commercial
uses and multifamily development.
•The anticipated use of the site with commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor
would serve as a transition from adjacent higher intensity uses and would be compatible with the
commercial development to the east and the mix of small scale commercial and residential
development to the west.
Issue 3: Existing zoning limitations and proposed zone
•The subject property is currently zoned R-2, which allows for single-family and two-family
dwellings.
o Two-family dwellings require a minimum of 8,000 square feet, which is approximately
1,200 square feet larger than this parcel.
o With this requirement, the property is generally limited to single-family uses. It has been
vacant since the previous residence was demolished in 1989,
Zoning District Comparison
R-2
Page | 6
(Existing)CB
(Proposed)
Minimum Lot Area
Single-family detached dwellings
Two-family dwellings
5,000 sq. ft.
8,000 square feet
None
Max Height
28 ft. to the ridge or the
average of the block face;
20 ft. for flat roofs
30 ft.
Front Yard
Average of
block face or
20 ft.
None
required
Rear Yard
25% of lot depth not less
than 15 ft., need not be
more than 25’
10 ft.
Interior Side Yard
4 ft. on one or
10 ft. on the
other
None
required
Max Building Coverage 40%NA
Landscape Yard NA Front yard, if
provided
Buffer yard NA 7 ft. next to
residential
Allowed Uses Comparison
The transmittal letter notes the Planning Commission discussed recommending that the City Council limit
the site to specific uses, but, ultimately, did not make a recommendation on use of the site.
The CB allows many more commercial uses than the R-2. Pages 22 – 24 of the Planning Commission staff
report includes a comparison of the allowed uses in the R2 and CB zoning districts.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 28, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741
810 East 800 South
STAFF CONTACT: Sara Javoronok, AICP, Senior Planner
(385) 226-4448, sara.javoronok@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the zoning map and master plan as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant, Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group, on
behalf of the property owner, 810 E Holdings LLC, is requesting Master Plan and Zoning Map
amendments for an approximately 0.15 acre (6,850 sq. ft.) property located at approximately 810
East 800 South. The applicant is requesting a Master Plan amendment to change the Central
Community Future Land Use Map designation from Low Density Residential to Community
Commercial. The applicant is also requesting a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of
the parcel from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). The
applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a two-story building that would have
commercial space on the first floor, residential units on the second floor, and parking located to
the rear.
The property is approximately 0.15 acres (6,850 sq. ft.) and is zoned R-2. The applicant is
requesting a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of the parcel to CB. The Central
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
5/4/2021
5/5/2021
Community Master Plan was adopted in 2005 and the Future Land Use Map designates this area
as Low Density Residential. The zoning map amendment to CB requires a change in the land use
designation to Community Commercial. The property is currently vacant. The city’s permit card
files show that a single-family home was demolished in 1989.
Map showing the area proposed for rezoning outlined in yellow with
existing adjacent zoning identified
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to the East Central and East
Liberty Park Community Councils on October 14, 2020. The community council was given 45
days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed
zoning amendment.
The East Liberty Park Community Council held a Zoom meeting on October 22, 2020 that the
applicant, developer, and staff attended. Phil Winston presented the project and also stated the
applicant was willing to enter into a development agreement prohibiting a restaurant or bar.
Comments were generally supportive of the proposal and neighbors have indicated that they
were against a restaurant or bar.
The Community Council submitted a letter of support (attached) for the project with a
development agreement.
Planning Commission Meeting: On January 13, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. One citizen provided testimony in
support of the request. One citizen spoke in opposition to the request because of the wide range
of uses permitted in CB. A neighbor provided an email comment in support of the request. The
Commission discussed recommending that the City Council limit the site to specific uses, but,
ultimately, did not make a recommendation on use of the site. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the rezone and
master plan amendment, consistent with the staff recommendation.
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Planning Commission
A) Mailing Notice
B) Staff Report
C) Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
4. Public Comment
5. Original Petition
6. Mailing List
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2021
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 810 East 800 South
Street to rezone the parcel from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential to CB Community
Business District and amending the Central Community Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 810
East 800 South Street to rezone the parcel from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District
to CB Community Business District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00740 and
amending the Central Community Future Land Use Map pursuant to petition number
PLNPCM2020-00741.
WHEREAS, Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group submitted an application to
rezone a parcel of property located at 810 East 800 South Street to rezone the parcel from R-2
Single- and Two-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District pursuant to
petition number PLNPCM2020-00740 and amending the Central Community Future Land Use
Map with respect to the property from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial
pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00741; and
WHEREAS, at its January 13, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt
Lake City Council on said applications; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located at 810 East 800 South Street (Tax ID No. 16-
2
08-176-024-0000), which is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is
rezoned from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to CB Community Business
District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future
land use designation of the property identified in Exhibit “A” from Low Density Residential to
Community Commercial.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
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 Nielson, Senior City Attorney
April 20, 2021
3
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the property parcel
Tax ID No. 16-08-176-024-0000
BEG 5 RDS E FR NW COR LOT 5, BLK 2, PLAT B, SLC SUR; E 5 RDS; S 5 RDS; W 5 RDS;
N 5 RDS TO BEG.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Planning Commission – January 13, 2021 Public Hearing
A. Mailing Notice
B. Staff Report
C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
4. Public Comment
5. Original Petition
6. Mailing List
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741
September 23, 2020 Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group submits application for
rezone and master plan amendment of the property at 810 East 800
South.
October 8, 2020 Petitions PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741
assigned to Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and
processing.
October 14, 2020 Email sent to Recognized Community Organizations (East Central
and East Liberty Park Community Councils) informing them of the
petition.
October 22, 2020 Proposal discussed at East Liberty Park Community Council Zoom
meeting
December 29, 2020 Sign posted on property.
December 29, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State
websites and Planning Division listserv. Notices also mailed out to
property owners/residents. A newspaper notice was also requested
to be printed as required for master plan amendments.
January 13, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public
hearing. The commission voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
January 15, 2021 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s office.
2. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2020-00740 Zoning Map
Amendment and PLNPCM2020-00741 Master Plan Amendment, requests by Stanford Bell of
Altus Development Group, on behalf of the property owner, to amend the zoning map for the
property located at approximately 810 East 800 South. The proposal would rezone the property
from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) pursuant to petition
PLNPCM2020-00740 and amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map with respect to
the property from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial pursuant to petition
number PLNCPM2020-00741. The applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a two-
story building that would have commercial space on the first floor, residential units on the second
floor, and parking located to the rear. The property is in Council District 5, represented by Darin
Mano.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
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 https://www.slc.gov/council/ 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, please call Sara Javoronok at 385-226-4448
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com. You may review the file online at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/citizen, by selecting the Planning tab, and entering the petition
numbers PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to participate in this hearing. 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. Mailing Notice
December 29, 2020
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
January 13, 2021
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, 801-535-7625
Date: January 13, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741 – 810 East 800 South
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 810 East 800 South
PARCEL ID: 16-08-176-024-0000
MASTER PLAN: Central Community
ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential)
REQUEST: The applicant, Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group, on behalf of the property
owner, 810 E Holdings LLC, is requesting Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments for
an approximately 0.15 acre (6,850 sq. ft.) property located at approximately 810 East 800
South. The applicant is requesting a Master Plan amendment to change the Central
Community Future Land Use Map designation from Low Density Residential to
Community Commercial. The applicant is also requesting a Zoning Map amendment to
change the zoning of the parcel from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB
(Community Business). The applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a
two-story building that would have commercial space on the first floor, residential units
on the second floor, and parking located to the rear.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Vicinity Map
B.Site Photographs
C.Additional Applicant Information
D.Existing Conditions & Development Standards
E.Analysis of Standards
F.Public Process & Comments
G.Department Review Comments
1
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The property is approximately 0.15 acres (6,850 sq. ft.) and is zoned R-2. The applicant is requesting a
Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of the parcel to CB. The Central Community Master
Plan was adopted in 2005 and the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Low Density
Residential. The zoning map amendment to CB requires a change in the land use designation to
Community Commercial. The property is currently vacant. The city’s permit card files show that a
single-family home was demolished in 1989. Per the applicant, this was due to a fire. The residence is
shown on the 1898 Sanborn maps, the first to cover this area, and is shown as two stories with brick on
the first floor. The 1950 Sanborn maps also show the residence on the site (and approximately 19
residences and an 11-unit apartment building on the Smith’s site).
Map showing the area proposed for rezoning outlined in yellow with
existing adjacent zoning identified
2
KEY ISSUES:
The key issues listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, community input,
and department review comments.
Issue 1: Compatibility with adopted planning documents
The proposal is consistent with the Central Community Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake. The Central
Community Master Plan identifies this property as Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling
units/acre). The property is currently vacant and located to the west of a Smith’s grocery store and is
to the east of a duplex zoned R-2. Slightly further to the east on the corner of 800 East and 800 South
is a Small Neighborhood Business (SNB) zoned parcel. Residential properties are located to the north.
The preliminary plans for a mixed-use development require the zoning map and master plan
amendments. The CB zoning district and Community Commercial land use designation are consistent
with the proposed development. They are also consistent with the zoning and land use on the adjacent
Smith’s property. While a change from the existing designations, it is appropriate for the site and the
neighborhood. The property has been vacant since 1989. There is a commercial use on the adjacent
Smith’s property and on the corner of 800 East and 800 South (Vis). As such, the proposed
amendments are appropriate for the context and the neighborhood.
Several goals and criteria in the Central Community Master Plan are applicable to this project. The
plan’s Vision for the Future identifies several applicable criteria among four goals:
Livable communities and neighborhoods
• A variety of residential land use supports all types of housing and the affordability of the housing
stock.
• The appropriate transition of multi-family housing with mixed land uses in designated areas
supports sustainable development within the community.
Vital and sustainable commerce
• Increased pedestrian accessibility and cultural activities encourage more housing that supports
the employment center of the downtown area.
• An enhanced built environment encourages employees to work and live in the Central
Community and supports the creation of smaller locally owned businesses.
Unique and active places
• New places where people can gather, meet, socialize, and recreate are created using design
excellence and shared resources.
• Existing destination centers and gathering places are enhanced through urban design
recommendations.
Pedestrian mobility and accessibility
• Children, senior adults, and those with disabilities can access destination points without being
threatened by vehicular movement.
• Improved pedestrian movement along arterials and collectors ensures pedestrian safety.
The proposed rezoning and master plan amendment would allow for a future development that could
include commercial and residential uses, including the development proposed in the preliminary plans
for a building with a first-floor commercial use and second floor residential. The property is in a
location that is accessible to pedestrians and near other commercial and residential uses.
Specific to the East Central North Neighborhood Planning Area, the following issues apply:
• Ensure that commercial development is compatible with any adjacent residential land uses
• Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s
residential character.
• Improve zoning enforcement, including illegal conversion to apartments, yard cleanup, “slum
lords,” etc.
3
The current zoning and small size of the parcel limits the property to a single-family residence. This is
likely why it remains vacant. While a single-family residence was its historic use, the previous residence
on the property was demolished 30 years ago and it has not been redeveloped in the past 30 years. In
addition, while not recent, the construction of the Smith’s and the change to the character of the
neighborhood with its development makes the proposed commercial zoning, change in the land use
designation, and the preliminary proposal for a mixed-use development appropriate for the site.
The proposed master plan amendment and zoning map amendment are also compatible with the
citywide Plan Salt Lake. Consistent with Plan Salt Lake, the proposal will provide a mix of uses,
redevelopment of a vacant property, and additional commercial space and residential units in the
central area of the city. The plan identifies several initiatives that the proposed rezoning helps to
implement. In the Growth Chapter, the following apply:
1.Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and
transportation corridors.
2.Encourage a mix of land uses.
3.Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
The proposed rezoning is located on 800 South, one block north of the 900 South “Funding our Future”
frequent service transit route and one block west of the 900 East Route 209. As stated above, the site
is currently vacant, and the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment are consistent with the use
to the east and, given the small nature of the property, would serve as a transition to the residential and
small neighborhood business uses to the west.
While a residential use would not be required, the applicant submitted a preliminary proposal that
included housing units. In this case, two initiatives in the Housing Chapter apply as well:
2.Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4.Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
5.Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
The site is located in close proximity to existing infrastructure, including frequent service transit routes.
The preliminary proposal for commercial and residential would provide additional space for small
businesses and additional residential units in the neighborhood.
Issue 2: Zoning compatibility with adjacent properties
As detailed in Attachment A – Vicinity Maps and Attachment D – Existing Conditions and
Development Standards, the surrounding properties are zoned CB and R-2. The R-2 zone generally
permits single- and two-family residential properties. The CB zone, consistent with the Smith’s
property to the east, allows for a variety of commercial uses and multifamily development. Given these
standards, the anticipated use of the site with commercial on the first floor and residential on the
second floor would serve as a transition from adjacent higher intensity uses and would be compatible
with the commercial development to the east and the mix of small scale commercial and residential
development to the west.
Issue 3: Existing zoning limitations and proposed zone
The subject property is currently zoned R-2, which allows for single-family and two-family dwellings.
However, two-family dwellings require a minimum of 8,000 square feet, which is approximately 1,200
square feet larger than this parcel. With this requirement, the property is generally limited to single-
family uses. It has been vacant since the previous residence was demolished in 1989, so this reuse
seems unlikely. This is detailed in Attachment D – Existing Conditions and Development Standards.
As previously stated, the proposed CB zoning district is consistent with the zoning of the Smith’s
property to the east. Grocery stores are frequently zoned CB, which is intended to provide for the close
4
integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. It allows
for an additional 5’ of building height compared to the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and SNB
zoning districts, which could allow for a taller first floor ceiling height that often benefits commercial
uses and is consistent with the zoning to the east. The maximum height in CB at 30’ is 2’ greater than
the 28’ permitted for a single-family home with a pitched roof in the R-2 zoning district. CB allows for
a wider variety of uses compared to SNB. The uses in CB are similar to CN and many of the additional
uses permitted in CB, such as an assisted living facility, gas station, or hotel are likely to be developed
on larger parcels. This property is adjacent to an existing CB zoned property and the uses, height, and
design standards related to glass and blank wall length as well as the maximum 30’ height are
appropriate for the site.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed master plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial and
the proposed zoning map amendment from R-2 to CB would allow for a variety of commercial uses and
multifamily residential on the site. Currently, the property is vacant since a historically single-family
residence was demolished in 1989. Generally, due to the small size of the site, development of a greater
intensity than a single-family residence is not permitted due to lot area restrictions. The proposed CB
zoning district is located on the Smith’s property to the east and a rezoning of this small parcel to CB
would serve as a transition to the R-2 and SNB zoned properties near the subject property.
The East Liberty Park Community Council discussed the proposed rezoning at their October meeting
and submitted a letter in support of the proposal. At the meeting, there were questions about the
proposed use, including whether a restaurant or bar would be permitted and a potential development
agreement with a restriction on these uses. In addition, staff has received three emails in support of
the proposal (Attachment F).
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration as part of the final decision on this petition. If ultimately approved, the applicant may
proceed with the submission of plans to redevelop the site. If ultimately denied, the applicant would be
able to construct a single-family home on the property.
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP
6
Noble Pl
80
0
E
900 S
Chase Ave
800 S
900 S
800 S
Me
n
d
o
n
C
t
800 S
900 S
80
0
E
80
0
E
Wi
n
d
s
o
r
S
t
731
758 764 768 718
726
732
738
742
764
717 816 826 840
721
725
729
739
747
749
753
757
761
765
724
726
730
736
744
750
754
760
762
785 819
823
831 833
719 854 856
723
725
729
733
737
743
751
753
755
759
761
763
845 851 861
726
732
746
750
760
768
772
780
752
756
764
768
774 802
839
847
851
853855857859
863
814
818
824
828
832
836
844
848
854
751
753
763
765 775 777
859
801
809
813
817
823
829
847
832
829
825
825
810
835
833
834
834
819 841 865 870859
876
80
0
E
Li
n
c
o
l
n
S
t
Lowell Ave
Belmont Ave
Eg
l
i
C
t
Wi
n
d
s
o
r
S
t
La
k
e
S
t
Sego Ave
700 S
900 S
90
0
E
800 S
70
0
E
¯Salt Lake City Planning Division, 10/12/2020
Legend
Subject Property
Parcels
Vicinity Map
0 80 160 240 32040
Feet7
ATTACHMENT B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
View of the property.
View of the property, the accessory structure on the property to the west, and the back of the commercial
building on the corner of 800 S and 800 E.
8
View of Smith’s property to the east.
View of east/front façade of commercial property at 800 S and 800 E.
9
View of adjacent duplex to the east – 800 E/front facade.
View of the front/west façade (800 E) of the property to the south of the subject property.
10
View from the site looking across 800 S
11
ATTACHMENT C: ADDITIONAL APPLICANT
INFORMATION
12
Updated 7/1/
Master Plan Amendment
Amend the text of the Master Plan Amend the Land Use Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Received By: Date Received: Project #:
Name of Master Plan Amendment:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Name of Applicant: Phone:
Address of Applicant:
E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax:
Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner:Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please call (801) 535-7700 if
you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application.
REQUIRED FEE
Filing fee of $ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre.
$100 for newspaper notice.
Plus additional fee for mailed public notices.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
13
Updated 7/1/
St
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.)
Describe the proposed master plan amendment.
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
Declare why the present master plan requires amending.
Is the request amending the Land Use Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
Is the request amending the text of the master plan?
If so, please include exact language to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planning Counter
PO Box 145471
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
In Person: Planning Counter
451 South State Street, Room 215
Telephone: (801) 535-7700
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
14
Updated 7/1/
Zoning Amendment
Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Received By: Date Received: Project #:
Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Name of Applicant: Phone:
Address of Applicant:
E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax:
Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner:Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
iling fee of $plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
for newspaper notice.
Plus additional fee for mailed public notices.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
15
Updated 7/1/
St
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance ?
If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planning Counter
PO Box 145471
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
In Person: Planning Counter
451 South State Street, Room 215
Telephone: (801) 535-7700
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
16
September 22, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Re: Description of Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 810 E 800 S
Planning Commission,
We are seeking to develop and construct a mixed commercial / residential building at 810 E 800
S, Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake County Parcel Number 16-08-176-024-0000 (the “Property”).
We are submitting two applications in conjunction with each other to begin this process: 1) an
amendment to the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan, changing the
Property from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial, and 2) a zoning map
amendment changing the Property from R-2 to CB (Community Business).
The Property is subject to the Central Community Master Plan, East Central North
Neighborhood, which has the Property listed as Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use
Map. Additionally, the property is currently zoned as R-2. The Property is an empty lot and has
been that way for well over twenty-five years. It currently attracts the transient population and
has been not beneficially used for a significant period of time.
The corner of 800 S 800 E has turned into a small commercial hub, with several businesses
located immediately to the west of the Property and zoned as Small Neighborhood Business.1
Smith’s grocery store is located immediately to the east of the Property, which is zoned CB.
With the Property sandwiched between commercial uses, it is not a desirable location for a single
family or two-family dwelling. Additionally, the market value of the Property, given its
excellent commercial location, makes it cost prohibitive to build a single-family dwelling or two-
family dwelling under the current zoning. The Property will most likely continue to sit vacant
unless it is allowed to be used for commercial or mixed-use purposes.
We intend to build a two-story mixed-use building with commercial space on the first floor and
residential units on the second floor. We have included a proposed site plan and a rough
rendering of the elevation of the building as seen from 800 South. This use meets the purposes
of the Master Plan by locating “community level retail sales and services on appropriate
arterials,” in an area that is already surrounded by commercial uses. See Central Community
Master Plan, CLU-1.2, page 11. There is also a heavy emphasis in the Central Community
Master Plan on providing mixed use commercial / residential properties with “ground level
1 There is a garage immediately to the west of the Property that is zoned R-2. However, that garage juts
out from a parcel further to the south that has a duplex with in home business operating out of the
property. The block face surrounding the Property appears to be all commercial. The only property that
adjoins the Property and is used solely as a residential home is immediately to the south.
17
commercial space [and] apartment or condominium units above the first floor,” especially in the
9th and 9th area just to the south of the Property. See Central Community Master Plan, page 11.
This development meets these objectives and will add to the community.
We respectfully request that the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map be
amended so that the Property is designated at Community Commercial and that the Property be
rezoned to from R-2 to CB.
We’re excited to move forward with this project. Please reach out to me if you have any
questions.
Best,
Stanford Bell
801-884-9044
18
EXISTINGBUILDING(1442 SF)
EXISTINGBUILDING
800 SOUTH
810 E 800 S (0.16 ACRES - 6850 SF)
2600 SF (LOWER)
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING POWER POLE
ADA
2900 SF (UPPER)
ARTIST
STUDIO
ARTIST
STUDIO
DUMPSTER
17
'
-
6
"
21
'
-
6
"
EXISTINGBUILDING
SCALE:
A1
A1-01
SITE PLAN - 081820810 E 800 S
1/16"=1'-0"
19
COFFEE BOUTIQUE GALLERY
810 EAST CONCEPT SKETCH 8/24/20BOUTIQUE COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOORRESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE
810
20
ATTACHMENT D: EXISTING CONDITIONS &
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CURRENT USES OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS AND THOSE WITHIN THE
IMMEDIATE VICINITY
Abutting property to the north:
The properties to the north and across 800 South are single-family residences that are zoned R-2
(Single and Two-Family Residential).
Abutting property to the south:
The property to the south is zoned R-2 and there is a single-family home on the property.
Abutting property to the east:
The property to the east is zoned CB (Community Business) and there is a Smith’s grocery store on
the site.
Abutting property to the west:
The property to the west is zoned R-2 and there is a duplex on the property. The property to the west
of it has a commercial building and is zoned SNB (Small Neighborhood Business).
CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING STANDARDS (21A.24.110 and 21A.26.030)
The subject property is zoned R-2 and the proposal is for CB. The following table provides the
general yard and bulk requirements for development within the zoning districts.
R-2 Zoning District (Existing)
Minimum Lot Area (single-family detached dwellings) Minimum Lot Width
5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft.
CB Zoning District (Proposed)
Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width
None None
21
R-2 Zoning District (Single-family)
Front Yard Rear Yard Interior Side
Yards
Maximum
Building
Coverage
Height
Average of
block face or
20 ft.
25% of lot depth not less
than 15 ft., need not be
more than 25’
4 ft. on one or
10 ft. on the
other
40% 28 ft. to the ridge or the
average of the block face;
20 ft. for flat roofs
CB Zoning District
Front Yard Rear
Yard
Interior
Side Yards
Height Maximum Building
Coverage
Landscape Yards Buffer Yards
None
required
10 ft. None
required
30 ft. NA Front yard, if
provided
7 ft. next to
residential
Allowed uses in each zone:
Land use tables for each zone are below for reference.
Permitted and Conditional Uses by District
Use R-2 CB
Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 P
Alcohol:
Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11
Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11
Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11
Animal: Veterinary office P
Antenna, communication tower P
Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone C
Art gallery P
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P24
Bed and breakfast P
Bed and breakfast inn P
Bed and breakfast manor C3
Clinic (medical, dental) P
Commercial food preparation P
Community garden C P
22
Daycare center, adult P
Daycare center, child C22 P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare or preschool P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22
Dwelling:
Assisted living facility (large) P
Assisted living facility (small) P
Dwelling, accessory unit P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C
Dwelling, group home (small)15 P
Dwelling, manufactured home P
Dwelling, single-family (detached) P
Dwelling, twin home and two-family P2
Group home (large)17 P
Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail, or
commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to street
frontage18
P
Living quarter for caretaker or security guard P
Multi-family P
Rooming (boarding) house P
Eleemosynary facility C P
Financial institution P
Financial institution with drive-through facility P9
Gas station C
Government facility C C
Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P
Home occupation P24 P23
Hotel/motel C
Large wind energy system P
Library P
Limousine service (small) C
Mixed use development P
Mobile food business (operation on private property) P
Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations C C
Museum P
Nursing care facility P
Office P
Open space P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P
Park P P
Parking:
23
Off site P
Park and ride lot C
Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P
Place of worship on lot less than 4 acres in size C P
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P
Recycling collection station P
Restaurant P
Restaurant with drive-through facility P9
Retail goods establishment P
Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P
With drive-through facility P9
Retail service establishment P
Furniture repair shop P
With drive-through facility P9
Reverse vending machine P
Sales and display (outdoor) P
School:
College or university P
Music conservatory P
Professional and vocational P
Seminary and religious institute C P
Seasonal farm stand P
Studio, art P
Theater, live performance P12
Theater, movie C
Urban farm P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P2
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P5 P2
Vehicle:
Automobile repair (minor) P
Qualifying provisions for CB:
2. Subject to conformance to the provisions in subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
9. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations.
10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title.
11. In CN and CB Zoning Districts, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total.
Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square
feet in an outdoor patio area.
22. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
23. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section 21A.36.030
of this title.
24
24. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
Qualifying provisions for R-2:
2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings
are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995).
5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010S of this title.
22. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
24. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title.
25
ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS
State Law, Utah Code Annotated, Title 10 Chapter 9a, requires that all municipalities have a master
plan. However, there is no specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. The City does not
have specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. However, City Code Section 21A.02.040 –
Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans addresses this issue in the following way:
All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council
for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use
decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or
general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-4), 1995)
In this case, the master plan is being amended in order to provide consistency between the Central
Community Master Plan and the proposed zoning designation of the subject property. In this case,
the master plan identifies the property as low density residential. The zoning map and master plan
requests facilitate a rezoning of the property to the Community Business district, consistent with the
adjacent property to the east. This district allows for a much wider variety of uses. The small size of
the parcel limits the practicality of many of these permitted uses on the site. The applicant’s
preliminary proposal for two-story mixed-use building with commercial on the first floor and
residential units on the second floor would be compatible with the neighborhood and serve as a
transition between the more intensive use of the Smith’s property to the east and the duplex and small
commercial building to the west. State Law does include a required process in relation to a public
hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission for a master plan amendment. The
required process and noticing requirements have been met. Should the Planning Commission make a
positive recommendation for the zoning map amendment, an amendment to the master plan is also
appropriate.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a
matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one
standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the
following:
Factor Finding Rationale
1.Whether a proposed
map amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through
its various adopted
planning documents;
Complies As discussed in Issue 1, the proposed
zoning amendment is consistent
with Plan Salt Lake and policies
within the Central Community
Master Plan. The master plan
amendment will provide consistency
with the land use map in the Central
Community Master Plan. This
proposal would provide a transition
from the more intensive commercial
development to the east with the
residential and small commercial
development to the west.
2.Whether a proposed
map amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance.
Complies Section 21A.02.030 of the Salt Lake
City Code provides the purpose and
intent of the overall Zoning
Ordinance stating that it is to,
“promote the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and
26
welfare of the present and future
inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to
implement the adopted plans of the
city, and to carry out the purposes of
the municipal land use development
and management act…and other
relevant statutes.” Additionally, it is
to address the following:
A. Lessen congestion in the streets
or roads;
B. Secure safety from fire and other
dangers;
C. Provide adequate light and air;
D. Classify land uses and distribute
land development and utilization;
E. Protect the tax base;
F. Secure economy in governmental
expenditures;
G. Foster the city's industrial,
business and residential
development; and
H. Protect the environment.
The proposed master plan and map
amendment would foster the city’s
development with additional
commercial space and residential
units on a parcel that has been
vacant for 30 years. It would protect,
and likely increase, the tax base and
possibly lessen congestion in the
streets by placing more residences
and neighborhood scale commercial
space in the neighborhood.
3. The extent to which a
proposed map
amendment will affect
adjacent properties;
Complies As discussed in Issue 2 and
Attachment D, the proposed map
amendment will have an effect on
the adjacent properties since a use
more intensive than a single-family
home could be constructed.
However, the parcel has been vacant
for 30 years and has not
redeveloped. The proposed zone is
consistent with the property to the
east and, given its size, would likely
provide a transition to the less
intensively developed properties to
the west.
4. Whether a proposed
map amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may
impose additional
standards
The zone is
consistent
with
any other
applicable
overlays.
The site is located within the
Groundwater Source Protection
Overlay and is within the boundaries
of a National Historic District. It
would be required to comply with
the requirements of the
Groundwater Source Protection
overlay. City historic preservation
requirements do not apply to
properties within National Historic
Districts.
27
5. The adequacy of public
facilities and services
intended to serve the
subject property,
including, but not limited
to, roadways, parks and
recreational facilities,
police and fire protection,
schools, stormwater
drainage systems, water
supplies, and wastewater
and refuse collection.
City services
can be
provided
to the
site.
The subject property is located
within a built environment where
public facilities and services already
exist. Redevelopment on this
property may require upgrading or
installation of utilities and drainage
systems.
No concerns were received from
other City departments regarding
the zoning amendment or the
potential for development on these
properties as long as normal
development requirements are met.
28
ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings and other public input opportunities related to the proposed
project:
Notice of Application to Recognized Community Organization:
A notice of application was sent to the East Central and East Liberty Park Community Councils on
October 14, 2020. The community council was given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to
request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment.
The East Liberty Park Community Council held a Zoom meeting on October 22, 2020 that the
applicant, developer, and staff attended. Phil Winston presented the project and also stated the
applicant was willing to enter into a development agreement prohibiting a restaurant or bar.
Comments were generally supportive of the proposal and neighbors have indicated that they were
against a restaurant or bar.
The Community Council submitted a letter of support (attached) for the project with a development
agreement.
Open House:
An online open house was posted on October 19, 2020.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
Early notification sent to property owners within 300’ on October 15, 2020.
Public hearing notice posted on December 29, 2020.
Public notice posted on City and State website and Planning Division list serve on December 29,
2020.
Public hearing notice sent to property owners within 300’ on December 29, 2020.
Public Input:
Staff has received three emails in support of the proposal that are attached.
29
ELPCO (East Liberty Park Community Organization) elpcoslc@gmail.com www.facebook/com/ELPCO
January 6, 2021
Dear SLC Planning Commission:
The board of ELPCO, the East Liberty Park Community Organization, is writing in support of the request by
Stanford Bell and Phil Winston of Altus Development Group to amend the Central Community Master Plan and
the zoning map for a development project at 810 East 800 South [Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00740 &
PLNPCM2020-00741].
Our positive recommendation results from a careful examination of this proposal, a comprehensive
presentation by the developers, and feedback from residents who live near the project area.
We support this project for the following reasons:
• The development creates a better use for a vacant property
• The project adds housing units to the neighborhood
• The zoning change to CB (Community Business) is consistent with the proposed design and with the
zoning of adjacent parcels
• The project mixes residential and commercial uses in a scale that this appropriate for the streetscape
• The zoning and master plan changes are supported by nearby residents
In October 2020, Phil Winston from Altus Designs presented about this project for 20 minutes during an online
ELPCO community meeting. He described the purpose of the development and the reason for the zoning
changes and reviewed his team’s community engagement efforts.
You can watch the ELPCO presentation by Phil Winston here: https://youtu.be/lYhdavQ-QlE?t=480
During this presentation, Phil Winston mentioned his decision to not allow a restaurant or bar to occupy the
commercial space based on his conversations with residents. He added he would codify this in a development
agreement attached to the project.
ELPCO supports this development agreement, would recommend that it be expanded to include confirmation
of mixed-use design with residential units and the use of durable building materials consistent with the
surrounding properties. We would also like to see this development agreement attached to the title of the
property. We recommend the SLC City Council work with Altus to complete this development agreement.
Additionally, ELPCO contacted residents of 800 East who live adjacent to the project and have recently been
involved with the Telegraph Exchange Lofts proposal. Here are two comments we received regarding this
project.
We support it completely. First of all, it fits the location and scale very well. They have done a great job
of checking in and clearing the idea with us and other neighbors. We feel it does a great job filling that
eyesore of a space that is not ideal for home or duplex, while also adding housing. The design acts as a
buffer to yards/homes from 800 S and has well thought out design and greenery to blend, while still
creating a structure that will visually enhance the neighborhood.
30
ELPCO (East Liberty Park Community Organization) elpcoslc@gmail.com www.facebook/com/ELPCO
[…] are in support of the project. While hesitant to set the precedent of spot rezoning, we agree that
this is a different situation than Telegraph Exchange and this lot will never thrive as anything but
commercial. Phil Winston and the Demuris did a good job in engaging the immediate neighborhood for
feedback and the mixed-use design will greatly improve this stretch of 800 South.
In summary, ELPCO supports the master plan and zoning map amendments for the project at 810 East 800
South.
Sincerely,
Jason Stevenson, ELPCO co-chair
Darryl High, ELPCO co-chair
Dave Richards, Land Use advisor
Judi Short, Land Use advisor
About ELPCO
ELPCO is the East Liberty Park Community Organization—a local, city-sanctioned community organization that
represents the residents and businesses in the East Liberty Park area of Salt Lake City. The area covered by
ELPCO is defined by the boundaries of 700 E to 1300 E and 800 S to 1700 S. ELPCO currently meets online on the
fourth Thursday of every month. Learn more at www.facebook.com/ELPCO or by emailing elpcoslc@gmail.com
- Sign up for ELPCO's twice-monthly e-newsletters here: http://eepurl.com/gcOcCL
31
From:John Webster
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 810 East 800 South proposal
Date:Friday, November 20, 2020 12:01:54 PM
Hi Sara,
I'm writing in favor of the development proposal on 800 south and 810 East, just West of the Smith's
grocery store.
I've been a home owner in the area since the early 1990s and watched the surrounding area improve
dramatically. That 800 South area around Smiths has been a bit of a neglected space. Seems that city
and private development has favored the 900 South corridor. We appreciate the amenities that
development afforded and would welcome extending the rejuvenation to 800 South. The mix of
commercial space with residential above is a great combination. We need the tax base business brings
and more residential housing. Win win.
Thank you for your consideration.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Warm regards,
- John Webster
32
From:Tom Brennan
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00740/00741 Public Comment
Date:Friday, October 23, 2020 8:46:48 AM
Sara,
I’m writing in general support of the proposed development at 810 East 800 South. This is an
appropriate use at this location. The general scale of the proposed development is in character with
other neighborhood business in the 9th and 9th neighborhood.
While this is an application for a zoning change and not a design review, I would encourage that the
application to change zoning be tied in some manner to the materials used for the exterior.
Specifically I would encourage that materials be appropriate for the neighborhood – specifically not
Exterior Insulated Insulation (EIFS) more commonly referred to as stucco or Dryvit. While the
rendering is conceptual (and could in fact drastically change), what appears to be proposed is a
traditional brick and industrial sash façade could easily be built using an EIFS system which would be
completely inappropriate for the area.
Thank you,
-- Thomas S. Brennan, AIA, LEED AP, NCARB 1018 S. Lake Street Salt Lake City, UT 84105
33
From:John Ewanowski
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public Comment - 810 E. 800 South development
Date:Monday, November 30, 2020 1:03:33 PM
Sara,
I am writing as an architect, member of the SLC Historic Landmark Commission, and 9th and
9th resident to register my support for Altus Development Group's proposed project at 810 E.
800 South. The current vacant lot is an eyesore, and the building depicted in the 8/24/20
Concept Sketch is handsome and appropriately scaled. I like how the design references the
past while utilizing contemporary materials. As a result, I support the zoning map amendment
and master plan amendment as depicted by the applicant.
Sincerely,
John
--
John Ewanowski
1022 S. 900 East | Salt Lake City, UT 84105
34
ATTACHMENT G: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Public Utilities – Jason Draper, Jason.Draper@slcgov.com
No objections to the zone and master plan amendment. Development will likely require off-site
improvements including and upgrade of the water main.
Zoning, Building, and Fire Code – Greg Mikolash, Gregory.Mikolash@slcgov.com
Building Services finds no zoning, building code, or fire code related issues associated with this
request.
Engineering – Scott Weiler, Scott.Weiler@slcgov.com
No objection.
Transportation – Michael Barry, Michael.Barry@slcgov.com
Transportation has no objections to this Zoning Map and master Plan amendment
35
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
January 13, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
January 13, 2021, 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-01132021
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South -
Joe Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design
Review and a Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential
units located at approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4 -story building that will be
located roughly on the same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design
Review approval to allow for an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of
approximately 45 FT. Through the Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to
decrease the front, rear, and corner side yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the
building. The exterior wall of the prop osed upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall
of the existing building, which is located right at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a
front and corner side yard setback of 15’ and a rear yard setback of 10’. In order to utilize the ground
floor of the existing building, the applicant is also requesting to allow the rooftop garden areas to
count toward landscaping requirements. The property is located within the CC (Commercial
Corridor) zoning district in council district 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Amy
Thompson at (385) 226 -9001 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00721
& PLNPCM2020-00722
2. Windsor Court Planned Development at approximately 1966 S Windsor Street - Mike
Spainhower, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a 17 -unit multi-family
dwelling at 1966 S. Windsor Street. The project would be built on an existing vacant lot. The total site
is 0.7 acres. The Planned Development is needed to address a modification to the front yard setback
and landscape buffers. The subject property is located in the RMF -35 zoning district and within
Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (385) 226 -8499
or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020 -00727
3. Village at North Station Building D Design Review at approximately 1925 W North Temple –
Michael Batt, representing the property owner, is seeking Design Revie w approval to modify a front
setback requirement for a proposed building located at approximately 1925 W North Temple. The
applicant is requesting to modify the maximum 5' front yard setback requirement due to the location
of a high voltage power line alon g Orange Street. They are requesting increased front yard setback
so that the front of the building is a required minimum safe distance from the power line. Modifications
to the front yard setback can be approved through the Design Review process. The subject property
is located within the TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area District - Mixed Use Employment Center
Station – Transition) zoning district. The property is in Council District 1, represented by James
Rogers (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (385) 226-3835 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case
Number PLNPCM2020-00730
4. 9th Mixed-Use Multifamily Design Review – Eric Moran, on behalf of the property owner and
management company, RD Management, along with architects Peter Jacobsen and Jeff Byers of
The Richardson Design Group, are seeking Design Review approva l to redevelop the property
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 400 South and 900 East with residential and
commercial space. The proposal includes 264 residential units and approximately 16,000 square
feet of commercial space. The app licant is requesting Design Review by the Planning Commission
to allow for a façade length greater than 200 feet in the TSA-UN-C zoning district and for modifications
to the design standards in 21A.37. The property is located within Council District 4, re presented by
Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com )
Case number PLNPCM2020-00641
5. AT&T Wireless Communication Facility Conditional Use at approximately 1550 South 5600
West – A request by Brian Sieck of Smartlink for a new AT&T wireless communications facility with
an 80’ monopole and unmanned communication site located at approximately 1550 South 5600 West.
The proposed site would be located in the northwest corner of the parcel. The subject property is
located within the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district and is located within Council District 2,
represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00819
6. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South – Salt Lake City has
received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group representing the property owner
of 810 East 800 South, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The
proposal would rezone the property located at a pproximately 810 East 800 South from R-2 (Single
and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and the Central Community Master Plan
Future Land Use map designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial . The
applicant anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial on the first floor
and residential units on the second floor. The subject property is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) and is located within Council District 5 represented by Darin Ma no (Staff contact: Sara
Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020 -00740
& PLNPCM2020-00741
7. Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at approximately 554 & 560 South 300 East - Salt Lake
City has received a request from Mariel Wirthlin, with The Associated Group and representing the
property owner of 554 and 560 South 300 East, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and
the zoning map. The proposal would rezone the properties located at approximately 554 and 560
South 300 East from RO (Residential Office) to RMU (Residential/Mixed Use) and amend the Central
Community Future Land Use Map from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. The
proposed Master Plan amendment to High Mixed Use and rezone to RMU is intended to allow retail
service uses on the property, in addition to office use. The subject property is zoned RO
(Residential Office) and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff
contact: Nannette Larsen at (385) 386-2761 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers
PLNPCM2020-00604 & PLNPCM2020-00712
8. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over -height fences
(Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved
by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front
yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances
include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and
manufacturing districts, public facilities and recrea tion facilities where a greater height is necessary
to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning
Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional
fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter
21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide.
(Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535 -7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00511
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 January 13, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 05:30 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of
time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the
meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson,
Amy Barry; Commissioners, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal
Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Jon Lee, and Andres Paredes were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Nick
Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Katia Pace, Principal
Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal
Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Brenda Scheer, read the emergency proclamation for holding a remote meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 02:31
MOTION 02:46
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom moved to approve the December 9, 2020 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Lyon,
Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voting as
she was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 04:24
Chairperson Scheer informed the public of the long agenda and that there will be a break half-way through
the agenda.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 05:33
Michaela Oktay, Planning Director, stated she had nothing to report.
05:55
Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South - Joe
Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design Review and a
Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential units located at
approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4-story building that will be located roughly on the
same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for
an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of approximately 45 FT. Through the
Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to decrease the front, rear, and corner side
yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the building. The exterior wall of the proposed
upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall of the existing building, which is located right
at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a front and corner side yard setback of 15’ and a rear
yard setback of 10’. In order to utilize the ground floor of the existing building, the applicant is also
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 6
PUBLIC HEARING 2:28:51
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 2:29:15
Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, the information
presented and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
approve the Conditional Use for the AT&T communications site with an 80-foot monopole and
associated equipment (Petition PLNPCM2020-00819) subject to the following conditions:
1. Any modifications to the approved plans after the issuance of a building permit must be
specifically requested by the applicant and approved by the Planning Division prior to
execution.
2. Applicant shall comply with all other department/division requirements.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
2:30:50
Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South – Salt Lake City has
received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group representing the property owner of
810 East 800 South, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The proposal
would rezone the property located at approximately 810 East 800 South from R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) to CB (Community Business) and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map
designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant anticipates
developing the site with a two-story building with commercial on the first floor and residential units on the
second floor. The subject property is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and is located within
Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226-4448 or
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-00741
Sara Javoronok, Senior 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 positive recommendation
to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Whether it’s in the Commissions purview to require a development agreement
Phillip Winston, applicant, provided a presentation with further details.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on why the CB zone was chosen
• Setback standards for CB zone
PUBLIC HEARING 2:48:35
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Cindy Cromer – Stated there is no way that the CB zone with its wide array of allowed uses is appropriate
with at this sensitive location.
Nathan Florence - Provided an email comment stating his support of the request.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 7
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission discussed the following:
• Possibility of additional condition for a recommendation to the City Council
MOTION 3:01:53
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 forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, file PLNPCM2020-
00740, proposed zone change from R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential District) to CB
(Community Business) and file PLNPCM2020-00741 proposed master plan amendment from Low
Density Residential to Community Commercial.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
3:03:36
Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at approximately 554 & 560 South 300 East - Salt Lake City
has received a request from Mariel Wirthlin, with The Associated Group and representing the property
owner of 554 and 560 South 300 East, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning
map. The proposal would rezone the properties located at approximately 554 and 560 South 300 East
from RO (Residential Office) to RMU (Residential/Mixed Use) and amend the Central Community Future
Land Use Map from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. The proposed Master Plan
amendment to High Mixed Use and rezone to RMU is intended to allow retail service uses on the
property, in addition to office use. The subject property is zoned RO (Residential Office) and is located
within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at (385) 386-
2761 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00604 & PLNPCM2020-00712
Nannette Larsen, 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 positive
recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on how the height difference changes with the RMU zone
• Clarification on what the rezone is allows
Mariel Wirthlin, applicant, provided further information.
PUBLIC HEARING 3:16:38
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Cindy Cromer – Stated this RO zone is a bad zone and every square inch of it we can get rid of in the
City is a good thing.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
Notice of Public Hearing
On Wednesday, January 13, 2021, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City
Council regarding the following petitions:
1. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South
– Salt Lake City has received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Devel-
opment Group representing the property owner of 810 East 800 South, to
amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The pro-
posal would rezone the property located at approximately 810 East 800
South from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Busi-
ness) and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map designa-
tion from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant
anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial
on the first floor and residential units on the second floor. The subject prop-
erty is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and is located within
Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Sara Javoro-
nok at (385) 226-4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLN-
PCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-007412.
2. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City
Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the special
exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030)
and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and ap-
proved by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and
hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear
yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include when
a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries
and manufacturing districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a
greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and
construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic
Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence,
wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments
proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt
Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilm-
ore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLN-
PCM2020-00511
The public hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m. via Webex. To participate go to:
http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-01132021
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Build-
ing. Commission Members will connect remotely. If you are interested in
watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the fol-
lowing 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.
DN0000000
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
From:cindy cromer
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) comments on proposal for 810 E 800 S
Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 4:24:29 PM
To Members of the Salt Lake Planning Commission
From cindy cromer
Re request for rezoning and master plan amendment at 810 E 800 S
1/13/21
My history with this parcel goes back almost 35 years to the expansion of the Smith's Food
King, certainly one of the worst land use decisions the City has made in the past 40 years. In
addition to wiping out dozens of units of modest housing, the City threw the balance of the
9th and 9th business district out of whack and precipitated the demolition of even more
housing to accommodate the loading dock after the expansion.
It was the inadequate loading dock on 900 S which led to the demise of the house at 810 E
800 S. The owner fled because of the trucks idling outside his bedroom and then the house
burned.
There is no way that the CB zone with its wide array of allowed uses is appropriate at this
sensitive location. And the neighbors and community organization can only be assured of
getting what they are willing to support if the City Council enters into a development
agreement with the owner to specify the mass and materials of the new building as well as
limiting the uses. I am not speaking to the integrity of the owner, only that there are no
guarantees that he will be able to do what the neighbors can support. The CB zone itself will
allow abundant uses, forms, and materials which no one would support.
The appropriate zone is the RMU-35 which would allow the proposed uses without the
encroachment of a more intensive zone into the smaller scale uses to the west. There are
lessons to learn from what the City did decades ago. One of them is that if you make a
mistake in land use, you probably will not be able to fix it. Another one is that the bad
decision will haunt future development. The CB zone was never appropriate here and its
extension into the residential area is a request that I cannot support when there is a new
alternative zone to accomplish what the owner wants to do, the RMU-35.
From:Rankins, Marlene
To:Javoronok, Sara
Cc:Oktay, Michaela
Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Rezoning and master plan amendment 810 E 800 S
Date:Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:57:20 AM
Hi Sara,
Please see the email below.
Thanks,
MARLENE RANKINS
Administrative Secretary
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6171
Email marlene.rankins@slcgov.com
www.OurNeighborhoods.CAN.com
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
From: Nathan Florence <nathansflorence@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:41 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Rezoning and master plan amendment 810 E 800 S
I’m around the corner from the parcel in question and have dealt with various uses of it for the
almost 20 years we have owned our home at 817 South on 800 East. While we have fought multiple
local projects that we felt overreached or encroached on the street/neighborhood in other locations,
we enthusiastically support this effort for the situation. The location, as it stands now, is not well
suited for its current zoning and the proposed use is creative and fitting. We have been grateful, as
neighbors, for the efforts of the potential developers for engaging with all of the neighbors from the
outset and looking to create a project that really benefits everyone in the neighborhood. It is a great
use for an otherwise problematic property.
We would still like the City to engage in an overall approach to growth that would not be dependent
on this kind of spot re-zone by developers, but in this case we strongly support the application.
Thanks, Nathan and Marian Florence
--
www.nflorencefineart.com
www.artandbelieffilm.com
5. ORIGINAL PETITIONS
PLNPCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-00741
September 22, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Re: Description of Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 810 E 800 S
Planning Commission,
We are seeking to develop and construct a mixed commercial / residential building at 810 E 800
S, Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake County Parcel Number 16-08-176-024-0000 (the “Property”).
We are submitting two applications in conjunction with each other to begin this process: 1) an
amendment to the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan, changing the
Property from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial, and 2) a zoning map
amendment changing the Property from R-2 to CB (Community Business).
The Property is subject to the Central Community Master Plan, East Central North
Neighborhood, which has the Property listed as Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use
Map. Additionally, the property is currently zoned as R-2. The Property is an empty lot and has
been that way for well over twenty-five years. It currently attracts the transient population and
has been not beneficially used for a significant period of time.
The corner of 800 S 800 E has turned into a small commercial hub, with several businesses
located immediately to the west of the Property and zoned as Small Neighborhood Business.1
Smith’s grocery store is located immediately to the east of the Property, which is zoned CB.
With the Property sandwiched between commercial uses, it is not a desirable location for a single
family or two-family dwelling. Additionally, the market value of the Property, given its
excellent commercial location, makes it cost prohibitive to build a single-family dwelling or two-
family dwelling under the current zoning. The Property will most likely continue to sit vacant
unless it is allowed to be used for commercial or mixed-use purposes.
We intend to build a two-story mixed-use building with commercial space on the first floor and
residential units on the second floor. We have included a proposed site plan and a rough
rendering of the elevation of the building as seen from 800 South. This use meets the purposes
of the Master Plan by locating “community level retail sales and services on appropriate
arterials,” in an area that is already surrounded by commercial uses. See Central Community
Master Plan, CLU-1.2, page 11. There is also a heavy emphasis in the Central Community
Master Plan on providing mixed use commercial / residential properties with “ground level
1 There is a garage immediately to the west of the Property that is zoned R-2. However, that garage juts
out from a parcel further to the south that has a duplex with in home business operating out of the
property. The block face surrounding the Property appears to be all commercial. The only property that
adjoins the Property and is used solely as a residential home is immediately to the south.
commercial space [and] apartment or condominium units above the first floor,” especially in the
9th and 9th area just to the south of the Property. See Central Community Master Plan, page 11.
This development meets these objectives and will add to the community.
We respectfully request that the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map be
amended so that the Property is designated at Community Commercial and that the Property be
rezoned to from R-2 to CB.
We’re excited to move forward with this project. Please reach out to me if you have any
questions.
Best,
Stanford Bell
801-884-9044
EXISTINGBUILDING(1442 SF)
EXISTINGBUILDING
800 SOUTH
810 E 800 S (0.16 ACRES - 6850 SF)
2600 SF (LOWER)
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING POWER POLE
ADA
2900 SF (UPPER)
ARTIST
STUDIO
ARTIST
STUDIO
DUMPSTER
17
'
-
6
"
21
'
-
6
"
EXISTINGBUILDING
SCALE:
A1
A1-01
SITE PLAN - 081820810 E 800 S
1/16"=1'-0"
COFFEE BOUTIQUE GALLERY
810 EAST CONCEPT SKETCH 8/24/20BOUTIQUE COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOORRESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE
810
6. MAILING LIST
Name Address City State Zip
SMITH'S FOOD KING PROPERTIES INC 1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR CINCINNATI OH 45202
ES 187779 LC 1099 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
CHRISTOPHER DEMURI; MEREDITH DEMURI (JT)1099 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
IXCHEL, LLC 1192 E DRAPER PKWY # 152 DRAPER UT 84020
PAUL A DOUGLAS 146 STONE MILL RD LOT 24 HUDSON NY 12534
KEVIN W STIGGE; PAMELA CALLAHAN (JT)1965 RIDGEHILL DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010
HAMILTON PLACE HOUSING CORPORATION 223 W 700 S # C SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
SLC 84102 LLC 24101 MOUNTAIN CHARLIE RD LOS GATOS CA 95033
JOSH COOK 2461 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CLEARWATER HOMES, LLC 336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
800 EAST FOURPLEX LLC 3734 E THOUSAND OAKS CIR MILLCREEK UT 84124
CODY V DERRICK 645 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
BARN THAI LLC 758 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
CHRISTOS TSOUFAKIS (JT)760 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
ILONA ZENNER 761 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 762 S WINDSOR ST Salt Lake City UT 84102
BECKY S ROBERTS 763 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 764 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
JAMES A HARRIS; CATHERINE CARGILL (JT)765 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 774 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
REED L DURFEY; SHANNON N DURFEY (JT)785 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 801 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 802 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 803 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 805 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
BRIAN C MILES 809 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 809 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 810 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
JULIA BJORNSTAD 813 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 814 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
NATHAN S FLORENCE; MARIAN C FLORENCE (JT)817 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
ANGELA CARLSON; MICHAEL S JACOBSEN (JT)818 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
BRENDA L CHRISTENSEN 819 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
SUZANNE MONTGOMERY 823 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
ROBERT S NAK; MARIA L NAK (JT)823 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
CATHERINE E LILLY 824 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 825 E CHASE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84102
BRADLEY R CAIRNS 828 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 829 E CHASE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 829 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
MELODIE RICHARDSON 831 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 832 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
CHARLES T GRAYSON; MELANIE S GRAYSON (JT)832 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
BENJAMIN R KURTIS; ERIKA P KURTIS 833 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 833 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 834 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 836 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 845 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 847 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 850 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 851 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 876 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
TONY MARTINEZ PO BOX 1875 SANDY UT 84091
Altus Development Group 336 W BROADWAY ST, STE 110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
Sara Javoronok, Planning Division PO Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
Item B5
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
Policy and Budget Analyst
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE: FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget
Staff Note: The Council previously approved holding a CIP public hearing on July 13 and August 17
which have been publicly advertised. The Council is tentatively scheduled to continue discussing CIP
project-specific funding on July 20 and August 17.
MOTION 1 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to August 17.
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
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE: FY22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: D-1 to D-6
CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Section B, General Fund Projects Sections C & D
NEW INFORMATION
Council-added Funding to CIP
As part of the FY22 annual budget adoption, the Council added $3,245,759 to the CIP budget. This additional
funding brought CIP from 6.1% in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget up to 7.2% of ongoing General Fund
revenues. The added funding includes three components:
- $1,879,654 or the upcoming 600 North Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in
a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the
excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding account. The full amount from the holding
account was appropriated for this project.
- $1,157,124 in General Fund dollars available for any project and these do not have funding
recommendations from the CDCIP Board or the Mayor. The CDCIP Board did recommend the Council
consider the Board’s combined project scoring as a guide for any additional funding. The scoring is
available in Attachment 5. Of this additional funding, $155,709 was recaptured from previously
completed projects.
- $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funding which was recaptured from previously completed projects. See
Additional Info section for allowable uses of Class C funds are determined by state law.
Updated Funding Log
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021
1st Briefing: June 1, 2021
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
3rd Briefing: July 20, 2021
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project
specific funding is approved by September 1.
Page | 2
Attachment 2 has been updated since the June briefing to reflect Council-added funding, the 600 North corridor
transformation project, reformatting the spreadsheet to include the Council’s funding decisions and several
other improvements.
The following might be helpful in navigating the Funding Log:
- The first column on the far left identifies the ID# for every project to allow easier reference.
- The second column has the short-title for each application. Council staff added a note where an
application overlaps with a project proposed in the Mayor’s $58 million bond proposal
- The third column “Scope of Work” provides a project description and often a cost breakdown with
further details.
- The blue heading columns are the CDCIP and Mayor funding recommendations. This year, the two sets
of funding recommendations are identical exception for application #42 on Page 13 which the CDCIP
Board did not recommend funding but the Mayor recommends full funding.
- The green heading columns furthest to the right are the Council’s funding decisions. Staff copied the
Mayor’s funding recommendations into these columns as a starting place for the Council’s deliberations.
- The top right corner shows the “Available Funding” for each funding source. These amounts reflect
funds that have not been appropriated to an application.
- Note that all text in blue on the Funding Log was added by Council staff.
Policy Questions Update
Per Council Members request at the June briefing, staff sent all the policy questions to the Administration.
Responses were forthcoming at the time of publishing this staff report. The Council also identified an additional
policy question during unresolved issues briefings which has been sent to the Administration and is copied
below:
- To what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of-way projects including
funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding construction mitigation
as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects similar to the built in contingency percentage. The
Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000
construction mitigation funding.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates the overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
and approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews
individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and
competitive process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit project applications. The
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the
applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor
provides a second set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific
funding. Note that for FY 21 the Administration conducted an abbreviated CIP process which did not include
outside applications.
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies (Attachment 1), a CIP
project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical
structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Overview of the FY22 CIP Budget
The total FY22 CIP budget is $34.7 million which is $5.5 million (19%) more than last year. Only looking at the
ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP excluding Funding Our Future shows a decrease of $456,798 (3%) less
than last year.
•$5.5 Million Overall Increase – This is largely due to a $4.9 million increase from the new funding source
County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and a $3.2 million increase in impact fees.
Page | 3
•$456,798 Decrease in General Fund Transfer – The proposed ongoing General Fund (excluding Funding
Our Future dollars) transfer is $14.1 million to CIP which is 6.1% of the ongoing FY22 General Fund
budget. If the Council wishes to increase the CIP funding level to 7% an additional $2,775,049 is needed.
The Council would need to identify corresponding cuts in other General Fund expenses or revenue
increases.
•$5.7 Million Unrestricted Funds – The sources of CIP funds are detailed further in the chart below.
$5,705,720 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new
projects (the most flexible funding available).
•$10.7 Million Debt Payments and Ongoing Commitments – $10.7 million (58%) of the General Fund
transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments. However, it
should be noted that $3,657,667 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed bond that the
Council has not discussed in detail or approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY22
project applications if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Overall,
debt service is 30% of ongoing CIP funding which is a significant improvement over FY21 when the debt
load was 46%. The drop is because a sales tax revenue bond was paid off in FY21.
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
Significant changes to CIP in FY22 and in upcoming years include:
FY22 is the third year with a CIP Budget Book detailing individual projects and debts.
Administration is continuing work on creating a Capital Facilities Plan (10-year comprehensive CIP plan).
Updates to all four sections (fire, parks, police, and streets/transportation) of the Impact Fees Facilities
Plan that was funded by the Council in Budget Amendment #6 of FY19 of which three are pending.
An approximately $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 which removes $5.3 million of annual debt
payments. The Mayor is recommending a new, smaller bond for several capital improvement projects. See
Additional Info section for debt load projections chart and Attachment 4 for a spreadsheet summarizing
the proposed $58 million bond-funded projects.
No constituent applications were considered for funding in FY21 as part of an abbreviated CIP process,
rather they were carried over into FY22 CIP resulting in a higher number competing for limited funds
C I P Fu n di n g So u rc es A do p t ed
2 0 19 -2 0
A do p t ed
2 0 2 0 -2 1
Pro p o sed
2 0 2 1-2 2
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
$ C h an ge
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
% C h an ge
Ge ne r a l Fund 1 5 ,2 3 9,4 7 9$ 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 6 7$ 1 4 ,1 2 5 ,4 6 9$ (4 5 6 ,7 9 8)$ -3 %
Fund ing Ou r Fu tur e *6 ,1 6 9,3 6 7$ 4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ (1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -2 7 %
Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 1 %
I m p a c t Fe e **4 ,5 6 7 ,9 1 3$ 5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 3 ,2 1 8,0 9 2$ 6 4 %
CDBG -$ -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME
Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o unts 3 ,5 7 2 ,9 6 8$ 1 ,1 4 9,6 1 6$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME
Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax ***N/A N/A 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ NEW NEW
Sur p lu s Land Fu nd 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 %
Sm it h 's Nam ing Right s
Re v e nu e 1 5 9,5 85$ 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ (2 ,0 0 0 )$ -1 %
SLC Sp o r ts Co m ple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ (6 ,2 0 1 )$ -4 %
Me m o r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nu e 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 %
TOTA L 3 3 ,1 2 6,3 7 1$ 2 9 ,2 2 6,2 6 2$ 3 4 ,7 7 3 ,4 4 5$ 5 ,5 4 7 ,1 83$ 1 9 %
TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 9 ,5 3 0 ,5 1 1$ 2 8,0 7 6,6 4 6$ 3 4 ,4 5 1 ,4 4 5$ 6 ,3 7 4 ,7 9 9$ 2 3 %
*I nc lu d e s % t o CI P "o ff t h e to p ," transit a nd pu b lic rig h t o f w a y infrastru c t ure . A ls o , fund ing so u rc e is o ng o ing
b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h a ng e th e u s e c ate g o rie s in t h e futu re
**Th e re are fo u r im p a c t fe e ty p e s: fire , p arks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s
No te : FY 2 1 & FY 2 2 inc lude s a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re d u c tio n w h ic h is no t se pa ra t e d o u t in th e t a b le
ab o v e
***Ne w re v e nu e so u rc e in FY 2 1 w h ic h t h e Co u nc il dire c t e d b e inc lude d in CI P fo r FY 2 2 a nd th e re a fte r, lim it e d to
tra nsp o rta tio ni and st re e t infra s truc tu re use s
Page | 4
Three Differences in Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
(See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book)
Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget
Book and on the CIP Funding Log. The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is
recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. This year the funding
recommendations from the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident
advisory board and the mayor are nearly identical with three differences listed below.
- The Board did not recommend funding for the Kensington Byway on Andrew Ave. from West Temple to
Main Street and Kensington Ave. from Main Street to 800 East (note that the street has different names
on either side of Main Street). The Mayor recommends fully funding the project using $500,000 from
Funding Our Future Streets. Note that several projects scored higher by the Board but are not
recommended for funding or less than full funding.
- Fully funding the 900 South Signal Improvements project (from 900 West to Lincoln Street) with
slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $100,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for
transportation and streets and $233,500 from Funding Our Future Streets while the Board proposes to
use $333,500 from Funding Our Future Streets.
- Mostly funding Transportation Safety Improvements project with slightly different sources. The Mayor
proposes to use $400,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets while the Board
proposes to use $400,000 from Funding Our Future Streets.
Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available
(See Attachment 5 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores)
The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application. The Board recommends that their combined
scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY22 projects. The
combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column. Note that board
members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time (technical difficulties or not
at the public meeting) or they couldn’t decide.
Over $300 Million Unfunded Capital Needs and the Mayor’s New $58 Million Bond Proposal
(See Attachment 4 pages three and four for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed bond-funded projects)
Last year, the Council discussed the upcoming opportunity of an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue
bond being paid off in 2021. This removed a $5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid
using General Fund dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to
prioritize use of this funding opportunity (assuming available revenues) given that the City’s unfunded capital
needs significantly exceed $5.3 million. The Mayor is proposing a new $58 million bond with an estimated $3.6
million annual debt payment. Note that some of the projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while
others would need to be a separate taxable (more expensive) bond. Also, the total cost of the bond is greater than
the sum of the individual projects because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the $58
million maximum proposed. The proposed capital improvement projects include:
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
- $2.5 Million for Central Plan electrical transformer upgrade
- $3 Million for Warm Springs historic structure stabilization
- $1.7 Million for an urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions
- $1.5 Million for Fisher Mansion improvements
- $7.5 Million for Fisher Mansion restoration
- $3 million for improvements to the Ballpark
Note that the City has $47.7 million in total deferred facilities needs
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
- $4 Million for 600 North complete street transformation
- $1 Million for cemetery road repairs
- $6.1 Million for railroad quiet zones on the West Side (trains would stop blowing horns at crossings)
Note that the City is about halfway through the 2018 voter-approved $87 Million Streets Reconstruction Bond.
More ongoing funding for street reconstructions and overlays will be needed after the bond funds are gone.
Page | 5
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
- $1.2 Million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage
- $440,000 for Jordan River Paddle Share Program at Exchange Club Marina 1700 South
- $1.3 Million for Allen Park activation of historic structures
- $3.4 Million for West Side neighborhood parks
- $5 Million for Foothills trail system phases 2 and 3 trailheads and signage
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $1.7 million in FY22 CIP for this project
- $5.2 Million for improvements to Pioneer Park
- $10 Million for redevelopment of the Glendale Water Park
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $3.2 million in FY22 CIP for this project
Over $300 Million in Unfunded Capital Needs over the Next Decade
Below is a short list of the City’s unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best
management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs
may be higher since originally estimated. The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and
may be closer to $500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point.
Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs. If the City had a Capital Facilities
Plan, then it would be a mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a
long-term horizon.
$TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, Eastside Police Precinct, multiple aging
fire stations, The Leonardo (old library), expansion of the S-Line Streetcar, downtown TRAX loop, quiet
zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east sides, implementing rest of the
9-Line and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, etc.
$133 million over ten years (in addition to existing funding level) to increase the overall condition index
of the City's street network from poor to fair
$50.9 million above the FY22 recommended funding level over next 10 years to fully fund the City’s
Fleet needs
$47.7 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance
$25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs
$20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South
$6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex
$3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement
$1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349
Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
(Attachment 9)
The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) requests that remaining funds from completed
projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be
recaptured. The table in Attachment 9 is staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP
projects. 53 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several
projects also received Class C funds, CDBG funds or are old donations. The total funding is just over $4.2
million. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses,
however, the Class C, CDBG and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to
identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential
funding to recapture by project will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings.
Council Member Rogers’ Proposal
During the Non-Departmental budget briefing on May 25, Council Member Rogers expressed interest in using
some or all the $1,879,654 in the Funding Our Future transit holding account for the 600 North complete street
transformation project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted
and the Council placed the excess funds into the holding account. Council staff is meeting with Transportation
Division staff to better understand the project scope, phases, cost estimates and existing funding.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with
recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent
years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a
safety study of the 600 North corridor.
Page | 6
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may
wish to discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy
priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded
capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new
assets. The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also
reviewing individual CIP projects.
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
2.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for
ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor
provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be
completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations.
3.Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an
application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy
document, if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow
constituent street reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the
worst first based on a data-driven process, etc.
4.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest
in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some
projects get more support from departments than others.
5.Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council
may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant
building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more
efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of
FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent:
The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public
Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than
continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the
Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget
for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related
FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget.
6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety
of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly
reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
7.Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The
State Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans
regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement
the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide
the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23.
Page | 7
8.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing
in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals,
metrics, and requests.
9.Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C
funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes
to transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are
only going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the
voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Surplus Land Fund (See Policy Question #7)
The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City
policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the
Housing Trust Fund. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. The FY22 budget
proposes to continue a $200,000 appropriation to the CAN Department for property maintenance expenses
such as utilities, security, and minor repairs. This is using one-time funding for an ongoing expense.
Cost Overrun Account
The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula
determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total
Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration
to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to
the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying
projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which typically takes a few months.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (See Attachment 7)
The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. Attachment ??? is the
most recent impact fee tracking report from the Administration. The table below is current as of April 20, 2021.
Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds.
The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $6,800,450 of parks impact fees and $491,520 of streets
/ transportation impact fees.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,002,114 More than a year away -
Parks $8,435,142 More than a year away -
Police $421,062 June 2021 $30,017
Transportation $5,125,188 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Impact Fee Eligibility
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of
providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth
should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service
provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city. As a result, it’s
common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other
funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six
years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if
those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26
(Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $58 million bond)
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding for projects over the next six fiscal years. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing
Page | 8
bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for
parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget
Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer
into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21.
The projected debt load significantly decreases in FY22 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds
matures (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding).
This reduces the debt load from 79% to 45% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. The Mayor is
recommending a new sales tax revenue bond totaling $58 million with an estimated annual debt payment of
almost $3.7 million. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded
through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase.
1.5% for Art Fund (for new art and maintenance of existing artworks)
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art minimum. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%.
The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the 1.5% is allocated to maintenance annually. This
section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance
fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require
maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and
maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces. The collection is expected to
0%
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
1 00%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021 -22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Allocation of C IP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year
Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and
continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Service On Bonds Othe r Debt Servic e Other Commitme nts Pay a s You G o Pro jec ts
Page | 9
continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of
$200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Of that amount, up to $40,000 was authorized for a study to
determine the annual funding need for art maintenance and identify specific repairs for artworks.
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 6)
The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and
guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the
Council expressed interest in identifying a couple measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide
prioritization of project planning.
Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 8)
Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years. The
document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The figures may not be up to
date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs. The three categories of project
cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost
estimates will be provided for the Council’s budget deliberations in July and August.
County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to
transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused
perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and
ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for
this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g. widening) existing roads; funding active
transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for
maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax
Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for UTA, 0.10% for cities and
0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between
this funding source and Class C funds (next section).
Class C Funds (gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C
funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee
selects specific street segment locations (See next section below). Note that there is overlap in eligible uses
between this funding source and the County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding (previous
section). Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter,
safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the
highway right-of-way
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be
constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible)
Roadway Selection Committee
The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose
appropriations, e.g., reconstruction or overlay. In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and
revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G. O. Bond. The Committee is led by
Engineering and includes representatives of Streets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Public Services, HAND,
Page | 10
Finance, the RDA and Council Staff. Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection
process includes:
Public requests for individual road repair
On-going costs to keep a road safely passable
Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood
or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the 900 South corridor
Safety improvement goals and crash data
Public Utilities’ planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities
replacements, repairs, or upgrades
Private utilities’ existing infrastructure, planned installations or repairs, e.g., fiber, natural gas, power
Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations
Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street
In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria, open deliberations are held between committee members, and roads
are selected for repair by consensus. The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding. Other
City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources.
CIP Planning Technology Improvements
The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. The City
currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here:
http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY 22 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. FY22 CIP Budget Book – Note an electronic version was pending at the time of publishing this staff
report for the June 1 Council meeting
4. Summary Project Spreadsheet for Proposed Sales Tax Bonds Series 2021A and 2021B
5. FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes
6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
7. Impact Fee “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (April 20, 2021)
8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 3, 2019)
9. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years for Potential Funding Recapture
ACRONYMS
CAN – Community and Neighborhood Development Department
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
CFP – Capital Facilities Plan
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Company
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
G.O. Bond – General Obligation bond
HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration :
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one-
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies ,
establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding .
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor ,
and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $100,001 and $250,000;
iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations .
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating
implications).
6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry .
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options .
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
1 1.5% for Art
Required by City ordinance and calculated as 1.5% of the General Fund available to spend revenues in the Mayor's
Recommended Budget. Overseen by the Arts Council. Ordinance allows the Administration to use some of the
funding for maintenance of existing artworks and the rest goes to new artworks.$85,586 $34,500 $85,586 $34,500
2 Cost Overrun
Account
Required and governed by the CIP Resolution 29 of 2017. Provides additional funding for projects with expenses
that come in slightly higher than estimated. $114,114 $46,000 $114,114 $46,000
3
Odyssey House
Annex Facility
Renovation
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
Odyssey House is seeking funding from Salt Lake City to complete a significant renovation of the Annex building
rented by the agency located at 623 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Currently, the Annex has a
multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety risks for the residential clients who inhabit the facility at
this time.
The roof is deteriorating, and the gutters are becoming unstable. This damage is causing a multitude of different
leaks within the building, harming interior and exterior walls. To fully replace the roof and gutters, it will cost
about $28,000. The building's foundation, primarily in the rear, is beginning to crumble and needs to be repaired,
treated, and braced, which will ultimately cost about $250,000. The roof and foundation must be restored to
complete all other necessary renovations before other workers can be deployed inside the building. Following the
roof and foundation's replacement and repairs, the interior beams, walls, and overall structural skeleton need to
be reinforced and stabilized due to extensive water damage, costing about $33,000. All exterior walls need to be
cleaned, repaired, and repainted, costing about $41,500. Windows and doors within the facility have to be wholly
replaced. Due to structural and foundational problems, all interior doors and windows cannot shut or lock because
their frames are warped and/rotting. To complete an overhaul of the windows and doors, it will cost about
$19,500. Additionally, the electrical and mechanical systems in the building, such as wiring, hardware, plumbing,
etc., will need to be evaluated and repaired or replaced, which will cost about $35,500. Lastly, exterior site work,
such as sidewalk repairs, drainage slope, ADA access, and miscellaneous fees, such as permits, additional
insurance, and project management, will add $42,500 to the total project cost. In total, the renovation of the
Annex will cost about $450,000. However, Odyssey House is looking to build in a contingency of $50,000 to
prepare for any additional work that may appear after beginning construction resulting in an overall cost of
$500,000.
$300,000 $300,000
4
Street
Improvements
2021/2022
Requested $3.5 million from Class C; Engineering Project
Deteriorated city streets will be reconstructed or rehabilitated using funding from this program. This will provide
replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary. Where
appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as
determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance.
$2,046,329 $2,046,329
5 Pavement
Conditions Survey
Requested $175,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
Approximately every five years the entire pavement network is surveyed. This condition survey is accomplished by
a third party with state of the art equipment and results in a report summarizing possible options and costs. The
data collected is used by Engineering’s Pavement Management Team to determine the overall street network
condition, provide street rehabilitation and reconstruction recommendations, and prioritize proposed
maintenance activities.
$3,571 $171,429 $3,571 $171,429
6
Public Way
Concrete
2021/2022
Requested $750,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-cutting, slab jacking, and removal and
replacement of deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls,
etc.
$75,000 $675,000 $75,000 $675,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 1
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
7
Bridge
Preservation
2021/2022
Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects
these bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for
performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. City Engineering has
prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these
structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed
repairs and routine maintenance.
$21,429 $278,571 $21,429 $278,571
8
Rail Adjacent
Pavement
Improvements
2021/2022
Requested $70,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This program addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs pavement
improvements and contracts the construction.$70,000 $70,000
9
Capital Asset
Replacement
Program
$19.2 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR SIX FACILITIES
PROJECTS
Requested $5,860,449 from General Fund; Facilities Project
The Facilities Division’s Facility Condition Index database categorizes asset renewal projects based on the criticality
of projects starting with Priority 1, Life Safety. Projects in Priority 2 address Structural Integrity, Property Loss, and
Contractual Obligations. To eliminate the $47,733,403 in total deferred capital renewal, Facilities proposes an
annual investment through CIP of $7,000,000. For FY22 CIP funding, Facilities is requesting funding for Projects of
Priority1 and 2 for $5,860,449. (The amount requested is derived from an initial 2017 facility assessment to which
a 3% annual inflationary rate has been applied. It should be noted that the current construction environment is
very heated; with the 10% contingency and 21% Design/Engineering costs Facilities request is $5,860,449.)
$1,252,230 $1,252,230
10 Training Tower
Fire Prop Upgrade
Requested $318,279 from General Fund; Fire Project
The Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade consist of modernizing the existing natural gas fire props within the
Tower. The scope includes upgrading the fuel control station, PLC5 to the new ControlLogix PLC operating system,
and the bedroom, storage, desk, and car fire props.
Fuel control station: Replace existing assembly whose components are currently obsolete. The upgrade will
replace the existing FCS (fuel control station) to “auto” open style FCS which will have the automatically controlled
main gas safety shut off valve and the latest version of the low- and high-pressure switches.
PLC Upgrade – PLC5 to Logix includes upgrade the existing PLC 5 to new ControlLogix PLC:
*New Allen Bradley PLC ControlLogix, input modules, output modules, analog modules, and Ethernet adapter
modules
* Replacement of control room PC’s with the latest PC hardware available at time of delivery
* Microsoft operating system (currently Windows 10)
* KFT Fire Trainer software
* Ethernet to Data Highway Interface for both systems
* Upgrade Outdoor PLC to New Logics PLC.
Fire prop upgrade: KFT's advanced burner design, AquaMesh, produces increased levels of radiant heat, a more
realistic flame signature, lower levels of unburned gases during fire suppression, and more challenging flames that
cannot be swept off the fire mock-up with hose stream application. Water, used to disperse the propane or
natural gas, is not visible through the fireplace mock-up. AquaMesh fires are capable of withstanding repeated
direct hose line stream attacks, without having any significant amount of water dispelled from the burner
assembly within the fire mock-up.
$318,279 $318,279
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 2
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
11 Single Family/Fire
Behavior Prop
Requested $374,864 from General Fund; Fire Project
Drager Phase V Rambler/Fire-Behavior Prop to include:
One (1) story unit comprised of Five (5) 40’ fire training modules
NFPA 1402 $ OSHA-compliant system
Two (2) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chamber with emergency exits as required
Burn baffles
High-heat thermal-insulated wall with door(s)
Standard windows
Standard doors
One (1) sliding door
Hallway
Vents with pull cable
Cleanout cargo doors
Freight to customer site
On-site installation & set up to include:
Full Project management support from Drager staff
Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site
Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensure that the fire prop system is installed properly,
safely, and with minimal disruption
Insured and bonded installation and crane service
Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors
Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance
$374,864 $374,864
12
Tracy Aviary
Historic Structure
Renovations
Requested $156,078 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Two historical elements at Tracy Aviary in Liberty Park are in need of repair and are the subject of this CIP request.
The Bath House (a.k.a.Custodial Storage Building (CSB)) and the East Gate. The CSB needs a new roof. This will
require removing the solar panels, replacing asphalt shingles and re-installing the solar panels. The East Gate was
identified during our 2019 AZA accreditation inspection as an area of concern due to being an insufficient
perimeter barrier. The solution is to re-align the existing fence and add additional fencing to block a gap. Brick
work to repair damaged areas, signage, and landscaping surrounding the space is also included.
$156,078 $156,078
13
Three Creeks West
Bank Trailway
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $490,074 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Reconstruct a half-block of the Jordan River Parkway Trail where it’s eroding into the river at 1300 South and 1000
West.
$484,146 $484,146
14
Three Creeks West
Bank New Park
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $150,736 from parks impact fees; Constituent Public Lands Project
This project will create a new multiuse park on 1.4 acres owned by the city at 1050 W 1300 South, along the
Jordan River. Grading and landscaping would need to take place. Park amenities can be determined as the project
moves forward. Pickleball courts have been suggested by the Glendale Community Council.
Note that the Three Creeks Confluence Park on the east side of the Jordan River completed construction and
opened to the public in July 2021.
$150,736 $150,736
15
Sugar House Park
Fabian Lake
Pavilion Remove
and Replace
Requested $183,834 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Scope of work is to remove and replace existing Fabian Lakeside Pavilion. SHPA hired Arch Nexus to review,
analyze and recommend solutions for the deteriorating pavilions, and completed the attached report in December
of 2015. Arch Nexus factored in escalation costs through 2020.
$183,834 $183,834
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 3
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
16 Liberty Park
Basketball Court
Requested $99,680 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
This project is for resurfacing the existing basketball court in the center of the park and the replacement of two
new basketball hoops.
$99,680 $99,680
17
Glendale
Waterpark Master
Plan & Landscape
Rehabilitation &
Active Recreation
Component
$10 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR THIS PROJECT
AND
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $3.2 million from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project is Public Lands' highest priority impact fee request. The goal of this project is to provide a new active
recreation amenity at the former Glendale Water Park. This project will build on the results of a City sponsored
community visioning process, planned for 2021, that will determine the program and character for development.
Funds from this request will be allocated for technical drawings and site improvements. Forty years ago, the
Glendale water park was built using Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). LWCF protects funded
sites in perpetuity, to remain active recreation facilities open to the public. Removal of the obsolete water slides
and pools has triggered a three-year clock in which SLC must replace the amenity with another public outdoor,
active recreation facility. It does not have to be water based, but it cannot solely be open fields of grass or natural
area. In the first phase, $3,200,000 will construct a community directed, active recreation amenity on site within
the three-year time limit. The scope of this project will reflect the communities’ priorities and character, resources
allocated and alignment with LWCF requirements. SLC Council and/or designees will be briefed on phase one
project selection prior to design and construction. Full development of the 17-acre site will likely require several
phases and funding cycles.
$3,200,000 $3,200,000
18
A Place for
Everyone: Emerald
Ribbon Master
Plan
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
AND
$440,000 FOR
JORDAN RIVER
PADDLE SHARE
Requested $420,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The Jordan River Emerald Ribbon Master Plan is, fundamentally, a placemaking initiative for the Jordan River
corridor, built on creative, diverse and deep community engagement through four Salt Lake City neighborhoods.
Engagement will seek to identify features, improvements, stories, artwork and institutional connections that are
important to individual neighborhoods and communities along the river.
The planning effort will be led by the SLC Public Lands Division with support from an experienced consulting firm,
and extensive involvement of community partner organizations imbedded in the neighborhoods. This approach
will build on the connections made with University Neighborhood Partners to further this collaborative
relationship in the west side communities, and will ensure that creative and diverse engagement tactics produce
public feedback that captures the voices and opinions of groups and community members that have been
traditionally underrepresented.
Placemaking engagement activities will be broken into four distinct but complimentary neighborhood efforts:
Glendale (Hwy 201 to 900 South), Poplar Grove (900 South to North Temple), Fairpark/Jordan Meadows (North
Temple to 700 North), and Rose Park/Westpointe (700 North to I-215). Each engagement effort will draw on
existing Public Land assets along and nearby the river corridor, as well as the direction established by the Blueprint
Jordan River 2.0, the Westside Master Plan, 9Line Master Plan, Northwest Master Plan, North Temple Boulevard
Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Northpointe Small Area Plan, Jordan River Flood Control, Habitat and Green
Infrastructure Plan, the Reimagine Nature SLC Public Lands Master Plan, and other relevant documents. The final
Master Plan will include block-by-block improvement components along with recommended phasing and high-
level cost estimates for implementation that will guide subsequent allocation of CIP and Impact Fee resources,
investments in programming, and strategic partnerships.
$416,667 $416,667
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 4
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
19
Downtown Green
Loop
Implementation:
Design for 200 East
linear Park
Requested $610,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
Several streets along the Downtown Plan's visionary Green Loop Regional Park project are already under
consideration by the Transportation Division for corridor-wide changes, including improvements for active
transportation. This request from the Public Lands Division would fund the collaborative visioning, public
engagement, and conceptual design of the nontransportation elements of the Green Loop. The design of public
green space, park elements, and stormwater rain gardens / bio-swales will be proposed within the 132' public
way, facilitated by a significant reallocation of space from pavement to park.
Based on the Transportation Division's current and pending work on 200 East, it is anticipated that this funding will
go primarily to 200 East, with some lesser attention to other corridors along the loop. The result of this phase of
the project will be public awareness, interest and excitement about this regionally-significant project; a conceptual
and preliminary design; a construction cost estimate suitable for seeking construction funds; and strategies for
short and long term maintenance approaches and costs. Specific tasks associated with this scope of work include:
• Public engagement for conceptual design and design development of the 200 East leg Green Loop corridor
• Conceptual design for the green space component of the 200 East Corridor/ Segment of the Green Loop.
• Analysis of site opportunities and constraints with special attention to underground utilities and infrastructure
that may impact above ground improvements.
• Design development of the 200 East green space development and amenities. To include full construction cost
estimates with short and long term maintenance cost estimates.
$610,000 $610,000
20
Liberty Park
Cultural Landscape
Report and Master
Plan
Requested $475,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Liberty Park is Salt Lake City’s most iconic – and most popular – park space, with well over one million visitors each
year. The features that draw visitors to Liberty Park – this historic features and mature trees that give Liberty Park
its unique atmosphere – are in a state of accelerating deterioration. The formal tree plantings framing the central
walkway and perimeter of the park are suffering tree loss due to old age and a planting plan to maintain historic
character is desperately needed. The project has three integral components:
1. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is the principal document based on standards established by the National
Park Services. The report documents the history and physical changes of the site, determines periods of historic
significance and develops treatment recommendations for historic features and plantings. The report will build on
previous studies such as the 19XX Historic American Landscape Survey and look to including information on
underrepresented communities for this site. A CLR will include guidance for capital improvements, deferred
maintence projects and maintence.
2. The Liberty Park Master Plan will establish a vision and actionable plan that builds on the CLR recommendations
and provide an orderly framework for consistent planning, development and administration of the park for the
next twenty years. The plan deliverable will include concept level designs and renderings; a prioritized list of
capital improvements with high-level cost estimates; and policy direction for decision makers. The plan will go
though a formal adoption process.
3. This project will also include a study of the Liberty Park Greenhouse adaptive reuse for plant production, visitor
access, sustainability and potential revenue generation. The study will look at significantly expanding capacity for
growth of the City’s rare and native plant propagation program, allowing biodiversity enhancements at more parks
and natural areas citywide.
$354,167 $354,167
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 5
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
21
Historic Structure
Renovation &
Activation at Allen
Park
$1.3 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR THIS PROJECT
Requested $420,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
• Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures
• Development of architectural drawings and bid-ready cost estimates for baseline structural, safety and
functional improvements for eleven (11) structures, sufficient to utilize them as twenty-three (23) separate art
studio spaces without plumbing, and the historically-sensitive adaptation of one (1) structure to serve as a
restroom/supplies washroom.
• Development of preliminary architectural plans, renderings and high-level cost analysis for the historic
reconstruction of the George Allen Home to serve as a community education space for art classes and workshops,
and historic reconstruction of the adjoining “Rooster House” duplex to serve as a small café space with outdoor
dining.
• Development of construction documents and cost estimates for demolition of all aging/leaking septic systems
buried on property, and construction of a sewer connection from the adapted restroom structure to the sewer
connection on 1300 East.
• Development of construction documents and cost estimates for replacement of the two broken water meters
that serve the property, water connections to service the adapted restroom structure, fire suppression systems in
the art studios, a fire hydrant on the east side of the property, underground drip irrigation to support trees
throughout the property, and spray irrigation to support select flowerbeds and turf areas, and a replumbed
connection to the decorative fountains.
• Construction documents and cost estimates for repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen
Property at risk of collapse or severe deterioration, reconstruction of the lighting along Allen Park Drive,
adaptation of the north and south driveways to include public and ADA accessible parking for Allen Park, resurface
the degraded Allen Park Drive into an ADA-accessible, permeable surface pathway.
• High-level plan drawings and preliminary cost estimates for pedestrian stairway connections to 1400 East and
1500 East.
$420,000 $420,000
22
Replace Poplar
Grove Tennis with
new Sportcourt
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $440,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Poplar Grove Park is currently underutilized and does not have recreation amenities in demand by the community.
This project will remove two failing tennis courts, constructed over forty years ago, and construct either two new
tennis courts or six new pickleball courts in the existing footprint. A brief community survey will be conducted to
determine neighborhood priority. Should pickleball courts be selected, six courts would make the site ideal for
tournament play. There is an existing restroom that was recently updated, and a recently constructed concessions
stand, currently underutilized, that would provide desired support amenities for tournaments. The project
includes:
• Engagement with the community on project preference
• Full demolition of the existing tennis courts and associated pavement
• Development of site design and technical drawings for bidding and construction
• Construction of post-tension court facility
• Installation of associated perimeter fences, gates, nets, and benches
• Replacement of related perimeter sidewalks
• Installation of waterwise use plantings and irrigation in associated landscape areas
$433,333 $433,333
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 6
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
23
SLC Foothills
Trailhead
Development
$5 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $1,304,682 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project is part of a phased development of trailheads within Salt Lake City Foothills. The Foothill Trails Master
Plan adopted by Council in early 2020 identified key trailhead locations and recommended improvements to
better accommodate the growing trail network.
Phase 1, Conceptual Design: This phase was funded during FY19 and is currently underway. The SLC Public Lands
team has been working with Alta Planning Consulting to develop concept designs for five key trailhead locations
including: Emigration Canyon, Popperton Park, Bonneville Boulevard, Morris Mountain (I-Street) and Victory Road.
Concepts are attached.
Following completion of the conceptual design process and cost estimates, SLC Public Lands is now requesting
funding to implement two of the five trailhead improvement projects. Due to substantial costs associated with all
five locations the remaining locations will be included in FY23
Phase II, construction will implement trailhead improvements at both Bonneville Boulevard and Emigration
Canyon.
Implementation of key trailhead improvements is a fundamental component for sustainability, accessibility, and
functionality of the 100+ mile recreational trail system recommended by the SLC Foothills Trail System Plan and
these two locations will provide a good start to implementation of the master plan recommendations.
If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance
contingency on all foothill trails funding.
$1,304,682 $1,304,682
24
SLC Foothills Land
Acquisitions
$5 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $425,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
The project scope is limited to the acquisition of property rights for six parcels of undeveloped natural open space
in the north and central Foothills Natural Area, totaling approximately 275 acres, which will allow SLC to
consolidate ownership interest in the subject parcels, putting the City in a position to protect the parcels from
future development, and to guide property management for habitat protection, restoration, and recreational
access.
For three parcels, the proposed acquisitions would give SLC 100% property ownership; for two parcels, the
proposed acquisitions would move SLC from a minority ownership interest to a majority property ownership
interest; an in one case, would move SLC from a slight majority interest to a 90% interest. Increasing the fractional
ownership interest in these parcels substantially improves the City's ability to protect and manage them for
foothill protection, habitat restoration and nonmotorized recreational use.
If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance
contingency on all foothill trails funding. The Council could request a closed session briefing from the
Administration about the proposed property purchases.
$425,000 $425,000
25
Jordan Park
Pedestrian
Pathways
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
AND
$1.2 MILLION FOR
PUBLIC LANDS
SIGNAGE
Requested $510,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project will design and construct more than 3000 linear feet of new looped pathways in Jordan Park. New trail
segments will connect to existing sidewalks in order to create new desired pedestrian connections and a looped
network around the multi-use fields. This project builds on a previous request, approved in 2019 for new multi-
use trails in Jordan Park. This funding will be used to develop construction drawings for the pathways and
construction of the new pathways. Site furnishings, wayfinding and orientation signage will also be installed.
$510,000 $510,000
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 7
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
26
RAC Playground
with Shade Sails
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $450,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
Cost Estimates
$300,000- Playground materials and construction
$150,000- Design, engineering and contingency
This project will add a new playground at the Regional Athletic Complex. The RAC has been open for 5 years and
currently doesn’t have any amenities for children to use while visiting the complex.
The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground for ages 5-12
• Development of technical drawings
• Grading and surfacing preparations
• Playground Construction
• Walkway and fencing
Note that since FY17, the Council approved $2,421,518 for six RAC capital improvement projects
$180,032 $180,032
27
700 South
Westside Road
Configuration
Requested $514,450 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
A particular area of concern is the intersection of 700 S and 1000 W. 10th west (a massively wide road) intersects
with 700 S (another, even more massively wide road). I propose that 700 S be reconfigured to include a traffic
circle with a pocket park in the center, and include at least two, perhaps 3 medians along 700 South. I picture
these medians planted with large, native trees and plants. I picture clearly defined traffic lanes for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and cars, including clearly marked, perhaps even raised cross walks. I picture a quality, speed controlling
traffic circle with some low maintenance vegetation, benches, maybe even a simple playground. This vision
benefits the community in more ways than we could count. Improving roads, reducing the heat island effect by
the massive asphalt slabs, beautifying our surroundings, creating community gathering places, mitigating crime,
reducing vehicle speeds, and so much more. I have discussed this concern with neighbors, the poplar grove
community council, and had a brief conversation with Councilman Andrew Johnston about my concerns and our
ideas for reconfiguration, and he suggested I submit a CIP grant, which brings me here today. I hope the city will
consider the benefit that this kind of project will offer to our community.
Cost – provided by SLC Engineering
Traffic Circle Construction
Crosswalk Construction
2-3 Planted Medians
Clearly defined traffic lines.
Useful Life – >10 years
Salt Lake City Owned Asset – Roads and sidewalks are all public Salt Lake City Owned Assets
$223,450 $291,000 $223,450 $291,000
28
Highland High
Crosswalk
Enhancements
Requested $85,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The scope of work will include upgrading the crossing to include Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as well
as enhancements to shorten the crosswalk and make it safer (bulbouts on the east and west side of the
intersection and a raised median)
$85,000 $85,000
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 8
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
29
200 South Transit
Complete Street
Supplement
Requested $284,691 from transportation impact fees, $415,800 from Quartercent for transportation and
$2,561,409 from Funding Our Future; Transportation Project
As part of the Funding Our Future program, Salt Lake City will reconstruct 200 South from 400 West to 900 East
beginning in 2022. The current budget allocated to this project is $12,000,000 inclusive of construction and
professional design fees. The Transportation Division is requesting $3,261,900 to supplement the reconstruction
funds that reflects the recommendations from the 200 South Transit Corridor, Complete Street, and Downtown
Transit Hub Study. The preliminary design includes:
• Side-running Business Access and Transit (BAT) priority lanes, which operate as dedicated bus lanes but still
provide access to curbside uses and can be used in mixed traffic conditions.
• In-street bus stop islands will allow buses to stay in the driving lane, which reduces bus travel time and
minimizes conflicts that occur when weaving to curbside bus stops.
• Additional transit access and walkability elements, including mid-block crosswalk upgrades, landscaping,
sidewalk repair, human-scale lighting, traffic signal replacements (3), and bicycle lanes.
The low-end cost estimate for the preliminary design is approximately $15,500,000; the majority of the expense is
going to pavement robust enough handle the amount of bus activity expected on the corridor. Without
supplementary funds the budget shortfall will require removing many of the elements that make this a
transformative multi-modal project. It is expected that the project will need to be implemented in phases,
specifically the East Downtown Transit Hub envisioned in the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan and WFRC Regional
Transportation Plan. However, there are many elements that are important to build in the initial construction
phase that are structural to the road reconstruction project (e.g. curb extensions that affect flow lines and
drainage inlets); these are the priority elements the supplemental funds will be directed towards.
$37,422 $415,800 $37,422 $415,800
30 900 South 9Line RR
Crossing
Requested $28,000 from transportation impact fees and $172,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
The 2018 9-Line Trail Extension Study is the basis for recent 9-Line Trail projects’ design and budgeting
approaches. It recommends two very different design options near Interstate 15 and Union Pacific’s (UPRR) and
the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) rails. The more expensive, longer-term option is to grade-separate either just
the trail or both the trail and the roadway. The easier, less expensive, and shorter-term option is an improved at-
grade (or ground-level) crossing of the rails and routing the trail under the interstate. The latter is the focus of this
application. More information about the overall project’s timeline (2021-2023), approach, benefits, and robust
past engagement can be found at www.900SouthSLC.com. This funding request seeks additional monies that
would be used to:
• Fund an increase in the coordination and design budgets for the City’s contracted design and engineering
consultants (including multiple field and coordination meetings with UPRR, UTA, and the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT); research; and, more in-depth design), around $10,000
• Fund the UPRR consultant’s (RailPros) design review fees, typically up to $20,000.
• Construct three new railroad panels south of the existing panels, which are necessary to accommodate a 9-Line
Trail crossing capable of serving people walking and bicycling perpendicular to the rail corridor, typically around
$30,000 for all three.
• Construct additional improvements and/or new support infrastructure at the at-grade crossing per recent
experience with standard UPRR and UDOT guidance (e.g., back flashers, blankout signs, signage, pavement
markings, detectable warning surfaces and trail delineation, audible devices, fencing, swing arms, gates), typically
around $120,000.
• Fund UPRR and UTA-required training, traffic control, permitting, and miscellaneous other costs related to
construction, typically around $10,000.
• Engineering Division fees, typically about 10% (estimated at $10,000)
$28,000 $172,000 $28,000 $172,000
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 9
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
31 Trails Maintenance
Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for Transportation; Transportation Project
This funding request from 4th Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax for Transportation is requested to be moved from the
capital list into the annual operating budget for the Public Lands Division. Maintenance is an eligible expense of
the state-authorizing legislation for this fund. These funds will be used to fund city staff, equipment and material
to maintain new and recently constructed trails including portions of the 9-Line, McClelland Trail, and the Jordan
River Trail, and other urban trail segments that potentially come online during the course of the fiscal year. The
maintenance of these trails are necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and also so they can be used
year round.
$200,000 $200,000
32 Local Link
Construction
Requested $50,000 from transportation impact fees and $450,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
The Local Link Circulation Study (adoption pending, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar
House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit
in Sugar House.
This funding request is supplemental construction dollars to implement some of the recommendations of the
Local Link circulation study in the Sugar House area. Many Sugar House streets are planned to be reconstructed as
part of the Funding our Future Streets Bond, which included some Complete Streets funding. However, these
budgets had only limited funding for more extensive Complete Streets elements such as would reconfigure curbs
or intersections. This funding will allow the City to build higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and
biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These
roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant
allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking connections between
Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar House
Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening
crossing distances).
$50,000 $450,000 $50,000 $450,000
33 Corridor
Transformations
Requested $75,604 from transportation impact fees and $780,438 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
This programmatic request will fund the design and construction of significant infrastructure additions to corridors
NOT currently planned for reconstruction -- to include corridor-based complete streets changes to signing, striping
and wayfinding. corridor-long consideration and placement of bus stops with shelters, benches, trash cans, and
other amenities; improved bikeways; reconfigured intersections for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety in the
context of a corridor study; and consideration of business access / on-street parking. Possible corridors include
600/700 North, 2100 South, and corridors on the Downtown Green Loop.
$25,398 $282,200 $25,398 $282,200
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 10
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
34 Area Studies
Requested $14,000 from transportation impact fees and $201,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
These funds will be used to study and provide recommendations for streets and circulation in the rapidly-
developing Granary area, including the incorporation of bike, pedestrian and rail transit in the area, as well as an
understanding of how the existing streets should be improved. The cost of this study is estimated at $120,000, and
the City has applied for $111,000 in Transportation and Land Use Connection funding. The study will be
complemented by a study work being conducted by UTA in the area.
These funds will also be used to develop design recommendations for selected streets in the Sugar House area,
following on the more general guidance provided by the Local Link Circulation Study. This study (adoption process
anticipated, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the
2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. The purpose of this
funding would be to allow us to design higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key
area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include
Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through
the Wasatch Front Regional Council. These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better
walking and biking connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction
of bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House
(modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances).
$14,000 $201,000 $0 $201,000
35 400 South Viaduct
Trail
Requested $310,000 from General Fund, $90,000 from transportation impact fees and $500,000 from Quartercent
for transportation; Transportation Project
This project will add a low-profile, concrete barricade along with striping changes to create a multi-use trail on the
south side of the 400 South Viaduct, connecting the Poplar Grove Neighborhood with Downtown Salt Lake City for
those walking or bicycling. Construction includes changes to sidewalks and bike / pedestrian ramps, striping
removal and replacement, and minor construction to relocate medians. The multi-use trail will tie into existing
sidewalks on the east and west, and connect to existing and planned bike lanes.
$310,000 $90,000 $500,000 $310,000 $90,000 $500,000
36 Neighborhood
Byways
Requested $104,500 from transportation impact fees and $940,500 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
These funds will be used for design and construction of four neighborhood byways, as well as to create a
neighborhood byway conceptual design and guidance document to be used as reference material in the
development of future neighborhood byways. This will make future neighborhood byway development more
streamlined and efficient, and is anticipated to cost $100,000.
Two neighborhood byways -- 800 East Phase 1 ($275,000) and Poplar Grove Phase 2 ($600,000) -- will receive
construction dollars, while the additional two byways -- Sugar House to the U and Rose Park West -- will enter
community collaboration leading to conceptual designs ($35,000 per byway).
$104,500 $940,500 $104,500 $940,500
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 11
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
37 900 South Signal
Improvements
Requested $430,000 from General Fund and $70,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
The 2021-2023 900 South Reconstruction project runs from 900 West to Lincoln Street (945 East). From 700 East
to 200 West, the proposed design includes reducing the roadway width and cross section from four lanes to three,
improving safety and reducing speeds. The reduction in width also provides space for a separated path (the 9-Line
Trail), from 700 West to Lincoln Street (945 East) on the south side of 900 South. The narrowing and other project
elements will largely be achieved by moving the southern curb line to the north. These improvements are fully
funded and are currently in design, and construction will begin in 2021. For more about timeline, benefits, and the
robust past engagement for this project, visit www.900SouthSLC.com.
The new street design requires updated signal design and some additional infrastructure at most intersections
along the corridor. The layout of the proposed improvements has been designed to reduce the number of signal
poles required to be moved to keep project costs as low as possible.
1. West-facing signal mast arms on the south side of the corridor would generally be lengthened, or the entire
pole and mast arm would be relocated farther north.
2. East-facing signal mast arms on the north side may be shortened.
3. All signal heads would be adjusted to line up with the new lane configuration.
4. The new street design and the introduction of the trail on the south side require relocating or adding new or
relocated pedestrian push buttons to coincide with the new curb ramp locations.
5. The existing signal detection on cross streets (for northbound and southbound traffic) would also be upgraded
with radar or camera sensors at the 200 East, 300 East, 400 East, and 500 East intersections, the only four
intersections where such state-of-the-practice detection technology does not currently exist.
$96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500 $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500
38 Urban Trails
Requested $6,500 from transportation impact fees and $1,038,500 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
This programmatic funding application is for a suite of projects that represent collaborations between
Transportation Division and the Trails & Natural Lands Division of Public Lands. These funds will enable conceptual
development, design, and construction of selected urban trails, including:
• design of the Folsom Trail west of 1000 West
• design of the Grit & Gravel Trail (Beck St.) providing a key connection to Davis County
• design of the Parley's Trail in Sugar House following on the Local Link Circulation Plan
• design and initial quick-build implementation of portions of 200 East and/or other streets
included in the Green Loop linear park recommended in the Downtown Master Plan. Quick-build designs will be
linked to the project’s public engagement process and may be temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent.
• initial conceptual design of potential west side trails such as Stegner Trail along CWA drain
• neighborhood connections to the Jordan River Trail
• rehabilitation of badly deteriorated sections of the Jordan River Trail
$6,500 $1,038,500 $6,500 $1,038,500
39 Multimodal Street
Maintenance
Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project
This project provides funding to hire contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which current in-
house staff doesn’t have the equipment or staff to accomplish. Examples include enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes,
bike racks, colored pavement including downtown green bike lanes, bus shelters, enhanced medians: Snow
plowing, striping, signals, signage, delineators, etc.
$200,000 $200,000
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 12
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
40
Transportation
Safety
Improvements
Requested $450,000 from General Fund and $50,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
Traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control
devices and minor reconfiguration of an intersection or roadway to address safety issues. Salt Lake City's program
places a strong emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, particularly in support of access to and from transit.
This funding will further the City’s on-going effort to reduce injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists citywide and to
improve community health and livability by promoting walking and bicycling. This funding will be used for the
installation of safety improvements throughout the city as described in the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, and
also to address ongoing needs as safety studies are completed.
Crossing improvements such as HAWKs or TOUCANs, flashing warning lights at crosswalks or intersections, refuge
islands, bulb-outs, improved signalized crossings and new or improved pavement markings are examples of the
safety devices that are installed with this funding. Projects are identified by using data to analyze crash history,
roadway configuration and characteristics, and with citizen input. Identified projects to improve traffic safety
involve conditions that pose a higher relative risk of injury to those traveling within SLC and are therefore deemed
a high priority for implementation.
$44,400 $400,000 $44,400 $400,000
41
1700 South
Corridor
Transformation
Requested $326,835 from General Fund and $36,315 transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
Transformation of 1700 South to provide improved neighborhood connections to Glendale Park, 1700 River Park,
support a possible new regional park replacing the defunct water park, and to create an improved east-west
walking and bicycling corridor at the approximate north-south midpoint between the 9-Line Trail and the Parley’s
Trail. Improvements will also include street crossings to connect the parks on the north (1700 South River Park)
and south (Glendale Water Park and Glendale Park) sides of the street. Funds to be used for design, public
engagement, and construction of curb changes to improve ped/bike safety and street tree planting sites, semi-
permanent quick build linear elements, striping changes, and signage.
$317,792 $35,300 $317,792 $35,300
42 Kensington Byway
Ballpark
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The CDCIP Advisory Board did not recommend funding this project.
The Ballpark Community Council and Liberty Wells Community Council are requesting CIP funds for development
of a neighborhood byway on Kensington Avenue as suggested in the Utah Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
(December 2015).
“Improvements that make a street a neighborhood byway include bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements
(for example, signals, crosswalks, curb extensions (aka bulb-outs), curb ramps, signage, street markings, and other
traffic calming techniques), wayfinding signage, and connectivity enhancements to existing bicycle and pedestrian
routes.” (source: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/neighborhood-byways/ )
Note the CDCIP Board did not recommend funding this project.
$500,000 $500,000
43 3000 South
Sidewalk and Curb
Requested $449,315 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
Install curb and gutter and adjacent sidewalk and asphalt tie in on the north side of 3000 South
from Highland Drive to 1500 East and an asphalt overlay over the entire street. Installation will
require the removal of trees and landscaping and adjustment of drive approaches and retaining walls.
44 Logan Ave
Reconstruction
Requested $1,405,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will reconstruct the deteriorated streets affected following the Public Utilities storm drain project. This
will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary.
Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as
determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 13
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
45
Bridge
Replacement (200
South over Jordan
River)
Requested $3.5 million from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will include the complete removal and replacement of the existing vehicle bridge for 200 South over
the Jordan River. Design will consider complete streets features, accommodations for the adjacent Jordan River
Trail, and the historic nature of the adjacent Fisher Mansion, and potential art components incorporated into or
around the new bridge.
46
Bridge
Rehabilitation (400
South and 650
North over Jordan
River)
Requested $3 million from General Fund; Engineering Project
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the 400 South and 650 North vehicle bridges over the Jordan River. A
bridge inspection performed by UDOT gave these bridges a Health Index score of 48.55 and 46.58, respectively,
out of 100.
Combining the two bridges into one project will result in economies of scale since the rehabilitation work for both
bridges will be similar. The existing asphalt surface will be removed and the underlying deck will be treated for
cracking and delaminated concrete. The deck will receive a waterproofing membrane, a new asphalt overlay, and
deck drains to remove storm water from the deck. The under surface of the bridge will be treated for cracking and
delaminated concrete on the deck, girders, pier caps, and abutments. The steel piles supporting the piers exhibit
heavier than typical corrosion. The piles will be dewatered and treated for corrosion. The existing damaged
parapet wall will be removed and rebuilt which will widen the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian access route.
Additionally, aesthetic enhancements will be incorporated including replacing the chain link fence and railings
mounted on the outside of the sidewalk with decorative railings. A consulting firm with specialized experience will
be used for this project.
47 Wingpointe Levee
Design
Requested $800,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
The cost estimate includes conceptual design, final design, and geotechnical investigations performed by
Engineering consultants. Current levee conditions will be evaluated, required improvements identified, and
modifications recommended. Typical sections of levee reconstruction determined in order to develop
construction cost estimates and required plans and documents for permitting, then construction. This design
effort will inform future funding construction requests to bring the levee into compliance.
48 Three Creeks West
Bank Roadways
Requested $1,158,422 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
This project calls for reconstructing a little over a block of 1300 South and 1/3 of a block of 1000 West and
installing storm sewers.
49 Delong Salt
Storage
Requested $1,504,427 from General Fund; Facilities Project
This salt storage building would cover 4000 tons of salt during winter months and seasonal remnants of salt the
rest of the year. The salt will be protected from the elements which reduces waste and allows for an overall, more
efficient snow removal process. See attached estimate.
50 Steam Bay
Requested $363,495 from General Fund; Facilities Project
When the new Streets and Fleet facility was built in 2010, one equipment steam bay was installed to clean asphalt
and other heavy equipment. The bay is designed to remove asphalt products, separate oil from water runoff, and
capture the runoff to meet storm water pollution prevention requirements. A single Streets crew could alternate
equipment cleaning and repair, but with the addition of the second crew, all equipment is running simultaneously,
and the steam bay’s capacity has been exceeded to that point of jeopardizing equipment cleaning and the creating
a storm water pollution risk. Additionally, the current pump system is at the end of its expected lifespan. Funds
will go toward a larger, more robust, and better designed system. This additional steam bay will be 22X45 with 4
foot pony walls and tie in to the upgraded pumping system.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 14
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
51 Mixed-Use Three
Story Prop
Requested $815,895 from General Fund; Fire Project
Drager Phase V Training Gallery (Mixed-use fire prop) to include:
Three (3) story unit with roof top deck/fourth floor comprised of seven (7) 40’ and one (1) 20’ training modules
Three (3) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chambers with emergency exits (as required)
Two (2) clean out decks for burn chambers
Burn room baffles
Exterior scissor staircase from the ground level to the fourth story/roof with interior access on each floor
Exterior stairs to single container roof
Interior stairs connecting first to second and second to third stories
Fall protection railings around all roofs of containers
Rappelling anchor on top of fourth story/roof
Two bailout windows
Vent/enter/search windows
Eleven (11) exterior doors
Two (2) interior doors
Emergency fire escape stairs
Four (4) training deck containers
On-site installation & set up to include: Full project management support from Drager staff, Pre-installation site
surveys and in-process review of the build site, Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensures
that the fire prop system is installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption, Insured and bonded installation
and crane service, Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors Complete documentation package on
operation and maintenance
52 Training Ground
Site Improvements
Requested $694,785 from General Fund; Fire Project
The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved areas surrounding
fire training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they train. Ideally this training ground would
simulate a small cross section of the structures that are in Salt Lake City and the site improvement would resemble
streets and access points like what is in the city. Currently there is approximately 45,000 square feet of
underutilized training ground.
Key components of this project include:
Training ground site design
Site excavation
Drainage and retention system
Site back fill and compaction
Various paved access roads
Reinforced concrete pads for vehicle extrication training
Technical and confined rescue training props
Curb and gutter along Wallace St.
Perimeter landscaping and fencing
53 Sunnyside Park
Sidewalk
Requested $72,740 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Construct sidewalk on south side of Valdez Dr. from east gate of Dept. of Veterans Affairs to intersecting sidewalk
inside Sunnyside Park. See map. Sidewalk is approximately 365-ft long by 4-ft wide. Federal funding was explored
but we are prohibited from applying those funds to non-federal property. Costs could include wider surface or
other improvements to meet the minimum spending requirement.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 15
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
54
Winner on
Wasatch Dee Glan
Tennis Court
Construction
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
A critically important construction project replacing four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen (Wasatch Hills
Tennis Center/formerly Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current bubble. These new courts would be post-
tension concrete courts (long-lasting compared to asphalt) would be preparatory to a new privately funded year-
round tennis air dome by the Coach Mike's Friends of Public Tennis Foundation (a 501 c3 non-profit whose
mission is to assist the main funding source, Salt Lake City, in supporting Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis
Centers).
55
Lighting Upgrade
at Liberty Park
Tennis Center
Requested $202,100 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
LED Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrade of 120 outdated metal halide light fixtures at Liberty Park Tennis Center.
56
Liberty Park &
Wasatch Hills
Tennis Court
Resurfacing
Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
26 Tennis Courts resurfacing at Liberty park tennis center and wasatch hills tennis center
57
Harrison Ave and
700 E Community
Garden
Requested $103,500 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
This community garden would be developed through the Green City Growers Program, a partnership between
Wasatch Community Gardens (WCG) and Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Division to establish community
gardens on Cityowned and managed land with the primary goals to increase access to fresh, local produce and
reduce barriers to urban food production.
The scope of work to develop a new community garden includes working with community members for 12 to 18
months to develop the interest, support, and design of the project. WCG will work to build the community
support. Our organization will work with stakeholders to create a coalition of gardeners, garden leaders,
volunteers and donors to raise any remaining funds to complete the garden design process, provide the materials
for planting boxes (including ADA accessible raised beds), soil, amendments, and irrigation. WCG will enlist and
provide oversight of volunteer in-kind labor, and oversee services that are contracted out.
The cost estimate of $103,500 is based upon three recent community garden starts in this program; the 9-Line
Community Garden, the Gateway Community Garden, and the Richmond Park Community Garden. The scope of
work includes; soil testing for contaminants to help guide the bed design, landscape design, site demolition and
preparation, water main hook up, fencing, ADA beds and pathways, garden beds, a drip irrigation system, soil,
amendments, and mulch for pathways, tools and supplies, a shade and gathering structure, and signage, benches,
and common area plantings.
58
1300 South
Camping Reisitant
Landscaping
Requested $100,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
The Ballpark Community Council is requesting CIP funds for landscaping improvements for the park strips on 1300
South and the areas immediately surrounding Horizonte. Rather than the lawns and grass that currently exist on
these park strips, we’re asking the City to invest in re-planting these areas with new low- to no-water options such
as combinations of trees with xeriscaping and/or rockscapes. These new park strip designs would have the dual
effect of assisting the City with its goal of reducing nonagricultural use of water and would also serve as a loiter
and camping-resistant landscapes.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 16
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
59 Wingate Walkway
Requested $286,750 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
• This budget includes removal and transplanting of trees as requested by constituents. This is quite expensive at
estimated $5000 per tree, and would include using a crane, as well as contracted extra care for 2 years by a
landscaping company to get the trees reestablished. This is not something that can be done in-house. Tree
removal is much less expensive, at $500 per tree. This would mean the removal of 15 mature trees for this project,
but at a construction cost savings of $67,500.
• This budget assumes that the power pole at the eastern end of the corridor, and the power drop to the traffic
signal, will not be relocated. If those do need to be relocated, an additional approximate $30,000 would be added
to the project construction costs, along with associated design and engineering fees. There may also be ROW
acquisition costs to site the pole and its guy-wires.
• This budget does not include 36 parking headers that would need to be purchased by Wingate Condo
Association and placed on Wingate property at an estimated cost of $2,500-3,000 (for all 36). The parking headers
would be needed to protect the fence from regularly being hit and damaged by Wingate residents parking. It is
suggested that this be placed into legal agreement as part of the easement, and that the Condo Association be
responsible for any damage to the fence caused by not having the parking headers in place.
• A less expensive fence could be installed to save costs. This budget is for wrought iron fencing at $48 per linear
foot. Chain link would be half or less of that cost.
• This project has been budgeted as a 10' multi-use path, similar to the photos the constituents included. This also
recongizes the recommended use as both bicycle and pedestrian facility, as referenced in the City's Pedestrian &
Bicycle Master Plan. To save costs, the path could be constructed as a sidewalk, at 6' wide instead of 10'. The
thickness may be able to be reduced to sidewalk standard at 4" thick. However, further discussion should be had
with SLC Police Department about their preferred approach to emergency access.
60 1200 East Median
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
The curbing and irrigation systems for these medians has fallen into serious disrepair. This project seeks to install
new curbing around each island to prevent cars from driving across the turf and will allow the soil to be raised to
match the grade of the top of the root ball of the existing trees, replace the irrigations system and a significant
amount of trees supplementing the urban forest that remains. The tree planting portion of the project is in
support of the “Trillion Tree Campaign” in an effort to aid in enhancing Salt Lake City’s air quality. The cost
estimate is $500,000 to include design, engineering fees, contingency and construction.
61
Parleys Historic
Nature Park
Structure
Preservation
Requested $765,325 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The proposed CIP project will fund the following work in Parleys Historic Nature Park (PHNP):
1. identify key historic structures and artifacts, assess preservation needs, and create detailed
rehabilitation/protection recommendations for each;
2. develop fully-engineered designs and construction cost estimates for historic structural rehabilitation;
3. if feasible, develop and secure a conservation easement to protect irreplaceable historic and natural features,
per the recommendations of the 2011 PHNP Management Plan.
4. if feasible within project budget, develop a detailed signage & interpretive materials plan to improve public
awareness/appreciation of historic features & structures, and construct/install the recommended interpretive
signage.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 17
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
62
Enhancement of
the Cemetery for
Visitor Research
and Knowledge
$1.2 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR PUBLIC LANDS
SIGNAGE
Requested $790,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Cemetery listed on National Register of Historic Places- $30,000
Website Enhancement, Cemetery GIS data and input- $250,000
Arboretum Accreditation and new planted tree protection- $65,000
Plat Markers- $100,000
Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage Design and 10 Sign placements-$75,000
Two years inflation adjustment - $52,000
Engineering Consultant fees - $208,000
Contingency - $10,000
63
Cemetery
Roadway
Improvements,
Phase 1
$1 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $3,838,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Phase 1a of a 6 phase road repair project identified in the Cemetery Master Plan. With 7.9 miles of roads and an
estimated $12.5 million dollars in repairs. Roadway Repair Priority Cemetery roadways were prioritized for repair
based on the following characteristics: Roads more frequently used for public and maintenance vehicular
circulation. Roads that also serve as main routes as outlined on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan.
Roads in poor condition were prioritized over those in fair or average condition (See Appendix E for detailed
Roadway Condition Analysis). Road width was given some consideration. Total roadway length within a priority
category was considered in an effort to separate roadways into projects that would be of a more manageable size.
-Costs include: full replacement including demo, reconstruction with asphalt, concrete edge/curb and gutter and
storm drainage improvements, 15% estimate contingency and 40% design/engineering fees. Other soft costs such
as project and construction contingencies, City project management, and permits and fees are not included and
should be added to budget requests as appropriate.
Cost Breakout - Full Repair of All Roads (Priority Street Name Length Width Total SF Repair Cost)
1a Main (N) 1,188 22 26,136 Full $701276
1a Main (N) 167 21 3,507 Full $94,099
1a Main (middle) 1,242 19 23,598 Full $ 633,176
1a Main (sexton) 367 17 6,239 Full $ 167,403
1a 240 N 1,090 16 17,440 Full $ 467,947
1a 330 N(Lindsey) 36 27 972 Full $ 26,080
1a 330 N 1,433 25 35,825 Full $ 961,250
1a Hillside 998 25 24,950 Full $ 669,453
Priority 1a Total 1.3 miles 139,000 sf $ 3,838,000
64
9Line and Rose
Park Asphalt Pump
Tracks
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $1,393,600 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The proposed project incorporates the design and construction of two asphalt bike pump tracks, one at the
existing 9Line Bike Park located at 700 West 900 South and the second near the Day Riverside Library at 871 North
Cornell Avenue.
The proposed pump track at the 9Line Bike Park will reconstruct the small existing pump track at the 9Line Bike
Park. While the 9Line Bike Park will still retain its large signature dirt jumps under the freeway this amenity will
improve the pump track and provide a more accessible riding amenity for users of the bike park. Since the
construction of the 9Line Bike Park in 2016 it has become increasingly popular for families of all ages. This
improvement will provide a safe more durable riding surface for park users. The proposed pump track adjacent to
the Day Riverside Library will construct a new asphalt pump track adjacent to the Rosepark Community Garden. In
2020 SLC Public Utilities began a large storm water improvement project at this location. This project required the
removal of a small dirt pump track that was constructed by local users groups. Construction of the asphalt pump
track will replace this asset with a new community amenity for the Rosepark neighborhood.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 18
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
65
Richmond Park
Playground and
Park
improvements
Requested $690,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
This project will replace the existing playground and pavilion at Richmond Park. Both assets are more than twenty
years old. Redevelopment of these features is an opportunity to build on the recent success of the new
community garden. The project will evaluate the location of the new playground and pavilion so that it can
respond to the community garden to create synergies between the three uses and increase visibility into and out
of the site. The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground and pavilion
• Engagement with the community on project character and site development
• Development of technical drawings for bidding and negotiation
• Demolition of existing playground and pavilion
• Construction of a playground and pavilion
• Construction of new sidewalk connections
• Planting of new trees and waterwise plantings
• Installation of new site furnishings and park signage
66
Library Square
Feasibility, Civic
Engagement and
Design
Development
Requested $225,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The 2002 Council adopted plan for block 37, Library Square, is to create an asset to the community, that is safe,
well used and attracts new development to the area. Library Square is an underutilized public space with wall and
paving system (uneven surfaces, paver movement and concrete settling), failures that are posing a safety hazard.
This project will fund a feasibility study to identify solutions for the failing paving and wall systems; facilitate
outreach to identify new amenities for positive activation; and develop comprehensive design solutions with
phasing strategies for implementation.
Summary of work:
1. Feasibility study: Library Square has multiple paving and wall system failures due to settling of the parking
structure. A compressive study is needed to determine appropriate solutions to ameliorate safety hazards. Existing
conditions analysis and feasibility studies will determine a critical path to correct site failures and propose
appropriate solutions.
2. Civic engagement: The Public spaces at Library Square are underutilized outside of the four major events that
occur during the summer. Salt Lake City’s rapidly growing and densifying population needs places to be outside. A
civic engagement study would identify desired community elements to be incorporated on the Square that would
increase positive activity throughout the day and week.
3. Design development and implementation strategy: The feasibility study will inform design solutions for the wall
and paving failures on the site. Civic engagement will inform new everyday uses to implement as well as design
moves to incorporate to make the site more functional and desirable for large events, this would include shade,
access and circulation improvements. The design will identify a phasing strategy with estimates of probable costs
and implementation strategies for a multi-year improvement plan.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 19
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
67
Donner & Rotary
Glen Park
Community Park
Irrigation &
Landscape Design
and Construction
Requested $650,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
2018 was the driest year on record for the state of Utah. Public Lands experienced budgetary restrictions on water
use, resulting in significant impacts to our properties. Protecting the trees and living landscape requires carefully
designed and managed landscapes and irrigation systems. Decreasing our water needs is a critical element of
climate adaption and a top priority for Public Lands. Significant water use reduction can be achieved by installing a
water efficient irrigation system and reducing passive use areas of manicured turf by installing regionally
appropriate water wise plant material. Areas of high use such as sport-fields can be isolated on an irrigation zone
while trees, shrubs and low water grasses can be on separate zones. Designed appropriately, these landscapes
require less than half the water to maintain conventional landscapes. In addition to creating a more climate
resilient landscape, Public Lands will work with the community to identify desired new amenities such as fitness
equipment, benches and interpretive signage. Planning and design will also focus on improving the parks
circulation network in order to offer a diversity of loops and difficulty ratings for park users. This project includes:
1) Community engagement to create a vision for Donner and Rotary Park;
2) Design development, best practices, and construction documents for Phase I of site implementation; and
3) Construction of new improvements for a portion of the site (approximately 25% or 3 acres) Two future funding
requests will ask for funding for the rest of the site. Design standards and best practices developed in this project
will be used as a tool for future site redevelopment.
68 Capitol Hill Traffic
Calming
Requested $595,194 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
Mitigate commuter cut-through traffic, chronic speeding and industrial traffic: a) the installation of vertical speed-
reduction elements, (b) striping crosswalks, stop lines and bike lanes, (c) curb extensions, pedestrian refuge
islands, partial barriers and 'road diet' measures
69
Harvard Heights
Residential
Concrete Street
Reconstruction
Requested $1,311,920 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This project will rehabilitate the existing severely deteriorating street, including concrete pavement replacement,
drive approaches, curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs along Harvard Avenue. This street was initially constructed
in the mid-1920's and has not been replaced in the 90+ years since. Rather, temporary fixes have been employed
continuously by paving over the deteriorating concrete using asphalt. The key flaw with this approach--and the
main issue at play here--is that the asphalt doesn't adhere to the concrete surface below, resulting in severe, year-
round potholing. This is both a serious eye-sore and a real safety concern to residents.
Concurrent with the reconstruction of the street, this project will also install several speed humps, speed tables,
and/or any other traffic measures deemed appropriate by the Transportation Division to reduce traffic speed.
There is an understanding of the need to work with city on a final approved design
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 20
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
70 Liberty Wells
Traffic Calming
Requested $400,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The “Liberty Wells Traffic Calming” project seeks to slow motor vehicles, improve safety near the school and near
homes, encourage more transportation choices, and implement recommendations from several Salt Lake City
master plans. These goals are based on feedback from residents of the sections of 600 East, and Kensington,
Bryan, and Milton Avenues, surrounding Hawthorne Elementary School. The project area was determined by the
project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road” and to
benefit students, parents, and teachers at Hawthorne as much as the neighbors on adjacent streets.
The project will also enhance the existing 600 East Neighborhood Byway and extend the partially funded,
proposed Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway east of 600 East. The intersection of the two neighborhood
byways is a unique and cost-effective opportunity. (Neighborhood byways are traffic-calmed, bicycling and
walking-oriented streets with low traffic volumes and speeds.) To date, neighbors have offered their support for
physical street design elements that would accomplish these goals, including traffic circles, median islands,
signage, improved lighting, bulb-outs, and speed cushions. The exact elements to be constructed, however, will
depend on further community engagement, including discussions with neighbors, Hawthorne Elementary School
administrators and school community council, as well as the Salt Lake City School District.
The project scope will include the following elements:
1. Community engagement of neighbors that live and/or own property on and near the project’s streets
(Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues, and 600 East) in order to determine the most popular, feasible, and
effective traffic calming interventions.
2. Design and construction of the recommended interventions.
71 Stratford Bike
Crossing
Requested $200,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This proposal has not gone through a public process or a formal review and approval process by the city. There is
an understanding of the need to work with the city on an approved final design. I'm requesting a modification to
the current 4 way stop at the intersection of 1700 E. and Stratford Ave. This would include removing the current
stop signs on both the east and west sections of road coming from Stratford Ave., and putting in place some form
of traffic reduction system that only allows bikes to go straight through east/west on Stratford. Then placing
something like what's on the crossing at 1300 E and Stratford, where bikers can press a button and the straight
through N/S traffic on 1700 E would yield to bikers as they cross.
72 Sugar House Safe
Side Streets
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This project is intended to improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar House. It is
made up of two basic parts:
1. A study of (1) existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities; (2) the effectiveness of existing traffic calming
measures on Hollywood Avenue (1990s) and McClelland Street (2010s); and, (3) infrastructure and programmatic
recommendations, including the most effective, cost-efficient, and community-supported methods of improving
neighborhood street livability. This study may also include a series of tests of the recommendations.
2. Design and construction, or implementation, of the above recommendations on the project area’s six local
streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street.
Initial ideas from the community include curb modifications, striping, stop signs, street narrowing, raised
crosswalks, increased and enforced truck restrictions, and gateway monuments. The project area was determined
by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road”, so to
speak.
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 21
1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
73 Sunnyside 9Line
Trail Missing Piece
Requested $350,000 from General Fund; Transportation Project
Just before the construction of the Sunnyside Trail between approximately 1400 East and Foothill Drive in 2016-
2017 (part of the soon-to-be-completed 9-Line Trail), the City determined that it was unable to acquire the
property necessary to complete the trail in front of the 1805-1851 East Sunnyside Avenue property owned by the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There is now a roughly 600’ (or one-block) long missing piece of the trail where only a narrow, four-foot wide
sidewalk exists. CIP funding would construct a new section of the 10-12' concrete trail and fill this gap, connecting
to and replicating the look, feel, and impact of the existing segments of the trail to the east (University of Utah
property) and the west (City property).
The City estimates that $350,000 (in 2022 dollars) will be needed to reassess site conditions and constraints,
complete the design (currently at 40%), fund Engineering Division oversight, partially fund property acquisition or
easement, and construct this critical, missing piece of a citywide asset.
Included in the trail construction costs are additional adjustments to slopes, irrigation, fencing, trees and
landscaping, driveways, wet utility inlets and cleanouts, the central walkway leading to the front door of the
chapel, power pole guy wires, and signs that are necessary to ensure appropriate drainage, ADA compliance, and
trail user comfort.
74
Multimodal
Intersections &
Signals
Requested $945,000 from General Fund and $105,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
• Upgrade five aging traffic signals
• Combine with safety and operational improvements for all modes
• Possible transit-focused signal improvements on key Frequent Transit Network corridors
This project will remove the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including
steel poles, span wire, signal heads, and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections with mast arm poles,
new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved detection, and left turn phasing, as
needed.
Fluctuations in construction pricing are particularly relevant to this project, with steel tariffs, labor costs, and
overall construction costs all affecting price.
75
600 North Corridor
Transformation
$4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
During the FY22 annual budget, the Council approved adding $1,879,654 into CIP for the upcoming 600 North
Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA
was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding
account. The full amount from the holding account was appropriated for this project.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with recent
construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent years the
Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a safety study of
the 600 North corridor.
$1,879,654
$5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,305,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $0 $5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,291,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $1,879,654
Note: text in blue is information added by Council staff
Totals by Funding Source:
FY2022 CIP Funding Log
Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 22
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
TEL 801-535-6403
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_________________________ Date Received: __________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ______________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 20, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer
801-535-6565
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion on June 15, 2021 in anticipation of
adopting a Bond Resolution for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City Council consider
adopting a Bond Resolution on July 13, 2021 approving the issuance and sale of up to $58,000,000
principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B (the “Bonds”), and
give authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of and confirm the sale of
the Bonds within certain parameters set forth in the attached Bond Resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Tax- Exempt Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021A – $22,490,000:
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the cost of the various capital improvement
projects. The list of the capital improvement projects to be financed by this bond issue is attached.
The City’s Bond Counsel has reviewed the attached list of projects and provided their
recommendations to the tax status of the bonds. The list is color-coded to reflect their responses.
Responses highlighted in green are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Responses highlighted in yellow are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing but have
potential private business use.
rachel otto (May 21, 2021 13:58 MDT)
05/21/2021
05/21/2021
Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
Transmittal to City Council
May 11, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Responses highlighted in red are projects that either have or are likely to have private business use.
The Administration proposes to issue tax-exempt bonds for the projects highlighted in green for the
total of $22,490,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $1,307,595 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
Taxable Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021B - $34,600,000:
The Administration proposes to issue taxable bonds for the projects highlighted in yellow and red for
the total of $34,600,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $2,111,765 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The table below summarizes the proposed bond issue:
NEW MONEY
New Money Project List $57,090,000
Tax-Exempt (green highlight) $22,490,000
Taxable (red & yellow
highlights) $34,600,000
The current plan calls for the Bonds to be sold on August 25, 2021.
An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the authorizing resolution of the City are included for your
review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to change.
The Certificate of Determination will need to be signed by the Mayor and Council Chair or their
respective designees on the afternoon of the date of pricing and sale of the bonds, which is currently
scheduled for August 25, 2021.
Attachments
cc: Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Steven Bagley, Lisa Shaffer, Mathew Cassel, Lorna Vogt,
Cory Rushton, Blake Thomas.
Department Project Dollar Amount Description
Facilities CCB Transformer 2,500,000$ CCB Transformer Need square footage of all buildings served by the transformer. May have
private business use of the portion serving the Leonardo. Depending on private
payments and other private business use, consider financing portion relating to
Leonardo on a taxable basis.
CAN Warm Springs historic
structure stabilization
3,000,000$ Full roof, flashing, drain replacement. Chimney stabilization. Lateral force tier 3 seismic
upgrade. Stucco and window treatment.
Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a
capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Urban Wood Reutilization
Equipment and Storage
Additions
1,700,000$ Storage Building, Equipment Awning, Fencing, Lighting, Utilities to develop a fully
functional Urban Wood Reutilization facility $1,700,000. Horizontal Grinder: Primary
piece of equipment, will produce landscape mulch and EWF playground surface
$1,100,000. Wood Mill: Mill will produce lumber products from urban trees $200,000.
Base on project as described, including usage of wood, entire project is eligible
for tax-exempt financing. Wood sales, if any, should be to general public.
PL Public Lands Multilingual
Wayfinding Signage
1,200,000$ This proposal is for Wayfinding signage throughout the City for the Parks, trails and
natural lands system.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Jordan River Paddle Share
improvements at Exchange
Club Marina 1700 S 7 JR
440,000$
Bond-funded infrastructure includes paddle share lockers (2 locations) with functional life
of 20+ years, reconstruction of Paddle Share/River Access parking with improved
entryway, signage & crosswalk/RRFB pedestrian crossing to existing restroom at 17th
South River Park. Funding for additional paddle-share stations that would compliment
this project is currently being requested from other sources (grants).
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
CAN Fisher Mansion
improvements and
1,500,000$
Concrete, masonry and seismic, thermal and moisture protection.
Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a
capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Allen Park Activation Historic
Structures
1,300,000$ Adaptive re-use/restoration of historic residences in Allen Park to allow them to serve as
artist studio spaces similar to Balboa Park Spanish Village model, with more frequent
rotation of artists & art residencies. Improvements to Allen Park site to accommodate
frequent gallery strolls, art & music festivals, etc. Will it include power source to allow
food trucks, events, etc.? Will full utility upgrades be needed as the structures are now on
septic systems.
Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct
and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is
eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use
and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with
short term exceptions and potentially management contracts (see prior email
and memo).
Trans 600 North Complete Street
Transformation
4,000,000$ A low-cost phase 1 is already funded. Our latest cost estimate shows that we only need
$8.7M, but construction prices keep going up, so that doesn't give much wiggle room. Any
construction that impacts PU? Yes. We have been and will continue to coordinate with
them.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL West Side Neighborhood
Parks
3,400,000$ Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing;
however, repairs could count against 5% working capital limit and there could be
private business use. The City will likely need to actively monitor to ensure
compliance with short term exceptions.
CAN Fisher Mansion restoration 7,500,000$
The full restoration would allow for end uses including community gathering space, venue
for music/art & special events, and potentially a commercial kitchen for food & beverage
service and/or leasable office space.
Leasable office space would create private business use and private payments.
Consider financing office space portion with taxable financing. Other portions of
the project could be financed on a tax-exempt basis since the City will treat the
direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures. The City
would need to monitored to ensure compliance with short term exceptions.
PL Cemetery Road Repairs 1,000,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Foothills Trails System, Phase
II, III, Trailheads & Signage
5,250,000$ See Foothills Trails System Plan for Trails Plan Phase II Scope. Major trailhead project
locations = Victory Road: 670 North Victory Road, Popperton Park: 1375 East Popperton
Park Way, Bonneville Blvd: 675 North Bonneville Boulevard, I Street: 925 Hilltop Road
Emigration: 2755 East Sunnyside. Bathrooms included at Bonneville Blvd, Popperton Park
and Victory Road. No Bathrooms included at Emigration or I Street. Phase III Trails
probably not feasible for construction within 3-year window so are excluded from this
budget and planned for future phase, and very possibly funded through external sources
including grants and private donations.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Ballpark 3,000,000$ 1M-Security & Fencing 1M-Stadium Seating/Stairs Railings 1M Interiors Restrooms &
Elevator Still under evaluation and need additional information, but private business use
is probable as are private payments. Depending on determinations made with
other projects may want to consider taxable financing to provide flexibility.
Quiet Zones 6,100,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Pioneer Park 5,200,000$ Pioneer Park has impact fee funding to develop new components in the park. This funding
would be utilized to rebuild comfort stations (restrooms), take out existing and build new
playground, tennis/pickleball reconstruction and to rebuild the event power for farmers
market and larger scale events. PL has a consultant preparing to start public engagement
in summer of 2021. This project can easily fit in the 3 year time line.
Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct
and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is
eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use
and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with
short term exceptions and any management contract for the concession stand
would need to be reviewed for compliance. May want to consider taxable
financing for the concession stand portion to provide flexibility.
PL Glendale Water Park 10,000,000$ The community's initial requests include a water feature (splash pad, indoor/outdoor pool
etc.) as well as options for open space use including increasing tree canopy, create natural
buffer zones for the river, community open spaces using the site's hills for viewing sheds
and outdoor classrooms. nostalgia-related public art installations to reflect the site’s
original water park use, a food truck court with eating areas, water sports rentals (in
coordination with the Jordan River), and a variety of meeting and seating areas around
the park. The community also has suggested nostalgia-related public art installations to
reflect the sites original water park use, foot truck court, water sports rentals and meeting
/ seating areas around the park, sports courts, recreation fields, perimeter
walking/running trails and an ADA-accessible playground. Lastly the community sees a
connected regional park, similar in scope to Liberty Park or Sugarhouse, connecting the
existing Glendale Park, 1700 South Park, Glendale Golf Course and the former Raging
waters site.
Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing;
however, there could be private business use. The City needs to actively monitor
to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and management contract
guidelines, if applicable.
Total 57,090,000$
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B
(September 16, 2021 )
($57.09M Projects)
Total Issue Sources And Uses
Dated 09/16/2021 | Delivered 09/16/2021
2021A TAX-
EXEMPT
2021B
TAXABLE
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $18,840,000.00 $34,800,000.00 $53,640,000.00
Reoffering Premium 3,759,835.65 -3,759,835.65
Total Sources $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.275%)51,810.00 95,700.00 147,510.00
Costs of Issuance 56,520.00 104,400.00 160,920.00
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 22,490,000.00 34,600,000.00 57,090,000.00
Rounding Amount 1,505.65 (100.00)1,405.65
Total Uses $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65
2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 1
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B
(September 16, 2021 )
($57.09M Projects)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --803,666.50 803,666.50 -
06/30/2022 ----803,666.50
10/01/2022 2,080,000.00 1.593%741,846.00 2,821,846.00 -
04/01/2023 --725,277.50 725,277.50 -
06/30/2023 ----3,547,123.50
10/01/2023 2,115,000.00 1.674%725,277.50 2,840,277.50 -
04/01/2024 --707,577.50 707,577.50 -
06/30/2024 ----3,547,855.00
10/01/2024 2,155,000.00 1.899%707,577.50 2,862,577.50 -
04/01/2025 --687,113.50 687,113.50 -
06/30/2025 ----3,549,691.00
10/01/2025 2,200,000.00 2.202%687,113.50 2,887,113.50 -
04/01/2026 --662,893.50 662,893.50 -
06/30/2026 ----3,550,007.00
10/01/2026 2,250,000.00 2.408%662,893.50 2,912,893.50 -
04/01/2027 --635,808.50 635,808.50 -
06/30/2027 ----3,548,702.00
10/01/2027 2,310,000.00 2.644%635,808.50 2,945,808.50 -
04/01/2028 --605,271.00 605,271.00 -
06/30/2028 ----3,551,079.50
10/01/2028 2,370,000.00 2.800%605,271.00 2,975,271.00 -
04/01/2029 --572,091.00 572,091.00 -
06/30/2029 ----3,547,362.00
10/01/2029 2,445,000.00 2.939%572,091.00 3,017,091.00 -
04/01/2030 --536,162.50 536,162.50 -
06/30/2030 ----3,553,253.50
10/01/2030 2,515,000.00 3.024%536,162.50 3,051,162.50 -
04/01/2031 --498,133.50 498,133.50 -
06/30/2031 ----3,549,296.00
10/01/2031 2,590,000.00 2.752%498,133.50 3,088,133.50 -
04/01/2032 --462,497.25 462,497.25 -
06/30/2032 ----3,550,630.75
10/01/2032 2,665,000.00 2.826%462,497.25 3,127,497.25 -
04/01/2033 --424,843.75 424,843.75 -
06/30/2033 ----3,552,341.00
10/01/2033 2,740,000.00 2.895%424,843.75 3,164,843.75 -
04/01/2034 --385,181.25 385,181.25 -
06/30/2034 ----3,550,025.00
10/01/2034 2,820,000.00 2.965%385,181.25 3,205,181.25 -
04/01/2035 --343,369.75 343,369.75 -
06/30/2035 ----3,548,551.00
10/01/2035 2,910,000.00 3.035%343,369.75 3,253,369.75 -
04/01/2036 --299,207.50 299,207.50 -
06/30/2036 ----3,552,577.25
10/01/2036 3,000,000.00 3.104%299,207.50 3,299,207.50 -
04/01/2037 --252,649.50 252,649.50 -
06/30/2037 ----3,551,857.00
10/01/2037 3,095,000.00 3.171%252,649.50 3,347,649.50 -
04/01/2038 --203,584.00 203,584.00 -
06/30/2038 ----3,551,233.50
10/01/2038 3,195,000.00 3.236%203,584.00 3,398,584.00 -
04/01/2039 --151,891.75 151,891.75 -
06/30/2039 ----3,550,475.75
10/01/2039 3,295,000.00 2.920%151,891.75 3,446,891.75 -
04/01/2040 --103,792.75 103,792.75 -
06/30/2040 ----3,550,684.50
10/01/2040 3,395,000.00 2.981%103,792.75 3,498,792.75 -
04/01/2041 --53,182.75 53,182.75 -
06/30/2041 ----3,551,975.50
10/01/2041 3,495,000.00 3.043%53,182.75 3,548,182.75 -
06/30/2042 ----3,548,182.75
Total $53,640,000.00 -$18,166,570.00 $71,806,570.00 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $615,750.00
Average Life 11.479 Years
Average Coupon 2.9503159%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.3636613%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.2524970%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.1028374%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.2817455%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.1873941%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.474 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 2
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$18,840,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SERIES 2021A (September 16, 2021 )
($22.49M New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --422,391.67 422,391.67 -
06/30/2022 ----422,391.67
10/01/2022 585,000.00 5.000%389,900.00 974,900.00 -
04/01/2023 --375,275.00 375,275.00 -
06/30/2023 ----1,350,175.00
10/01/2023 615,000.00 5.000%375,275.00 990,275.00 -
04/01/2024 --359,900.00 359,900.00 -
06/30/2024 ----1,350,175.00
10/01/2024 650,000.00 5.000%359,900.00 1,009,900.00 -
04/01/2025 --343,650.00 343,650.00 -
06/30/2025 ----1,353,550.00
10/01/2025 680,000.00 5.000%343,650.00 1,023,650.00 -
04/01/2026 --326,650.00 326,650.00 -
06/30/2026 ----1,350,300.00
10/01/2026 715,000.00 5.000%326,650.00 1,041,650.00 -
04/01/2027 --308,775.00 308,775.00 -
06/30/2027 ----1,350,425.00
10/01/2027 755,000.00 5.000%308,775.00 1,063,775.00 -
04/01/2028 --289,900.00 289,900.00 -
06/30/2028 ----1,353,675.00
10/01/2028 790,000.00 5.000%289,900.00 1,079,900.00 -
04/01/2029 --270,150.00 270,150.00 -
06/30/2029 ----1,350,050.00
10/01/2029 835,000.00 5.000%270,150.00 1,105,150.00 -
04/01/2030 --249,275.00 249,275.00 -
06/30/2030 ----1,354,425.00
10/01/2030 875,000.00 5.000%249,275.00 1,124,275.00 -
04/01/2031 --227,400.00 227,400.00 -
06/30/2031 ----1,351,675.00
10/01/2031 915,000.00 4.000%227,400.00 1,142,400.00 -
04/01/2032 --209,100.00 209,100.00 -
06/30/2032 ----1,351,500.00
10/01/2032 955,000.00 4.000%209,100.00 1,164,100.00 -
04/01/2033 --190,000.00 190,000.00 -
06/30/2033 ----1,354,100.00
10/01/2033 990,000.00 4.000%190,000.00 1,180,000.00 -
04/01/2034 --170,200.00 170,200.00 -
06/30/2034 ----1,350,200.00
10/01/2034 1,030,000.00 4.000%170,200.00 1,200,200.00 -
04/01/2035 --149,600.00 149,600.00 -
06/30/2035 ----1,349,800.00
10/01/2035 1,075,000.00 4.000%149,600.00 1,224,600.00 -
04/01/2036 --128,100.00 128,100.00 -
06/30/2036 ----1,352,700.00
10/01/2036 1,120,000.00 4.000%128,100.00 1,248,100.00 -
04/01/2037 --105,700.00 105,700.00 -
06/30/2037 ----1,353,800.00
10/01/2037 1,165,000.00 4.000%105,700.00 1,270,700.00 -
04/01/2038 --82,400.00 82,400.00 -
06/30/2038 ----1,353,100.00
10/01/2038 1,210,000.00 4.000%82,400.00 1,292,400.00 -
04/01/2039 --58,200.00 58,200.00 -
06/30/2039 ----1,350,600.00
10/01/2039 1,255,000.00 3.000%58,200.00 1,313,200.00 -
04/01/2040 --39,375.00 39,375.00 -
06/30/2040 ----1,352,575.00
10/01/2040 1,295,000.00 3.000%39,375.00 1,334,375.00 -
04/01/2041 --19,950.00 19,950.00 -
06/30/2041 ----1,354,325.00
10/01/2041 1,330,000.00 3.000%19,950.00 1,349,950.00 -
06/30/2042 ----1,349,950.00
Total $18,840,000.00 -$8,619,491.67 $27,459,491.67 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $225,240.00
Average Life 11.955 Years
Average Coupon 3.8268033%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.1805479%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.9544659%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4430546%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.9803279%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 1.8125237%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.864 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | 2021A TAX-EXEMPT | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 4
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$34,800,000 TAXABLE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES
2021B (September 16, 2021 )
($34.6M New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --381,274.83 381,274.83 -
06/30/2022 ----381,274.83
10/01/2022 1,495,000.00 0.260%351,946.00 1,846,946.00 -
04/01/2023 --350,002.50 350,002.50 -
06/30/2023 ----2,196,948.50
10/01/2023 1,500,000.00 0.310%350,002.50 1,850,002.50 -
04/01/2024 --347,677.50 347,677.50 -
06/30/2024 ----2,197,680.00
10/01/2024 1,505,000.00 0.560%347,677.50 1,852,677.50 -
04/01/2025 --343,463.50 343,463.50 -
06/30/2025 ----2,196,141.00
10/01/2025 1,520,000.00 0.950%343,463.50 1,863,463.50 -
04/01/2026 --336,243.50 336,243.50 -
06/30/2026 ----2,199,707.00
10/01/2026 1,535,000.00 1.200%336,243.50 1,871,243.50 -
04/01/2027 --327,033.50 327,033.50 -
06/30/2027 ----2,198,277.00
10/01/2027 1,555,000.00 1.500%327,033.50 1,882,033.50 -
04/01/2028 --315,371.00 315,371.00 -
06/30/2028 ----2,197,404.50
10/01/2028 1,580,000.00 1.700%315,371.00 1,895,371.00 -
04/01/2029 --301,941.00 301,941.00 -
06/30/2029 ----2,197,312.00
10/01/2029 1,610,000.00 1.870%301,941.00 1,911,941.00 -
04/01/2030 --286,887.50 286,887.50 -
06/30/2030 ----2,198,828.50
10/01/2030 1,640,000.00 1.970%286,887.50 1,926,887.50 -
04/01/2031 --270,733.50 270,733.50 -
06/30/2031 ----2,197,621.00
10/01/2031 1,675,000.00 2.070%270,733.50 1,945,733.50 -
04/01/2032 --253,397.25 253,397.25 -
06/30/2032 ----2,199,130.75
10/01/2032 1,710,000.00 2.170%253,397.25 1,963,397.25 -
04/01/2033 --234,843.75 234,843.75 -
06/30/2033 ----2,198,241.00
10/01/2033 1,750,000.00 2.270%234,843.75 1,984,843.75 -
04/01/2034 --214,981.25 214,981.25 -
06/30/2034 ----2,199,825.00
10/01/2034 1,790,000.00 2.370%214,981.25 2,004,981.25 -
04/01/2035 --193,769.75 193,769.75 -
06/30/2035 ----2,198,751.00
10/01/2035 1,835,000.00 2.470%193,769.75 2,028,769.75 -
04/01/2036 --171,107.50 171,107.50 -
06/30/2036 ----2,199,877.25
10/01/2036 1,880,000.00 2.570%171,107.50 2,051,107.50 -
04/01/2037 --146,949.50 146,949.50 -
06/30/2037 ----2,198,057.00
10/01/2037 1,930,000.00 2.670%146,949.50 2,076,949.50 -
04/01/2038 --121,184.00 121,184.00 -
06/30/2038 ----2,198,133.50
10/01/2038 1,985,000.00 2.770%121,184.00 2,106,184.00 -
04/01/2039 --93,691.75 93,691.75 -
06/30/2039 ----2,199,875.75
10/01/2039 2,040,000.00 2.870%93,691.75 2,133,691.75 -
04/01/2040 --64,417.75 64,417.75 -
06/30/2040 ----2,198,109.50
10/01/2040 2,100,000.00 2.970%64,417.75 2,164,417.75 -
04/01/2041 --33,232.75 33,232.75 -
06/30/2041 ----2,197,650.50
10/01/2041 2,165,000.00 3.070%33,232.75 2,198,232.75 -
06/30/2042 ----2,198,232.75
Total $34,800,000.00 -$9,547,078.33 $44,347,078.33 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $390,510.00
Average Life 11.222 Years
Average Coupon 2.4447718%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.4692782%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.4424344%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.4136979%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.4739105%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.4447718%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.222 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | 2021B TAXABLE | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 7
Draft of
5/20/21
Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) v3
8709966/RDB/mo
RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2021
A Resolution authorizing the issuance and the sale of not to exceed
$58,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt
basis, for the purpose of financing various City capital improvement
projects; authorizing the execution and delivery of one or more
supplemental trust indentures to secure said bonds; giving authority to
certain officials and officers to approve the final terms and provisions
of the bonds within the parameters set forth herein; authorizing the
taking of all other actions necessary for the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by this resolution; and related matters.
*** *** ***
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), is a duly organized and existing city of the
first class, operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the “State”);
WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City to
issue its sales and excise tax revenue bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt
basis, as hereinafter provided for the purpose of (a) financing all or a portion of the cost of (i)
acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets,
intersections and electrical facilities], as further described in the below defined Supplemental
Indenture, and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital
improvement program projects (collectively, the “Series 2021 Project”); (b) funding any
necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Series 2021 Bonds (defined below)
and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law pursuant to authority contained in the the Local
Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the “Act”), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended (the “Utah Code”), and other applicable provisions of law;
WHEREAS, for the purposes set forth above, the City has determined (a) to issue its Sales
and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $58,000,000 (the “Series 2021 Bonds”) (subject to the further limitations outlined herein)
pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and
supplemented to the date hereof (the “Master Indenture”), a copy of which is attached here as
Exhibit A and one or more Supplemental Trust Indentures (the “Supplemental Indenture”),
between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”) (the
Master Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture are sometimes collectively referred to
hereinafter as the “Indenture”), and (b) to cause the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds
to be applied in accordance with the Indenture;
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act to finance the Series 2021 Project, to enter into
the Supplemental Indenture, and to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to finance all or a portion of the
costs of financing the Series 2021 Project, to fund any necessary reserves, and to pay all related
costs authorized by law;
- 2 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code provides for the publication of a Notice of
Bonds to be Issued (the “Notice of Bonds”) and the running of a 30-day contest period, and the
City desires to cause the publication of such Notice of Bonds at this time in compliance with said
section with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code requires that a public hearing be held to
receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and the
potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private sector and that
notice of such public hearing be given as provided by law and, in satisfaction of such requirement,
the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds (the “Notice of Public Hearing”) pursuant to such Section;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-307(7) of the Utah Code requires the City to submit the question
of whether or not to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to voters for their approval or rejection if, within
30 calendar days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, a written petition requesting
an election and signed by at least 20% of the registered voters in the City is filed with the City;
and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City, it is in the best interests of the City that (a) the
Designated Officers (defined below) be authorized to approve the final terms and provisions
relating to the Series 2021 Bonds and to execute the Certificate of Determination (defined below)
containing such terms and provisions and to accept the offer of the underwriter for the Series 2021
Bonds (the “Underwriter”) for the purchase of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (b) the Mayor, the
Deputy Mayor or the Mayor’s designee (the “Mayor”), be authorized to execute the Official
Statement with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, all as provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows:
Section 1. Issuance of Bonds. (a) For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby
authorized and directed the execution, issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds in one
or more series (with such adjustments to the series designation as are necessary), on a taxable or
tax-exempt basis, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58,000,000. The Series 2021
Bonds shall be dated as of the date of the initial delivery thereof. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be
in authorized denominations, shall be payable, and shall be executed and delivered all as provided
in the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity as
provided in the Indenture.
(b) The form of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the form Supplemental Indenture,
subject to appropriate insertions and revisions in order to comply with the provisions of the
Indenture, is hereby approved.
(c) The Series 2021 Bonds shall be special obligations of the City, payable from and
secured by a pledge and assignment of the Revenues (as defined in the Indenture) received by the
City and of certain other moneys held under the Indenture on a parity with any other Bonds (as
defined in the Indenture) issued from time to time under the Master Indenture, including but not
limited to the City’s (i) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, (ii) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,
- 3 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Series 2013B, (iii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2014A, (iv) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, (v) Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, (vi) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,
Series 2019A and (vii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2019B. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not be obligations of the State or any other political
subdivision thereof, other than the City, and neither the faith and credit nor the ad valorem taxing
or appropriation power of the State or any political subdivision thereof, including the City, is
pledged to the payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not constitute
general obligations of the City or any other entity or body, municipal, state or otherwise.
Section 2. Series 2021 Bond Details; Delegation of Authority. (a) The Series 2021
Bonds shall mature on October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of
Determination) of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the
basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) from the Closing Date, payable
semiannually on April 1 and October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of
Determination) of each year, and at the rates per annum and commencing on the dates, all as
provided in that certain Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
C, of the Designated Officers (defined below) delivered pursuant to this Section 2, setting forth
certain terms and provisions of the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Certificate of Determination”).
(b) There is hereby delegated to the Designated Officers, subject to the limitations
contained in this resolution, the power to determine and effectuate the following with respect to
the Series 2021 Bonds and the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to make such
determinations and effectuations:
(i) the principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds necessary to
accomplish the purpose of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the recitals hereto and the
aggregate principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds to be executed and
delivered pursuant to the Indenture; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the
Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed Fifty-eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000);
(ii) the maturity date or dates and principal amount of each maturity of the
Series 2021 Bonds to be issued; provided, however, that the Series 2021 Bonds mature
over a period of not to exceed twenty-two (22) years from their date or dates;
(iii) the interest rate or rates, which may be taxable or tax-exempt rates, of the
Series 2021 Bonds and the date on which payment of such interest commences, provided,
however, that the interest rate or rates to be borne by any Series 2021 Bond shall not exceed
__________ percent (____%) per annum;
(iv) the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds and the purchase price to be paid by the
Underwriter of such Series 2021 Bonds; provided, however, that the discount from par of
each series of the Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a
percentage of the principal amount);
- 4 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
(v) the Series 2021 Bonds, if any, to be retired from mandatory sinking fund
redemption payments and the dates and the amounts thereof;
(vi) the time and redemption price, if any, at which the Series 2021 Bonds may
be called for redemption prior to their maturity at the option of the City; provided, however,
the first optional redemption date shall not be later than ten and a half years from the date
of delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds;
(vii) the amount of reserves necessary to be maintained in connection with each
series of the Series 2021 Bonds, if any;
(viii) the use and deposit of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds; and
(ix) any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers not
materially in conflict with the provisions of this resolution.
For purposes of this resolution and the Series 2021 Bonds, “Designated Officers” means
(a) the (i) Mayor of the City; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the
Mayor’s Chief of Staff; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the
Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer; or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the
Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the City and
(b) (i) the Chair of the City Council; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair
of the City Council, the Vice Chair of the City Council; or (iii) in the event of the absence or
incapacity of both the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council, any other member of the City
Council.
Following the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Designated Officers shall obtain such
information as they deem necessary to make such determinations as provided above and shall make
such determinations as provided above and shall execute the Certificate of Determination
containing such terms and provisions of such series of the Series 2021 Bonds, which execution
shall be conclusive evidence of the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the
matters stated therein. The provisions of the Certificate of Determination shall be deemed to be
incorporated into this Section 2.
Section 3. Approval and Execution of the Supplemental Indenture. One or more
Supplemental Indentures, in substantially the form of the Thirteenth Supplemental Trust Indenture
attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor is hereby
authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver each Supplemental Indenture on behalf
of the City, and the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered
and directed to affix to each Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and
countersign each such Supplemental Indenture, with such changes to each Supplemental Indenture
from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute
conclusive evidence of such approval. The provisions of each Supplemental Indenture, as
executed and delivered, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. The Master
Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture shall constitute a “system of registration” for all
purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act of Utah.
- 5 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 4. Final Official Statement. A final Official Statement of the City in
substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement presented at this meeting and in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized with such changes, omissions, insertions
and revisions as the Mayor shall deem advisable, including the completion thereof with the
information established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds by the Designated Officers
and set forth in the Certificate of Determination. The Mayor shall sign and deliver a final Official
Statement for distribution to prospective purchasers of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds and
other interested persons. The approval of the Mayor of any such changes, omissions, insertions
and revisions shall be conclusively established by the Mayor’s execution of such final Official
Statement.
Section 5. Preliminary Official Statement to be Deemed Final. The use and distribution
of a Preliminary Official Statement, in substantially the form presented at this meeting and in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized and approved, with such changes,
omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor and the City Treasurer, or the Deputy Treasurer
of the City (the “City Treasurer”), shall deem advisable. The Mayor and the City Treasurer are,
and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such
certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the
issuance, sale and delivery of any Series 2021 Bonds and to deem final each Preliminary Official
Statement within the meaning and for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to completion thereof with the information
established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 6. Other Certificates and Documents Required to Evidence Compliance with
Federal Tax and Securities Laws. Each of the Mayor, the City Recorder or any Deputy City
Recorder and the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to execute (a) such certificates
and documents as are required to evidence compliance with the federal laws relating to the tax-
exempt status of interest on any Series 2021 Bonds and (b) a Continuing Disclosure Agreement,
in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, and such other certificates and documents
as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other applicable federal securities laws.
Section 7. Other Actions With Respect to the Series 2021 Bonds. The officers and
employees of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect
to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action necessary in
conformity with the Act to carry out the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, without
limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered
in connection with the sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds. If (a) the Mayor, (b) the City
Recorder or (c) the City Treasurer shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and
countersign, respectively, the Series 2021 Bonds or the other documents that they are hereby
authorized to execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed, or attested and
countersigned, respectively, (i) by the Chief of Staff, (ii) by any Deputy City Recorder or (iii) by
the Deputy Treasurer of the City. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the officers
and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action as shall be necessary and
appropriate to issue the Series 2021 Bonds.
- 6 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 8. Notice of Bonds to be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder
shall cause the Notice of Bonds, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, to be
published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper published and of general circulation
within the City.
For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds, any
person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this resolution (including the
Supplemental Indenture attached hereto) or the Series 2021 Bonds hereby authorized or any
provisions made for the security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. After such time, no one
shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this resolution
(including the Supplemental Indenture) or the Series 2021 Bonds or any provisions made for the
security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds for any cause.
Section 9. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of
the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the Council on Tuesday, August 17, 2021, during the
Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., which, as determined by the Council Chair, shall be
held either virtually, at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room
315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any
combination thereof, to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of
the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private
sector.
Section 10. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. The City Recorder or any Deputy
City Recorder (the “City Recorder”) shall publish or cause to be published the Notice of Public
Hearing on the Utah Public Notice Website, created under Section 63F-1-701 of the Utah Code,
no less than 14 days before the public hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing shall be in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit H.
Section 11. Form of Petition. The form of the petition to be used by registered voters in
requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds shall be in substantially
the form attached hereto as Exhibit I.
Section 12. Issuance of Bonds After Thirty-Day Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-14-307(7) of the Act, if within thirty days after the publication of the
Notice of Public Hearing by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, a petition or petitions, in
the form specified by Section 11 hereof, are filed with the City Recorder, signed by not less than
twenty percent (20%) of the registered voters of the City (as certified by the County Clerk of Salt
Lake County) requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds, then the
Council shall proceed to call and hold an election on the Series 2021 Bonds. If such election is
held and a majority of the registered voters of the City voting thereon approve the Series 2021
Bonds, then, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City shall thereupon be authorized
to issue the Series 2021 Bonds. If no petition is filed within the thirty-day period after the date of
the final publication of such notice, or if it is determined that the number of signatures on the
petitions filed within the thirty-day period after the date of the final publication of such notice is
less than the required number, the City shall proceed to issue the the Series 2021 Bonds.
- 7 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 13. Sale of the Series 2021 Bonds; Purchase Contract. The Series 2021 Bonds
authorized to be issued herein are hereby authorized to be sold and delivered to the Underwriter,
upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract. The Mayor is hereby authorized,
empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Purchase Contract on behalf of the City in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit G, with such changes therein from the form
attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive
evidence of such approval. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized,
empowered and directed to affix to the Purchase Contract the seal of the City and to attest such
seal and countersign the Purchase Contract.
Section 14. City Recorder to Perform Certain Acts. The City Recorder is hereby directed
to maintain a copy of this Resolution (together with all exhibits hereto), a copy of the Master
Indenture and the form of the Supplemental Indenture on file in the City Recorder’s office (or the
City Recorder’s temporary office, as applicable) during regular business hours 1 for public
examination by registered voters of the City and other interested persons until at least thirty (30)
days from and after the date of publication of the Notice of Bonds and upon request to supply
copies of the form of petition specified in Section 11 hereof.
Section 15. Prior Acts Ratified, Approved and Confirmed. All acts of the officers and
employees of the City in connection with the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds are hereby ratified,
approved and confirmed.
Section 16. Resolution Irrepealable. Following the execution and delivery of a
Supplemental Indenture, this resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until all of the Series 2021
Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged.
Section 17. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this resolution
shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of
such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of
this resolution.
Section 18. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
approval and adoption.
(Signature page follows.)
1 Appointments are encouraged as the temporary office is not occupied during business hours due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
- 8 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 13th day of July
2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
_______________________________________
Chair
Salt Lake City Council
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Recorder
[SEAL]
APPROVED:
By ____________________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By ____________________________________
Senior City Attorney
A-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT A
[ATTACH COPY OF MASTER TRUST INDENTURE]
B-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT B
[ATTACH FORM OF THIRTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE]
C-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT C
[ATTACH FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION]
D-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT D
[ATTACH FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT]
E-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT E
[ATTACH FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT]
F-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT F
NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended, that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which it authorized and
approved the issuance of its sales and excise tax revenue bonds in one or more series, on a taxable
or tax-exempt basis (collectively, the “Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed
$58,000,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed ____% per annum and to mature
not later than 22 years from their date or dates and to be sold at a discount from par not to exceed
2.00%. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other
provisions as are contained in the Master Trust Indenture, described below, and the final form of
the Bonds and a Supplemental Trust Indenture, described below.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of paying all or part
of the cost of (a) (i) acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic
structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities] and (ii) acquiring, constructing,
improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects; (b) funding any
necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Bonds and (c) paying all related costs
authorized by law. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution,
including as part of the Resolution a draft, in substantially final form, of a Supplemental Trust
Indenture, and a copy of the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as heretofor
amended and supplemented (the “Master Indenture”), between the City and Zions
Bancorporation, National Association, a trustee, that were before the Council and attached to the
Resolution at the time of the adoption of the Resolution. The City will cause one or more
Supplemental Trust Indentures to be executed and delivered in such form and with such changes
thereto as certain designated officers of the City shall approve, provided that the principal amount,
interest rate or rates, maturity and discount, if any, will not exceed the respective maximums
described above.
The repayment of the Bonds will be secured by a pledge of the legally available revenues
from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2,
Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City Code);
(b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1,
Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt Lake City
Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of Salt Lake
City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City
pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to
Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities received
by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected
pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees associated with
cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20 (collectively,
the “Pledged Taxes”).
F-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
The City currently has $102,490,000 par amount of bonds or notes currently outstanding
that are secured by the Pledged Taxes. More detailed information relating to the City’s outstanding
bonds can be found in the City’s most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that is
available on the Office of the Utah State Auditor’s website (www.sao.state.ut.us).
Assuming a final maturity for the Bonds of approximately 21 years from the date hereof
and that the Bonds are issued in an aggregate principal amount of $__________ and are held until
maturity, based on the City’s currently expected financing structure and interest rates in effect
around the time of publication of this notice, the estimated total cost to the City of the proposed
Bonds is $__________.
A copy of the Resolution (including the draft of the Supplemental Trust Indenture and a
copy of the Master Indenture attached to the Resolution) may be examined by appointment at the
temporary office of the City Recorder located at Plaza 349, 349 South 200 East in Salt Lake City,
Utah, during regular business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. To schedule an appointment
please call (801) 535-7671. Additionally, a protected, pdf copy of the Resolution may be requested
by sending an email to the City Recorder at SLCRecorder@slcgov.com. The Resolution shall be
so available for inspection for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of the
publication of this notice.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of thirty (30) days from and
after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest
the legality of the Resolution (including the Supplemental Trust Indenture attached thereto) of the
City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the
Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality
or legality of the Resolution, the Bonds or the provisions for their security or payment for any
cause.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By ____________________________________
City Recorder
[SEAL]
G-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT G
[ATTACH FORM OF PURCHASE CONTRACT]
H-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT H
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE
SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”)
of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”), calling for a public
hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and
improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical
facilities] and acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital
improvement program projects (collectively, the “Project”) and the potential economic impact
that the Project will have on the private sector, pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act,
Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”).
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of (1) financing all or a portion of the
costs of the Project, (2) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the
Bonds, and (3) paying the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds.
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Fifty-
eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000) to finance the Project. The Bonds may be issued with other
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds being issued for other purposes so the principal amount may
exceed the amount listed above to finance the costs of the Project.
SALES TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED
The City proposes to pledge to the payment of the Bonds all of the legally available
revenues from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter
12, Part 2, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake
City Code); (b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt
Lake City Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to
Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of
Salt Lake City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by
the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant
to Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities
received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and
collected pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees
associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20.
H-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City will hold a public hearing during its City Council meeting which begins at
7:00 p.m. on August 17, 2021. The public hearing will be held either virtually, at the regular
meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building,
451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any combination thereof, as determined by the
Chair of the City Council. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the
public hearing in the manner that will be described in the agenda for the meeting. Written
comments may be submitted to the City, to the attention of the City Recorder, prior to the public
hearing.
PURPOSE FOR HEARING
The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance
of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE PETITION TO HOLD AN ELECTION
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code, if within 30
calendar days of the publication of this notice on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public
Notice Website, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least twenty percent
(20%) of the registered voters of the City is filed with the City, then the City shall submit the
question of whether or not to issue the Bonds to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection.
If no written petition is filed or if fewer than 20% of the registered voters of the City sign
a written petition, in either case, within 30 calendar days of the posting of this notice on July __,
2021, the City may proceed to issue the Bonds without an election.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By ____________________________________
City Recorder
I-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT I
PETITION
To: City Recorder
Salt Lake City, Utah
We, the undersigned citizens and registered voters of Salt Lake City, Utah, respectfully
request that an election be called by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, to authorize the
issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in a maximum
principal amount not exceeding $58,000,000, as to which notice of intention to issue was published
on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, pursuant to the provisions of a
resolution passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on July 13, 2021, and each for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this
petition; I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Utah; my residence and post office address are
correctly written after my name:
I-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
WARNING
It is a felony for any one to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any other name
than one’s own, or knowingly to sign one’s name more than once for the same measure, or to sign
such petition when one knows that he or she is not a registered voter.
REGISTERED VOTER’S PRINTED
NAME (MUST BE LEGIBLE TO BE
COUNTED)
SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED
VOTER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE,
ZIP CODE
[The following certification shall appear on the reverse side of each page
[attached to the Petition containing the signature of voters]
I-3 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
STATE OF UTAH )
: ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, _________________________, of _____________________, hereby certify that I am a
registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, that all the names which appear on this
sheet were signed by persons who professed to be the persons whose names appear thereon, and
each of them signed his or her name thereto in my presence, I believe that each has printed and
signed his or her name, and written his or her post office address and residence correctly, and that
each signer is a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 2021.
Notary Public (or other official title)
Signature:
Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com
2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)]
Division (Priority) / App Ref Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score
72 displayed 2 not included (Duplicates)60,584,684.35
T7 Division of Transportation / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent)900,000.00 6 to 0 18.17
T13 Division of Transportation / 1700 South Corridor Transformation (Redwood to 300 W)363,150.00 7 to 0 18.14
P2 Public Lands / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 420,000.00 6 to 0 17.57
P1 Public Lands / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 3,200,000.00 7 to 0 17.07
E5 Engineering / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 300,000.00 7 to 017
T12 Division of Transportation / Transportation Safety Improvements 500,000.00 7 to 017
E3 Engineering / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 750,000.00 6 to 0 16.8
C20 Sugar House Community Council / Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000.00 6 to 0 16.31
T11 Division of Transportation / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 16.29
F1 Fire / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 318,278.75 7 to 0 16.26
C5 Public Lands / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design 150,736.00 7 to 0 16.2
T2 Division of Transportation / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad Crossing (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 016
E2 Engineering / Pavement Condition Survey 175,000.00 7 to 0 15.85
T3 Division of Transportation / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 15.83
F4 Fire / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 694,784.80 6 to 0 15.79
P10 Public Lands / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 440,000.00 6 to 0 15.79
T10 Division of Transportation / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent)1,045,000.00 6 to 0 15.74
C4 Public Lands / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank Stabilization)490,074.00 5 to 0 15.7
T6 Division of Transportation / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4 Cent)215,000.00 6 to 0 15.67
F2 Fire / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop 374,863.94 6 to 0 15.57
T1 Division of Transportation / 200 South Transit Transformation (Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent)3,261,900.00 6 to 0 15.33
T4 Division of Transportation / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar House (1/4 Cent) 500,000.00 6 to 0 15.33
C6 Sugar House Park Authority / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace 183,834.00 6 to 0 15.31
P5 Public Lands / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report 475,000.00 6 to 0 15.29
F3 Fire / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop 815,894.86 5 to 0 15.29
C12 Public Lands / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts 99,680.00 6 to 0 15.21
T8 Division of Transportation / Neighborhood Byway Design & Construction (1/4 Cent) 1,045,000.00 5 to 0 15.17
E6 Engineering / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000.00 5 to 1 14.8
T9 Division of Transportation / 900 South Signal Improvements (900 South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 500,000.00 6 to 0 14.67
C17 Poplar Grove Community Member / 700 S Westside Road Reconfiguration 514,450.00 5 to 0 14.67
T14 Division of Transportation / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic Signal Upgrades 1,050,000.00 6 to 0 14.33
T5 Division of Transportation / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent) 856,042.00 5 to 1 14.29
P13 Public Lands / Jordan Park Looped Pathways 510,000.00 7 to 0 14.14
P12 Public Lands / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition 425,000.00 6 to 1 14.14
P11 Public Lands / Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682.00 7 to 0 14.07
C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility Renovation 500,000.00 4 to 2 14.03
E8 Engineering / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River) 3,000,000.00 6 to 014
C22 Ballpark Community Council / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ 500,000.00 4 to 114
E7 Engineering / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.87
FA3 Public Services Facilities Division / Streets Steam Bay 363,495.00 6 to 0 13.87
P3 Public Lands / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 610,000.00 6 to 1 13.86
C15 Engineering / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 449,315.00 5 to 1 13.85
T15 Division of Transportation / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece (1850 East)350,000.00 5 to 1 13.6
E1 Engineering / Street Improvements 2021/2022 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.4
C1 Tracy Aviary / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and bath house.156,078.00 5 to 1 13.31
C21 Public / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming 400,000.00 3 to 2 13.2
P6 Public Lands / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000.00 5 to 1 13.07
C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming 595,194.00 4 to 2 12.9
P14 Public Lands / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion Replacement 690,000.00 6 to 0 12.86
C11 Wingate Village Townhomes / Wingate Walkway 286,750.00 5 to 1 12.86
C7 Liberty Hills Tennis / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center 202,100.00 3 to 3 12.83
P9 Public Lands / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks 1,393,600.00 6 to 0 12.79
C23 N/A / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford 200,000.00 4 to 2 12.71
C9 Wasatch Community Gardens / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community Garden 103,500.00 4 to 2 12.43
C24 Citizen / Sugar House Safe Side Streets 500,000.00 5 to 1 12.31
P15 Public Lands / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement, and design development 225,000.00 3 to 2 12.29
C16 David B. Troester / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways 1,158,422.00 4 to 1 12.17
C8 Liberty Hills Tennis / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers 300,000.00 4 to 2 12.14
C13 Public Lands / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New Tree Planting 500,000.00 4 to 1 12.1
FA1 Public Services Facilities Division / Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla 5,860,449.00 4 to 1 11.83
C3 Liberty Hills Tennis / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D 500,000.00 2 to 3 11.77
P8 Public Lands / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1) 3,838,000.00 5 to 1 11.62
C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk 72,739.00 4 to 1 11.43
P17 Public Lands / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape Improvements 650,000.00 4 to 2 11.29
P16 Public Lands / Regional Athletic Complex Playground 450,000.00 5 to 1 11.17
E4 Engineering / Logan Avenue Reconstruction 1,405,000.00 4 to 211
E9 Engineering / Wingpointe Levee Design 800,000.00 5 to 1 10.55
FA2 Public Services Facilities Division / Delong Salt Storage Facility 1,504,427.00 5 to 1 9.43
C19 Streets and Sanitation / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction 1,311,920.00 2 to 4 8.43
C10 Ballpark Community Council / 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 100,000.00 1 to 5 7.67
P7 Public Lands / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and Knowledge 790,000.00 4 to 2 7.43
P4 Public Lands / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation 765,325.00 3 to 3 6.86
1
8
2
9
4
ATTACHMENT 6 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost
Estimate
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CFP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CFP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CFP
and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CFP. A high
alignment would indicate the CFP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CFP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CFP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 4/20/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 421,062$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,002,114$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,435,142$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,125,188$ D
14,983,506$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,105$ Current Month
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,718$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,718$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 14,542$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,656$ -$ -$ -$ 78,656$
Notes
^1
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
1/26/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $104k in the next 9 months without offsetting expenditures
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 4/20/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
ValuespSum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation
p Sum of Police AllocationCrime lab rent 8417001 -$ 118$ -$ (118)$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ A
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$
Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,512,316$ 289,499$ 71,246$ 2,151,572$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 6,966$ 3,941$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 13,145$ 949,764$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ 39,697$ 133,320$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 6,388$ 1,213$ 42$
337 Community Garden, 337 S 40 8416002 277$ -$ -$ 277$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 470$ 296$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 270$ 786$ C
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 19,702$ 64,364$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ -$ 6,589$ 20,411$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 16,546$ 50,034$ 59,025$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 407,516$ 37,648$ 70,081$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ -$ 257,265$ 92,736$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ 875$ 101,381$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 35,506$ 51,934$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 574,709$ 4,080$ 148,211$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 10,285$ 57,026$ 282,939$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ 979$ -$ 326,699$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ 9,165$ 2,088$ 388,747$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ -$ -$ 540,732$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 46,474$ 33,569$ 1,065,351$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 274,321$ 46,898$ 3,120,981$
Grand Total 11,415,868$ 1,512,215$ 794,781$ 9,108,873$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 32,718$ 8,309$ -$ D
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,821$ 1,539$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 142,326$ 69,591$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ 6,020$ 61,182$ 57,798$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 69,002$ 56,815$ 84,935$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 1,264$ 8,990$ 137,658$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ -$ -$ 152,500$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 15,688$ 235,628$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 213,551$ 607,870$ 2,036,669$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 681,222$ 3,382,117$ 5,228,908$
Total 24,384,609$ 2,496,081$ 5,197,908$ 16,690,620$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8,435,142$
5,125,188$
14,983,506$
8484002
8484003
8484005
421,062$
$1,002,114
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000
Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000
4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000
8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K
Site Master Plan $50K - $75K
City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K
Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000
Playground Improvements $150K - $250K
Native soil field $150,000
Sand-based field $400,000
Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000
Patch, repair and paint $150,000
New post tension court $250,000
Hand-built natural surface single track trail (18"-30"
wide)$6-12/LF
Machine-built natural-surface trail (4-6’ width)$20-25/LF
Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF
Concrete Trail $4.50/SF
Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF
Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K
Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+
Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350
Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K
Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles =
1.5 actual miles)500,000+
Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual
mile) 2,000+
Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000
Traffic Signals - New 250,000$
Traffic Signals - Upgrades 250,000$
HAWK Signals 130,000$
Crosswalk - Flashing 60,000$
Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights 25,000$
Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of
road $15K - $25K
Driver Feedback Sign 8,000$
Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)280,000$
Crack Seal (Lane Mile)5,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)500,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M
Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)4$
Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10
Streets
Drinking Fountains
Multi-purpose Field Improvements
Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts)
Path/ Trail Improvements
Transportation
Regular CIP Project Costs
General Rules of Thumb
NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (which may be
out of date), vary by project, and do not include on-going maintenance.
Parks
Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work)
Studies
Funding
Source
Cost
Center Description Remaining
Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status?
8317057 Deteriorated Sidewalk 2,237.00$
8318061 900 West Neighborhood nodes an 46,728.00$
8318062 Deteriorated or Missing Concre 5,987.00$
8318063 Jordan River Parkway 181,571.00$
8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C 112,658.00$
8317361 Street Reconstruction Improv 49.00$
8314031 Driver Feedback Signs 86,320.00$
8314033 SugarHouse Circulation 96,736.00$
8317030 Sugar House Park Roadway Maint 24,836.00$
8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program 20,841.00$
8317033 Paver Crosswalks Reconstructio 33,392.00$
8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru 14,522.00$
8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp 38,047.00$
8318154 1300 E Class C 443,879.00$
8310077 Regional Sports Complex Donati 3,154.00$
8314094 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp 8,598.00$
8314100 900 S Oxbow 619.00$
8314103 Warm Springs Park Master Plan 223.00$
8314104 Genesee Trailhead Acquistion 229,927.00$
8314105 Fisher Mansion Carriage House 102,751.00$
8315083 Wakara Way/Arapeen Dr Donation 35,566.00$
8317064 Jordan River Trail - Union P 500,000.00$
8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap 6,989.00$
8315073 City Cemetery Master Plan 25,740.00$
8316026 Six Traffic Signal Upgrades, 9 1,452.00$
8316031 Fairmont Park Pond Restoration 3,097.00$
8316041 PPL Deferred Maintenance, City 2,309.00$
8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 104,210.00$
8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W 13,195.00$
8316085 Contingency 100,000.00$
8317017 Recreation/Open Space GO Bond (16,584.00)$ Why is this negative?
8317024 Sorenson Multicultural Center 27,452.00$
8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction 455,159.00$
8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements 17,269.00$
8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh 128,823.00$
8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH 79,995.00$
8317055 Capital Facilities Plan 4,928.00$
8317096 Fire Station #3 2,200.00$ General Fund
Dontions
Class C
CDBG
8318027 Public Way Concrete Restoratio 40,413.00$
8318028 Bridge Maintenance 77,132.00$
8318033 Concrete Rehab 3,431.00$
8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails 109,235.00$
8318046 Warm Springs Restrooms 12,993.00$
8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway 272,091.00$
8318048 Miller Park ADA access 371,369.00$
8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control 7,023.00$
8318050 Artesian Well Park Redevelopme 1,332.00$
8318054 Fairmond Salt Storage 7,111.00$
8318055 9 Line Central Ninth 152,500.00$
8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP 110,104.00$
8318085 Computer Rm Cooling Units 40,787.00$
8318087 Ball Field Lights 2,979.00$
8318097 Percent for Art 98,161.00$
4,251,536.00$
General Fund
TOTAL of ALL SOURCES
CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
FY 2021-22 PROJECTS OVERVIEW A-1
FY 2021-22 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY A-2
DEBT SERVICE CIP
DEBT SERVICE CIP B-1
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND B-4
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER FUNDS B-5
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-1
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-1
ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-1
GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-17
PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-21
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS E-41
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page has been intentionally left blank
Capital Improvement Program Overview
Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital
expenditures needed to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. Two elements guide the City in
determining the annual schedule of infrastructure improvements and budgets. This includes the current
fiscal year's capital budget.
Salt Lake City’s FY 2021-22 budget appropriates $703,068,753 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C”
Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private
funds. The Salt Lake City Council considers their input in determining which projects will be
recommended for funding in this budget. The Enterprise Fund recommendations are consistent with
each respective business plan. These plans were developed in cooperation with the respective advisory
boards and endorsed by the Administration. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City fund
recommendations are consistent with Board policy. All grant-related CIP recommendations are
consistent with applicable federal guidelines and endorsed by the Administration.
Capital Improvement Program Book (CIP Book)
Salt Lake City’s FY2021-22 budget presents all CIP projects in its own document, the CIP book. By creating
and providing City Council a CIP book the City believes it will provide more clarity and transparency
regarding the recommended capital improvement projects. Major General Fund projects Transportation
Infrastructure, Local Street Reconstruction, ADA Improvements and Sidewalk Rehabilitation for the
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and capital improvement of deteriorated streets city-wide, total
appropriation of $11,090,091 is proposed. Of this amount the budget appropriates $3,653,052 general
fund, $2,046,329 of Class “C” fund, $4,900,000 transportation tax, and 491,520 of Impact Fee funds.
Projects include traffic signal upgrades, transportation safety improvements, and pedestrian and
neighborhood byway enhancements.
Parks, Trails and Open Space Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement proposed budget
includes a total appropriation of $7,786,889 from various funding sources. Projects include various
improvements in Jordan Park, Pioneer Park, RAC, Poplar Park, Three Creeks, Sugar House, Glendale Water
park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park. Liberty Park, Pioneer Park, Warm Springs Park, Memory Grove Park,
Poplar Park, Taufer Park, Cottonwood Park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park.
Public Facilities Public Facilities' capital improvement proposed budget includes a total appropriation of
$1,252,230 is for improvements a Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program to retire deferred capital
replacement projects that are long overdue.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-1
Deb
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Debt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2012A Bond 333,514 333,514
Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond 530,801 530,801
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond 744,951 744,951
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond 2,009,296 2,009,296
Sales Tax Series 2019 A Bond 366,151 366,151
Sales Tax Series 2022 Bond 3,657,667 3,657,667
B & C Roads Series 2014 975,377 975,377
ESCO Debt Service to Bond 896,500 896,500
ESCO Steiner Debt Service 0
ESCO Parks Debt Service 0
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
Debt Service Projects Total 8,538,880 0 975,377 984,133 0 0 10,498,390
Ong
o
i
n
g
Ongoing Projects
Crime Lab 560,869 560,869
Facilities Maintenance 350,000 350,000
Parks Maintenance 250,000 250,000
Ongoing Projects Total 1,160,869 0 0 0 0 0 1,160,869
Oth
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Other Ongoing
Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES 200,000 200,000
Public Services- Smiths Ballfield 154,000 154,000
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner 148,505 148,505
Public Services - Memorial House 68,554 68,554
Other Ongoing 0 0 0 0 0 571,059 571,059
Maintenance Funded Projects
Mai
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Multimodal Street Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 21,429 278,571 300,000
Trails Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Maintenance Funded Projects Total 21,429 278,571 0 0 400,000 0 700,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-2
New
C
I
P
New/Maintenance Projects Total
Kensington Byway Ballpark 500,000 500,000
400 South Viaduct Trail 310,000 90,000 500,000 900,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 317,792 35,300 353,092
A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 416,667 416,667
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component 3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 400,000 444,400
Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 75,000 675,000 750,000
Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000 85,000
Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 6,223 312,056 318,279
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 172,000 200,000
Pavement Conditions Survey 3,571 171,429 175,000
Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 349,026 84,307 433,333
Urban Trails 6,500 1,038,500 1,045,000
Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 484,146 484,146
Area Studies 201,000 201,000
Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop 374,864 374,864
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 415,800 453,222
Local Link Construction 50,000 450,000 500,000
Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove and Replace 183,834 183,834
Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 354,167 354,167
Liberty Park Basketball Court 99,680 99,680
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 940,500 1,045,000
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000 70,000
700 South Westside Road Configuration 223,450 291,000 514,450
900 South Signal Improvements 96,500 233,500 70,000 100,000 500,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 282,200 307,598
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-3
New
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation 300,000 300,000
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Street Improvements 2021/2022 2,046,329 2,046,329
Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations 51,700 104,378 156,078
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
Capital Asset Replacement Program 1,252,230 1,252,230
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
New Projects Total 4,249,391 3,176,129 2,046,329 7,291,970 4,500,000 0 21,263,819
Cost Overrun 88,514 71,600 160,114
Percent for Art 66,386 53,700 120,086
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/CDBG Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects.
14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 571,059 34,474,337
Other Capital Improvement Programs
CDB
G
City Infrastructure Projects ( CIP Engineering/Transportation)
SLC Transportation-route 4 Frequent Transit Route 322,000 322,000
Total CDBG 322,000 322,000
Air
p
o
r
t
Airport CIP Projects
Pump House #5 Renovations 928,000 928,000
Pump Station & Diversion Valve 1,300,000 1,300,000
Gate 39 Reconstruction 165,000 165,000
North Cargo Apron Development 25,605,000 25,605,000
Taxiway F Reconstruction 580,000 580,000
Taxiway P, N, & H3 Pavement 1,620,000 1,620,000
Taxiway Q Pavement Rehabilitation 1,646,000 1,646,000
Bureau of Land Management Access Road 1,660,000 1,660,000
Bureau of Land Management Apron 2,731,000 2,731,000
Landside Lighting Wire Replacement 1,566,000 1,566,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-4
Air
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 219,500 219,500
Roadway Entrance feature and Landscape 250,000 250,000
GA Zone 3 Corporate Hangar Site Develop 1,205,000 1,205,000
Terminal Redevelopment Program 164,849,000 164,849,000
North Concourse Program 186,614,000 186,614,000
Total Airport CIP Projects 390,938,500 390,938,500
Gol
f
Golf CIP Projects
Maintenance Equipment 257,575 257,575
Range Improvements 177,836 177,836
Tee Box Leveling 60,000 60,000
Total Golf CIP Projects 495,411 495,411
Pub
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Public Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements 18,019,000 18,019,000
Treatment Plant Improvements 7,350,000 7,350,000
Deep Pump Wells 1,630,000 1,630,000
Meter Chang-Out Programs 2,500,000 2,500,000
Water Service Connections 2,950,000 2,950,000
Reservoirs 1,650,000 1,650,000
Pumping Plants and Pump Houses 1,550,000 1,550,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 1,533,000 1,533,000
Distribution Reservoirs 2,350,000 2,350,000
Landscaping 68,000 68,000
Treatment Plants 191,045,826 191,045,826
Collection Lines 32,405,000 32,405,000
Lift Stations 2,685,000 2,685,000
Storm Drain Lines 7,362,500 7,362,500
Riparian Corridor Improvements 250,000 250,000
Detention Basins 50,000 50,000
Landscaping 168,000 168,000
Storm Water Lift Stations 700,000 700,000
Street Lighting Projects 2,240,000 2,240,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects 276,506,326 276,506,326
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-5
RDA
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects
Station Center Infrastructure 332,179 332,179
Total RDA CIP Projects 332,179 332,179
Sus
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Total Sustainability CIP Projects
No Projects 0
Total Sustainability CIP Projects 0 0
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP 668,594,416 668,272,416
GRAND TOTAL 14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 669,165,475 703,068,753
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-6
Salt Lake City
Impact Fee Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT Parks Impact Fee Streets Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Fire Impact Fee TOTAL
Imp
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
Impact Fee Projects
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
400 South Viaduct Trail 90000 90,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 35,300 35,300
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component
3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 44,400
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 28,000
Urban Trails 6,500 6,500
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 37,422
Local Link Construction 50,000 50,000
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 104,500
900 South Signal Improvements 70,000 70,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 25,398
SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
Total Impact Fee by Type 6,800,450 491,520 — 984,133 8,276,103
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-7
Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects FY 2022
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Fund Impact Fee Total
Unf
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Constituent 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 3000 S Highland Dr to 1500 E 449,315 449,315
Engineering Logan Ave Reconstruction Logan Avenue from 1700 East to 2000 East and 2000 East from 1700 South to Bryan Avenue
1,405,000 1,405,000
Engineering Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)200 South over Jordan River (Approx. 1220 West 200 South)
3,500,000 3,500,000
Engineering Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over Jordan River)
400 South & 650 North over Jordan River 3,000,000 3,000,000
Engineering Wingpointe Levee Design Jordan River Surplus Canal between 3700 West North Temple Drive and Terminal Drive
800,000 800,000
Constituent Three Creeks West Bank Roadways 1300 S. 1000 W.1,158,422 1,158,422
Facilities Delong Salt Storage 719 S Delong St 1,504,427 1,504,427
Facilities Steam Bay 1910 West 500 South 363,495 363,495
Fire Mixed-Use Three Story Prop 1600 South Industrial Rd.815,895 815,895
Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 1600 South Industrial Rd.694,785 694,785
Constituent Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Valdez Drive 72,740 72,740
Constituent Winner on Wasatch Dee Glan Tennis Court Construction
1216 S. Wasatch Drive 500,000 500,000
Constituent Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center
1105 S Constitution Dr.202,100 202,100
Constituent Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing
1105 S Constitution Dr.300,000 300,000
Constituent Harrison Ave and 700 E Community Garden 1300 S. 700 E.103,500 103,500
Constituent 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 1300 South between Main and West Temple 100,000 100,000
Constituent Wingate Walkway 475 N. Redwood Road 286,750 286,750
Constituent 1200 East Median 1200 East bet. So. Temple & 200 S. and 300 S & 500 S.500,000 500,000
Parks & Public Lands Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation
2740 South 2700 East 765,325 765,325
Parks & Public Lands Enhancement of the Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge
200 N Street 790,000 790,000
Parks & Public Lands Cemetery Roadway Improvements, Phase 1 200 N Street 3,838,000 3,838,000
Parks & Public Lands 9Line and Rose Park Asphalt Pump Tracks 700 West 900 South & 900 North Cornell Avenue 1,393,600 1,393,600
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-8
Unf
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Parks & Public Lands Richmond Park Playground and Park improvements
440 East 600 South 690,000 690,000
Parks & Public Lands Library Square Feasibility, Civic Engagement and Design Development
Block 37, bounded by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East
225,000 225,000
Parks & Public Lands Donner & Rotary Glen Park Community Park Irrigation & Landscape Design and Construction
2850 East Sunnyside & 2903 E Kennedy Drive 650,000 650,000
Constituent Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Various 595,194 595,194
Constituent Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction
Harvard Ave bet. 1300 & 1500 East 1,311,920 1,311,920
Constituent Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues (600 East to 700 East) and 600 East (Kensington Ave to 1700 South)
400,000 400,000
Constituent Stratford Bike Crossing 1700 E. Stratford 200,000 200,000
Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets 900 East on the west, 2100 South on the south, 1100 East on the east, and Garfield Avenue on the north
500,000 500,000
Transportation Sunnyside 9Line Trail Missing Piece 1805 to 1851 East Sunnyside Avenue.350,000 350,000
Transportation Multimodal Intersections & Signals Various 945,000 105,000 1,050,000
Total Unfunded CIP Projects 27,016,868 1,498,600 28,515,468
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-9
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-10
This page has been intentionally left blank
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$333,514 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
June 2012 10/1/2032 RDA
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of constructing
and improving various City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North
Temple Boulevard. The bonds were issued with a par amount of $15,855,000. As of June 30, 2021,
$10,845,000 in principal remains outstanding.
The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt
service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The Series
2012A bonds mature on October 1, 2032.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$530,801 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
November 2013 10-01-2033 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of
financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar, and to pay for a portion of various improvements to
create a “greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000. As of June 30,
2021, $5,470,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2033.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$744,951 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
September 2014 10-01-2034 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of
acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property and roads.
The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2021, $8,430,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2034.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-1
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,009,296 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
June 2016 10-01-2028 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of
the Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the
acquisition, construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building
for use as City offices and other capital improvements within the City.
Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on
the Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. The refunding resulted in a net present
value savings of $2,363,890.47 for the City. As of June 30 2021, $17,910,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2028.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$366,151 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
December 2019 04-01-2027 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a
portion of the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX
Extension to the Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown.
The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. The refunding resulted in a net present
value savings of $299,661 for the City. As of June 30, 2021, $2,095,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
April 1, 2027.
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$975,377 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
August 2014 04-01-2024 Class C
The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of
constructing and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West,
and 17th South Street from State Street to 700 East.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-2
The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2021, $2,820,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on April 1, 2024.
ESCO Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$82,850 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund
This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division.
ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County
$148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs
of this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment.
ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$517,200 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks.
Crime Lab Improvements Capital Lease Debt
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$118,300 Capital Lease March 2015 September 2021 General Fund
This capital lease provided the funding for the improvements to the leased space for the Crime Evidence Lab.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$500,900 LBA Lease Revenue
Bonds
March 2016 04-15-2037 Impact Fees
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series
2016A in March 2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14
Project.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2021, $5,755,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-3
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds
mature on April 15, 2037.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$483,233 LBA Lease Revenue
Bonds
April 2017 04-15-2038 Impact Fees
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
in April 2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project.
The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2021, $7,555,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND
Crime Lab Rental Payments
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$560,869 General Fund
Yearly Rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab
Facilities Maintenance
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$350,000 General Fund
The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop
problems early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building
stock.
Parks Maintenance
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$250,000 General Fund
The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop
problems early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-4
Percent for Art
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$120,086 General Fund
To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures and other works of art. (1% of CIP)
Cost overrun
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$160,114 General Fund
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER SOURCES
Smith Ballfield Naming Rights
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$156,000 Other -Donations
Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming
rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing
the deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 27 yrs. old.
CIP Memorial House
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$68,554 Other - Rental
A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the
use of the funding is to be determined.
Real Estate Services – Surplus Land
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$200,000 Other – Surplus
Land
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-5
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B
2021 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
Don’t need for CIP Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
October 2019 04-01-20 RDA
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the
purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and
related improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B.
The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable
to pay any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it.
The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of
$6,396,905. As of June 30, 2021, $57,740,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1 beginning in 2020. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1.
The bonds mature on April 1, 2038.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-6
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-3
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-4
This page intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-3
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-4
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-5
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-6
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-7
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-8
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-9
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-10
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-11
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-12
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-13
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-14
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-15
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-16
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-17
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-18
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-19
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-20
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-21
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-23
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-24
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-25
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-26
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-27
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-28
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-29
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-30
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-31
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-32
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-33
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-34
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-35
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-36
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-37
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-38
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-39
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-40
This page has been intentionally left blank
The Department of Airports
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any
general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of
Airports has 610.8 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and
promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel
experience.
The Fiscal Year 2022 budget continues to show financial impacts due to COVID-19. The Salt Lake City
International Airport, along with all other airports in the U.S. and abroad, has been acutely impacted by
the broad-based economic shutdown resulting from efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including
reductions in flights and declines in passenger volumes. The Airport continues to look for ways to control
costs and provide airline and concession relief through the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) grant as well as the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation ACT
(CRRSAA) grant. These grants will offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing
fee and terminal rents charged in FY22. While the American Rescue Plan has been passed, no allocations
or awards have been made at this time and are not reflected in the Airports FY22 budget. While
passenger demand continues to increase on a monthly basis, the Department of Airports will act
prudently in managing the FY22 budget and look for ways to continue to save operating and capital
expenses where feasible and look for ways to strengthen our revenues.
The developed FY22 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits while facing challenges of
decreased passengers and revenues. The Department of Airports will continue to fund important capital
projects while deferring non-critical projects to preserve cash and liquidity. These projects include the
Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which will improve
ongoing operations, create jobs, and provide economic stimulus to the City’s and State’s economy.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-3
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-4
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-5
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-6
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-7
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-8
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-9
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-10
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-11
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-12
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-13
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-14
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-15
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-16
The Salt Lake City Golf Division
The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding
cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess
revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have
limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund
was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward
building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds have not been
released for use as the fund balance has been needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund
deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division has proposed increasing the Golf CIP Fund
from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the
Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The projected increase
for the final six months of FY22 from the proposed increase is $124,800.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will
be using $257,575 in FY 2022 to purchase additional, mostly used equipment (lease-return equipment
from high-end private courses).
The Golf Division will be focusing on making improvements to the driving ranges and practice areas
located at five of our six locations and have allocated $177,866 from the Golf CIP Fund for solid-surface
hitting stations with artificial turf hitting mats along with new dispensers/washers.
The Golf Division will be undergoing a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling
a number of tee boxes at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY22 from the Golf CIP Fund for
materials and equipment rentals.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-17
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-18
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-19
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-20
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water,
and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund
these activities. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue
bonds, and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation
Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the
services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were
developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these
assets requires long term project and financial planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year
2022, the department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on
existing projects. Some planned capital improvement projects initially anticipated for FY2021 were
deferred and reprioritized to FY2022 and beyond. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in
the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the
largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging
problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment
plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Alternatives from a recently completed condition
assessment for all three plants are being evaluated. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that
Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water
rights and exchange agreement obligations.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-21
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-23
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-24
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-25
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-26
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-27
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-28
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-29
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-30
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-31
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-32
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-33
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-34
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-35
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-36
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-37
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-38
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-39
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-40
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) works to revitalize neighborhoods and commercial
districts that experience disinvestment. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial, planning, and
revitalization tools to support redevelopment projects that encourage economic investment, assist in the
housing for low-and moderate-income households, and help implement Salt Lake City’s Master Plan. The
RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income
revenue, depending on the specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned
infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that
anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval
process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects
costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the
City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2022 budget proposes only one
potential City public infrastructure project. The Station Center infrastructure project is an allocation for
the construction and upgrading of utilities and infrastructure surrounding the Agency’s properties in the
Depot District. This project is currently being designed in conjunction with the City’s Transportation and
Engineering Departments.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-41
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-42
Item B6
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR ADOPTING CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE
Motion 1 –
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance setting the
Consolidated Fee schedule for Fiscal Year 21-22.
Motion 2 –
I move that the Council close the public hearing and not adopt the Consolidated Fee
Schedule.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Potential Action: July 13, 2021
Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 1
Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule
This document shows fees charged by Salt Lake City to offset regulatory and administrative service
costs. Although most City fees are shown, this consolidated fee schedule does not show penalties,
such as fines and late fees; court fees; credit card processing fees; or fees required by a city
contract, such as concession and franchise fees. It also may not show fees authorized by
administrative rules or a general delegation of authority. The City intends that future versions of
this document will show such fees.
Fees are generally listed by City department and the associated service. References to a "section" in
the comments column means a section of the Salt Lake City Code. The code may be accessed by
going to Sterlingcodifiers.com
More than one fee may apply to a given set of circumstances. For answers to questions, please call
the number shown at the top of each section.
The fees here may change. The current consolidated fee schedule may be accessed by clicking
here. The fee schedule was originally adopted by Ordinance 2011-25 and has been subsequently
amended by:
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 2
Amended By:Code Sections Affected:
Ordinance 2011-44
5.04.070 5.48.030 5.76.120 5.76.120 15.16.090
5.09.010 5.56.040 5.90.010 5.90.010 17.16.670
5.14.040 5.60.030 6.16.030 6.16.030 17.72.030
5.16.060 5.61.120 12.56.170 12.56.170 17.81.200
5.16.180 5.64.280 12.56.210 12.56.210 18.44.030
5.37.080 5.70.040 14.52.030 14.52.030
5.42.030 5.74.080 15.16.031 15.16.031
Ordinance 2011-75 15.16.031
Ordinance 2012-3 8.04.065 8.04.070
Ordinance 2012-6 8.06.010
Ordinance 2012-27 18.98.190
Ordinance 2012-44
9.08.030 15.16.090 16.56.050 16.60.120
12.56.170 16.12.140 16.56.090 17.04.030
12.56.240 16.12.150 16.56.100 17.16.670
15.16.020 16.12.155 16.56.130 17.16.680
15.16.031 16.12.160 16.56.150 17.64.040
15.16.035 16.12.170 16.56.170 17.72.030
15.16.060 16.12.180 16.56.180 18.44.030
15.16.080 16.12.190 16.60.110 21A.64.010
Ordinance 2012-54 8.04.135
Ordinance 2012-69 15.16.090
Ordinance 2012-93 17.90.020 17.95.300
Ordinance 2013-17 15.16.010 15.16.110
Ordinance 2013-28 2.12.040 3.02.020
Ordinance 2013-37 2.75.040
Ordinance 2013-38 3.16.050
Ordinance 2013-39 03.02.030 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2013-40 3.16.040
Ordinance 2013-42 15.16.020
Ordinance 2013-43 12.96.025
Ordinance 2013-51 15.24.290
Ordinance 2014-10 18.98.190 17.81.400
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 3
Ordinance 2014-27 17.16.590 17.16.670
Ordinance 2014-41
Annual CPI Adjustment 2.12.040 3.50.020 5.16.090
5.51.027 15.16.090 15.24.120 18.98.090 18.98.160
3.16.005 12.56.600 15.16.120
Ordinance 2014-50 15.16.031 15.16.035
Ordinance 2014-51 15.16.031
Ordinance 2014-55 21A.06.030 21A.46.120
21A.06.050 21A.50
Ordinance 2015-01
Ordinance 2015-44
Ordinance 2015-65 5.04.070 5.15.020
Ordinance 2015-72 9.08.030 9.08.115 9.08.140 9.08.200
Ordinance 2016-01 12.96.025
Ordinance 2016-10 21A.16.010
Ordinance 2016-41 2.61.030
Ordinance 2016-43 15.16.090
Ordinance 2016-44
Ordinance 2016-45 15.16.031 15.16.035
Ordinance 2016-46 Authority to Set Municipal Fees
Ordinance 2016-49 09.08.030 15.16.090
Ordinance 2016-58 5.63.050
Ordinance 2016-79 18.98.020 18.98.050
Ordinance 2017-09 12.56.00 12.28.095
Ordinance 2017-11 15.16.031 15.16.035
Ordinance 2017-22 15.16.031
Ordinance 2017-38 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2017-52 Federal Trade Zone
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 4
Ordinance 2018-11 9.08.200
Ordinance 2018-25 18.58.010
Ordinance 2018-34 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2018-42 14.56.060 14.56.070
Ordinance 2019-06 18.98.020 18.98.120 18.98.160
Ordinance 2019-10 16.60.065 16.64.030
Ordinance 2019-21 8.04.390
Ordinance 2019-30 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2019-31
Ordinance 2019-32 12.56.550 12.56.580
Ordinance 2019-55
Ordinance 2020-26 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2020-30
Ordinance 2020-53 18.48.100
Ordinance 2021-Annual CPI Adjustment
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 5
Consolidated Fee Schedule
Table of Contents
Page(s)
Airport 7 - 8
Animal Services 8
Building Rental/Use: City and County Building, Washington Square, Public Safety Building
and Pioneer Precinct 8
Business Licensing 8 - 11
Cemetery 11
Community Development 12 - 18
Economic Development 18
Engineering 18 - 19
Fire 19 - 20
Gallivan Center 20
Golf 20 - 23
HAND - Housing and Neighborhood Development 23
Impact Fees 23
Parking and Traffic 23 - 25
Police 24 - 29
Public Lands 25 - 24
Records and Elections 29
Refuse 29 - 30
Sanitary Sewer Utilities 30 - 33
Special Events 33 - 35
Storm Water 35
Street Lighting 35
Water 35 - 52
Watershed Recreational 52
Zoning Fees 53 - 54
General Fund Miscellaneous Fees 54
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 6
Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule
AIRPORT
For questions regarding Airport Fees Contact: 801-575-2721
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Aircraft Parking Fees
Daily
Less than 12,500 pounds (U42 - SVRA)$10.00 Ramp and tie down parking 16.56.100
12,500 pounds to 44,999 pounds (U42 - SVRA)$30.00 Ramp and tie down parking 16.56.090
Tooele Valley Airport (TVY)$15.00 Ramp and tie down parking 16.56.100
Aircraft parking fees exemption: Any person engaging in air transportation services having an assigned gate hold
Aeronautical Services
Aircraft rental permit $250.00 Annual, per rental aircraft 16.56.090
Aircraft sales permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.100
Commercial flight service permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.130
Commercial Flight service aircraft owner permit $250.00 Annual, per aircraft in addition to
Commercial Flight Service Permit Fee 16.56.130
Flight training permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.150
Flight training aircraft owner permit $250.00 Annual, per aircraft in addition to flight
training owner permit fee 16.56.150
Airframe and/or Power Plant Repair $250.00 Annual 16.56.170
Radio, instrument or propeller repair service permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.170
Hangar Application Wait List Fee $150.00 $50 refundable 16.56.050
Miscellaneous business permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.050
Multiple aeronautical services
Any person desiring to engage in two (2) or more commercial aeronautical
activities is responsible for payment of all fees as established for each
aeronautical activity engaged in; however, fees for owned aircraft (as the
term "owner" is defined in Section 16.04.30 of this title), will be assessed for
one (1) aeronautical activity only.
16.56.180
Any Person offering any such services, or combinations thereof, shall do so under written lease or permit agreement with the City. For exemptions and other information, see Section 16.56.010.
AVI Fees (Automated Vehicle Identification)
Vehicle Category Fee
1 to 5 passengers Set forth in current rate
schedule based on
Administrative Rules and
Regulations
16.60.110;16.60.120
6 to 9 passengers Rates established by Administrative Rules and Regulations (See Ground
Transportation Rules and Regulations, Section 2.0); also see the current rate
schedule.
10 to 15 passengers
16 to 24 passengers
> 24 passengers
Campus Dwell Time
30 minutes No Cost 16.56.090
30-45 minutes $2.00 16.56.100
45-60 minutes $10.00 16.56.090
Every 5 minutes over 60 minutes $20.00 16.56.100
Terminal Front Dwell Time 16.56.090
0-20 minutes No Cost 16.56.100
20-30 minutes $3.00 16.56.090
30-40 minutes $20.00 16.56.100
Every minute over 40 minutes $5.00 16.56.090
Cargo Carrier Ramp Use Fees Formula based See Section 16.12.170 16.12.170
Fuel Royalties $0.06 per gallon of fuel For provisions, see Section 16.12.190 16.12.190
Landing Fees
Fixed-wing aircraft Formula based See Section 16.12.160 16.12.160
For Landing Fee Exemptions: See Section 16.12.160
Off Airport In-Flight Caterers 7% of gross sales at airport Paid within 15 days of the end of each month, see
Section 16.12.155 for provisions 16.12.155
Parking
Economy Lot
First hour $5 12.56.240
Each additional hour $5 12.56.240
Daily maximum $10 12.56.240
Click N Park Daily $3 12.56.240
Hourly/Daily (Parking Garage)
First hour $5 12.56.240
Each additional hour $5 12.56.240
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 7
Daily maximum $35 12.56.240
Walking Lot
First hour $5 12.56.240
Each additional hour $5 12.56.240
Daily maximum $21 12.56.240
Concierge
Daily rate only $55 12.56.240
Terminal use Fees*
Annual terminal space rental Formula based See Section 16.12.150
Annual basement & baggage make-up space Formula based See Section 16.12.150 16.12.140
Common use bag claim Formula based Per enplaned passenger 16.12.150
Common use ticket counter and bag make-up space Formula based Per use/ Use equals 3 hours Rates established by Administrative
Rules and Regulations; also see the
current rate schedule.
Common use gates Formula based Per use/ Use equals 3 hours
Common use boarding bridge Formula based Per use/ Use equals 3 hours
Use of international arrival building Formula based Per passenger deplaned
*Terminal use fee exemption: Any airline that has a valid and existing agreement
with the City covering use of bag claim and terminal facilities.
ANIMAL SERVICES
Note: Salt Lake City contracts with Salt Lake County for Animal Services.
Animal service fees are set and administered by Salt Lake County.
http://slco.org/animal-services/about-us/fees-and-services/
For questions regarding Animal Service Fees Contact: 385-468-7387
BUILDING RENTAL/USE: CITY and COUNTY BUILDING, WASHINGTON SQUARE, PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING and PIONEER PRECINCT
For questions regarding Building and Square fees Contact: 801.535.7280
Service Fee Deposit Additional Information Section
Activity with food $789 $485 15.14.020
Filming (Commercial)
Fewer than 8 staff, crew and other persons $303 $607 Each 4 hour block 15.14.020
8 - 15 staff, crew and other persons $595 $893 Each 4 hour block 15.14.020
More than 15 staff, crew and other persons $1,273 $1,820 Each 4 hour block 15.14.020
Filming (Religious or Charitable)As defined in Section 15.14.010
Fewer than 8 staff, crew and other persons No Charge $607 15.14.020
8 - 15 staff, crew and other persons No Charge $910 15.14.020
More than 15 staff, crew and other persons No Charge $1,809 15.14.020
Miscellaneous Meetings
Regular city business hours (8am - 5pm)$26/hr $91 Up to 40 people, no more than three hours 15.14.020
Non-city business hours $26/hr $91 See Section 15.14.020 15.14.020
Supplemental Charge for Exclusive Building Use 121 NA 15.14.020
Wedding Ceremony
Base fee for two hours $176 $91 No food 15.14.020
See Section 15.14.010 for damage and deposit provisions, additional fees and exceptions.
BUSINESS LICENSING
For questions regarding Business Licensing Fees Contact: 801-535-6644
Service Fee Additional Information Section
All Businesses pay a Base License Fee and Employee Fee as listed below
Base License Fees
Before Sept' 21 Effective Sept' 21
Home occupation businesses $124 $126 5.04.070
Non-home occupations $157 $159 5.04.070
Employee Fee $23 $23 Annual, per full or part-time employee, if business has
more than one employee.
Additional fees may apply depending on type of business according to list below
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 8
Before
Sept' 21
Effective
Sept' 21
Fees with an effective date other than July 1, 2011 are
indicated by two columns.
Amusement Devices $4 $4 Annual, per device 5.70.040
Amusement Devices Wholesale $27 $27 Annual 5.76.120
Apartment Units (until 9/1/2011)See Rental Dwelling 5.90.010
Application for Certificates
Public convenience and necessity $137 $139 5.05.130
Auctioneer $134 $136 Per auctioneer 5.16.060
Auction House, Transient $253 $257 Per day, per business 5.16.180
Automobiles
Auto Dealers New/Used $61 $62 Annual 5.76.120
Parts sales $115 $117 Annual 5.76.120
Auto/RV/Other Rental Agencies $27 $27 Annual 5.76.120
Auto/Truck & Mechanic Related Services $61 $62 Annual 5.76.120
Towing / Wrecking $21 $21 Annual 5.76.120
Automobile Towing/Wrecking $20 $20 Annual 5.76.120
Automobile Trailer Court Refer to base license fee listed in this section Annual per trailer, per space on premises, see section 5.86.056 5.86.056
Financial Institution $129 $132 Annual 5.76.120
Beer Sales Before Sept' 21 Effective Sept' 21
Retail Beer $320 $325 Annual, per license 5.90.010
Restaurant $253 $257 Annual, per license 5.90.010
Bar Tavern $358 $363 Annual, per license 5.90.010
Special Event $253 $257 Annual, per license 5.90.010
Microbrew pub $253 $257 Annual, per license 5.90.010
Recreational facility beer $320 $325 Annual, per license 5.90.010
Beer Sales Application Fee No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 6.08.110
Billiards/Pool Tables $4 $4 Annual, per device 5.70.040
Billiards/Pool Tables - Pool Hall $24 $25 Annual 5.76.120
Business License Transfers
Information Change - Non Regulated $18 $19 5.02.210
Information Change - Regulated $42 $43 5.02.210
Childcare Facilities $134 $136 Annual 5.76.120
Clothing Sales $101 $103 Annual 5.76.120
Construction Business $27 $28 Annual 5.76.120
Convalescent and Retirement Facilities $161 $164 Annual 5.76.120
Reception/Venue Centers $20 $21 Annual 5.90.020
Dance Studio Refer to base license fee listed in this section 9.04.050
Dance
Restaurant Refer to base license fee listed in this section 9.04.170
Tavern Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 9.04.170
Private Club Refer to base license fee listed in this section 9.04.170
Dance Hall - Public Dance Hall Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 9.04.040
Dating/Marriage Service $107 $109 Per Business 5.42.030
Dry Cleaning and Laundry $134 $136 Annual 5.76.120
Electronic Goods Sales $161 $164 Annual 5.76.120
Consulting $27 $27 Annual 5.76.120
Entertainment
Concert $94 $95 Annual, per exhibition room 5.90.010
Dance hall $20 $21 Annual, per room 5.90.010
Live entertainment No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.90.010
Theater, live $134 $136 Annual, per exhibition room 5.90.010
Theater, motion picture No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.90.010
Fire and Damaged Goods Sales No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.32.025
Fireworks
Inside $83 $84 Annual, per location 5.90.010
Outside $83 $84 Annual, per location 5.90.010
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 9
Fireworks Sales Refer to base license fee listed in this section Paid at least 10 days prior to opening of business. See also 2.120.040 under Fire 9.20.020
Furniture Sales $61 $62 Annual 5.76.120
Gas/Oil, Wholesale Gas $273 $278 Annual 5.90.010
Gas/Oil, Wholesale Businesses $27 $27 Annual 5.76.120
Gasoline Stations $158 $160 Annual 5.76.120
Government Owned Alcohol Related Business $179 $182 Annual 5.90.010
Grocery/Convenience Stores $134 $136 Annual 5.76.120
Hardware Stores $134 $136 Annual 5.76.120
Healthcare Related $48 $48 Annual 5.76.120
Ice Cream Truck Vehicle Inspection $31 $31 5.64.740
Ice Cream Truck Operator Application Fee No more than $31 5.64.580
Ice Cream Vendors $34 $35 Annual 5.90.010
Design Services $27 $27 Annual 5.76.120
Cleaning/Janitorial $74 $76 Annual 5.76.120
Legal Services/Law Office $21 $21 Annual 5.76.120
Licenses Requiring a Special Public Hearing $61 $62 Plus actual costs 5.02.240
Liquor Consumption $27 $28 Annual, per license 6.16.030
Live Entertainment
Concerts $20 $21 5.76.120
Private Club Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 5.28.080
Restaurants Refer to base license fee listed in this section 5.28.080
Taverns Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 5.28.080
Locksmiths No Charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.90.010
Manufacturing $48 $48 Annual 5.76.120
Miscellaneous Services $26 $27 Annual 5.76.120
Motion Picture Theaters $98 $99 Annual 5.76.120
Numismatic and/or Bullion Dealer Refer to base license fee listed in this section See Section 5.47.030 5.47.030
Nursing Home Refer to base license
fee listed in this section See Section 5.86.306 5.86.306
Out of Doors - Restaurants & Occasional Banquets No Charge For occasional banquets, fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.54.040
Participant License Fee Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 5.64.330
Pawnshop and Secondhand Dealer
Pawnbroker $1,679 $1,706 Annual, per business 5.48.030
Secondhand compact disk exchange dealer $504 $512 Annual, per business 5.60.030
Secondhand computer exchange dealer $224 $227 Annual, per business 5.60.030
Pedi-cabs No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.90.010
Private Club
Bar Establishment $449 $457 Annual, per business 5.90.010
Banquet & Catering $287 $292 Annual 5.90.010
Proprietor $43 $44 Per automatic amusement device 5.12.050
Real Estate Agencies $20 $21 Annual 5.76.120
Rental Dwelling - Before 9/1/2011 Formula based See section 5.14.040 5.14.040
Rental Dwelling License with Good Landlord Certification - Effective 9/1/2011 (Per Ordinance)
Dwelling units $20 Per rental unit 5.14.040
Fraternities, sororities, rooming and boarding
house $20 Per room for lodging or sleeping purposes 5.14.040
Rental Dwelling License without Good Landlord Certification - Effective 9/1/2011 (Per Ordinance)
Dwelling units $342 Per rental unit 5.14.040
Fraternities, sororities, rooming and boardinghouse $342 Per room for lodging or sleeping purposes 5.14.040
Restaurants/Cafeterias $101 $103 Annual 5.76.120
Retail/Wholesale Sales $48 $48 Annual 5.76.120
Retail Service Station Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 5.86.410
Room Rentals (rooming houses, boarding houses and for profit residential treatment facilities)
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 10
Boarding/rooming house $6 $6 Annual, per rental unit 5.56.040
Hotel $6 $6 Annual, per rental unit 5.56.040
Motel $6 $6 Annual, per rental unit 5.56.040
RV Parks and Campgrounds $26 $27 Annual 5.76.120
Scrap Metal Processor Refer to base license
fee listed in this section See Section 5.58.030 5.58.030
Sexually Oriented Business
Adult business $387 $393 Annual, per business 5.61.120
Nude agency $1007 $1023 Annual, per business 5.61.120
Nude entertainment business $387 $393 Annual, per business 5.61.120
Semi-nude dance agency $389 $396 Annual, per business 5.61.120
Semi nude dancing bar $299 $303 Annual, per business 5.61.120
Outcall agency $1,343 $1,364 Annual, per agency 5.61.120
Adult employee (non-escort)$236 $240 Annual, per employee 5.61.120
Outcall non-performer (non-escort)$236 $240 Annual, per employee 5.61.120
Nude performer employee*$269 $273 Annual, per nude performer; for prorated formula see
Section 5.90.010 5.61.120
Semi-nude dance performer*$269 $273 Annual, per semi-nude performer; for prorated formula see Section 5.90.010 5.61.120
Semi-nude performer employee*$269 $273 Annual, per semi-nude performer; for prorated formula
see Section 5.90.010 5.61.120
Outcall performer (escort)*$1007 $1023 Annual, per outcall performer; for prorated formula see section 5.90.010 5.61.120
Sexually oriented business transfer $94 $96 Annual, per performer transfer 5.61.120
Photography (adult)$188 $191 Annual, per photographer 5.61.120
*These fees shall be prorated as follows: If 180 days or fewer remain before the employer's license expires, the fee shall be 50% of the full fee. If 181 or more days
remain before the employer's license expires, the full fee shall be charged
Shared Mobility per Device $30 $30 Per device
Shared Mobility per Ride $0.10 $0.10 Per ride
Mailing/Shipping/Logistics $48 $48 Annual 5.76.120
Solicitor $134 $136 Per Individual 5.64.280
Solicitor ID Card $31 $31 For period of time stated on card 5.64.130
Solicitor Registration $18 $18 For ID card 5.64.430
Special Event - Alcohol Concession Agreement $278 $282 This fee is a daily rate. Rate estimated on the number of
days the alcohol would be served for the Special Event
Sporting Goods Sales $48 $48 Annual 5.76.120
Storage/Warehouse $61 $62 Annual 5.76.120
Theater, Concert Hall, Motion Picture House or Other Place
of Amusement $61 $62 Per day 5.74.080
Temporary Merchant Refer to base license fee listed in this section See Section 5.64.310 5.64.310
Tobacco Products - Retail Sales $115 $116 Annual, includes grocery and convenience stores,
taverns, private clubs, hotels, motels and restaurants.5.76.120
Tobacco Sales Refer to base license fee listed in this section Annual 5.86.480
Towing Operations
Refer to base license
fee listed in this
section
5.84.140
Unmanned Kiosks $47 $47 Redbox, Best Buy, Etc
Vehicle Authorized Certificate
Refer to base license
fee listed in this
section
5.72.170
Wrecker Service Refer to base license fee listed in this section 5.84.040
CEMETERY
For questions regarding Cemetery fees Contact: 801.596.5020
Service Fee Additional Information Section
After Hours Surcharge
After 4PM any day $211 Per hour 15.24.290
Saturday $364 Per day 15.24.290
Sunday or holiday $540 Per day 15.24.290
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 11
Burial Rights Adult Infant
Resident $913 $604 15.24.120
Non-resident $1,491 $950 15.24.120
Continuing Care Fees Adult Infant
Resident $309 $155 15.24.120
Non-resident $540 $272 15.24.120
Cremains
Burial:15.24.290
Residents $368 15.24.290
Non-residents $647 15.24.290
Removal $587
Marker Monitoring
Ground level $74 15.24.290
Upright $147 15.24.290
Opening and Closing
Single grave:Adult Infant
Residents $735 $440 Infant: 5' in length or less 15.24.290
Non-residents $1,284 $771 Infant: 5' in length or less 15.24.290
Removal of remains $1,468 $735 15.24.290
Double deep grave:Lower Grave Top Grave
Residents $881 $735 15.24.290
Non-residents $1,542 $1,284 15.24.290
Burial on top of open grave $87 15.24.290
Winter fee - grave opening $300 15.24.290
Winter fee - cremains $50 15.24.290
Fort Douglas cemetery $1,249 15.24.290
Jewish cemetery $1,134 15.24.290
Removal and lowering Adult Infant
Resident $2,203 $1,615 15.24.290
Non-resident $2,717 $1,983 15.24.290
Transfer of Burial Rights $45 15.24.180
Continuing care on property transfer Adult Infant 15.24.180
Resident $304 $152 15.24.180
Non-resident $532 $268 15.24.180
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS (CAN)
For questions regarding Community Development fees Contact: 801.535.6000
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Boarding or Securing of Buildings
Done by city $121 Plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.110 18.48.110
Initial (first year)$849 Each Structure 18.48.140
Plumbing permit to install external irrigation hose bib, if required $7 18.48.140
Annual Fee $1,456 Per each structure, due on or before boarding permit anniversary 18.48.180
City maintenance of building $206 Annual, plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.270 18.48.270
City maintenance of landscaping $206 Annual, plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.270 18.48.280
City removal of snow $206 Annual, plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.270 18.48.290
Building Permits
Total project valuation:
$0.01 - $500.00 $44.98 18.32.035
$500.01 - $2,000.00
$44.98 for the first $500 plus $4 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000
18.32.035
$2,000.01 - $25,000.00
$104.98 for the first $2,000 plus $20 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
18.32.035
$25,000.01 - $50,000.00
$564.98 for the first $25,000 plus $14 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
18.32.035
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 12
$50,000.01 - $100,000.00
$914.98 for the first $50,000 plus $10 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
18.32.035
$100,000.01 - $500,000.00
$1,414.98 for the first $100,000 plus $8 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
18.32.035
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00
$4,614.98 for the first $500,000 plus $7 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000
18.32.035
$1,000,000.01 and up
$8,114.98 for the first $1,000,000 plus $5 for each additional $1,000 or fraction there of and above
18.32.035
Demolition Landscaping Waivers
Property inspection $134 If waiver is denied, this fee will be refunded 18.64.030
Pre-demolition salvage permit 20% of demolition fee See Section 18.64.080 18.64.030
Demolition Permit Application Fees
Building floor area:
5 - 2,000 sq. feet $81 18.64.030
2,001 - 4,000 sq. feet $94 18.64.030
4,001 - 6,000 sq. feet $108 18.64.030
6,001 - 8,000 sq. feet $148 18.64.030
8,001 - 10,000 sq. feet $161 18.64.030
10,001 - 12,000 sq. feet $202 18.64.030
12,001 - 14,000 sq. feet $242 18.64.030
14,001 - 16,000 sq. feet $282 18.64.030
16,001 - 18,000 sq. feet $322 18.64.030
18,001 - 20,000 sq. feet $356 18.64.030
20,001 - 22,000 sq. feet $403 18.64.030
22,001 - 24,000 sq. feet $457 18.64.030
24,001 - 26,000 sq. feet $497 18.64.030
26,001 - 28,000 sq. feet $551 18.64.030
28,001 - 30,000 sq. feet $605 18.64.030
30,001 - 32,000 sq. feet $652 18.64.030
Square feet over 32,000 $14 Per 500 sq. ft. unit 18.64.030
Electrical Permits (Commercial and Industrial)
Minimum fee (up to $1,600)$32 18.36.120
Base Fee $47 18.36.100
New service or change of service Alterations or repairs of 600 volt or less capacity service entrance equipment 18.36.120
Up to 100 amps $32 18.36.120
101 amps to 200 amps $32 18.36.120
Each additional 100 amps or fraction $5 18.36.120
Motor generator installation for emergency or standby power
Up to 500 kVa $116 18.36.120
Above 500 kVa $172 18.36.120
Alternate fee schedule - Bids Under $100,000
Electrical work up to $10,000 .0166 of total valuation When a fee cannot be computed on the standard schedules, it shall be computed as outlined in this section up to, but not exceeding, $100,000 18.36.120
Electrical work between $10,001 and $100,000 Bid minus $10,000 multiplied by .0039 + 136
When a fee cannot be computed on the standard schedules, it shall be computed as outlined in this section up to, but not exceeding, $100,000 18.36.120
Electrical Permits - Work Exceeding $100,000
Work exceeding $100,000 but less than $250,000 $484 Plus $0.4252 of 1% over $100,000 18.36.130
Work exceeding $250,000 $1,128 Plus $0.1452 of 1% all work at $250,000 or more 18.36.130
Electrical Permits (Residential)
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 13
Base Fee $47 18.36.100
Minor remodel and additional circuits $32 18.36.100
Service change with 1 or 2 new circuits $32 18.36.100
Service change or alteration $32 18.36.100
Homeowner electrical remodel permit $39 18.36.100
New single family dwelling
Up to 1,500 sq. feet $0.0480 Per square foot 18.36.100
Above 1,500 sq. feet $0.0328 Per square foot 18.36.100
Total renovation of electrical systems
Existing single family dwelling $32 18.36.100
Multi-unit apartment building*
1 or 2 units $32 18.36.100
3rd and 4th units $13 Each 18.36.100
Additional units including house meter $6 Each 18.36.100
Note: Projects including multi buildings or row houses shall be computed for each building or house separately.
*New Multi-unit apartments (excluding transient occupancies, such as hotel or motel which are classified as commercial)
First 3 unit $0.054 Per sq. foot 18.36.100
4 - 10 units $13 Each 18.36.100
11 units and above $6 Each 18.36.100
Projects including multiple buildings and/or row houses Computed for each building or house separately
Power panel with no issue for single occupancy buildings $12 18.36.100
Power to panel for construction purposes only
60 Days 30 Day Extension
No issue fee $24 $8 18.36.100
Individual apartments in an apartment building, or condominium
units nor for occupancy $5 Each additional meter 18.36.100
Electrical Temporary Metering
Up to 100 amp load capacity $21 18.36.100
Each additional, or part thereof, 100 amp capacity $5 18.36.100
Fencing Permit $38 18.36.100
Fire Extinguishing Systems
Base Fee $47 18.36.100
Automatic fire sprinklers in range hood or vent $6 18.56.040
Dry standpipe $16 Plus $3 each outlet 18.56.040
Fire pump $48 Each 18.56.040
Fire sprinkler systems:
1 to 100 sprinkler heads $40 18.56.040
Over 100 sprinkler heads $41 Plus $0.1398 per head 18.56.040
Flow switch $8 Each 18.56.040
Hood extinguishing system $40 Each 18.56.040
Hydrants on private property $13 Each 18.56.040
Tamper valve $8 Each 18.56.040
Underground piping $21 18.56.040
Water storage tank $16 Each 18.56.040
Wet standpipe $16 Each, plus $2 each hose cabinet 18.56.040
Fire Suppression and Monitoring Equipment Inspection Fees
Underground water main for water-based fire suppression
Water supply line for fire suppression system to three fire hydrants $347 18.44.030
Each additional supply line or fire hydrant $116 18.44.030
Water-based fire suppression systems tenant improvements
Change of existing fire sprinkler system from 0 to 3,000 square foot area $116 18.44.030
Each add'l 1 to 52,000 square foot area added $116 18.44.030
New water-based fire suppression systems
Up to 26,000 square feet $347 18.44.030
26,001 to 52,000 square feet $695 18.44.030
Each add'l 1 to 52,000 square feet on single floor added $232 18.44.030
New interlock and non-interlock pre-action water-based fire suppression systems per riser
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 14
New dry pipe system with fire sprinkler heads: 1,000 heads or less $348 (Detection system is additional)18.44.030
Per additional 1 to 500 heads $116 (Detection system is additional)18.44.030
Standpipe Class III basic, 30 to 74 feet (fee is in addition to fire sprinkler fee)
Per standpipe $174 (Detection system is additional)18.44.030
Standpipe Class III high rise, 75 to 150 feet (fee is in addition to fire sprinkler fee)
Per standpipe $232 18.44.030
Each additional 1 to 50 feet in height $116 18.44.030
Standpipe Class I basic
One automatic wet standpipe, 30 to 74 feet in height $347 18.44.030
Each additional wet standpipe $116 18.44.030
Automatic dry or semi-automatic dry add to the above basic fee $58 18.44.030
Standpipe Class I high rise, 75 to 150 feet (fee is addition to fire sprinkler fee)
Two automatic wet standpipes per standpipe (7 hours initial)$405 18.44.030
Each additional 1 to 50 ft in height, per standpipe $116 18.44.030
Standpipe Class II
Two class II hose outlets are required by code, supply from automatic fire sprinkler system $116 18.44.030
Each additional pair of class II hose outlet added to any system $29 18.44.030
Water supply separate riser system (FDC) add $116 18.44.030
Fire extinguishing system hoods
CO2, wet chemical, dry chemical and clean gas extinguishing agents $232 18.44.030
Hood systems, per hood $116 18.44.030
Fire alarm systems for monitoring
Clean gas systems $347 18.44.030
Fire alarm notification devices in all occupancies except A, with voice over:
Horn and strobe for notification 1 to 26,000 square feet $232 18.44.030
Horn and strobe for notification 26,001 to 52,000 square feet $347 18.44.030
Horn and strobe for notification 52,001 to 250,000 square feet $579 18.44.030
Horn and strobe for notification 250,001 to 500,000 square feet $695 18.44.030
Horn and strove for notification > 500,001, individually determined, per review hour $116 18.44.030
Each additional 1 to 50 feet in height $116 18.44.030
With voice control and emergency voice/alarm communications system add to above 1 to 50 square feet $116 18.44.030
Fire pumps
For structures requiring a fire pump to include jockey pumps either internal combustion driven or electric $637 18.44.030
Paint booths $347 per booth 18.56.040
Addition to an existing system $116 18.44.030
Re-inspection of fire suppression and monitoring equipment $114 per hour of inspector time
In the event that the fire suppression and monitoring equipment does not pass the first scheduled inspection, for whatever reason, subsequent re-inspections shall be billed to the applicant
18.56.040
Housing Inspections
Existing single-family dwelling Not more than $27 18.48.030
Additional dwelling units on premises $12 Each 18.48.030
Loan Subordination $54 2.61.030
Mechanical Permits
Base Fee $47 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of each forced air or gravity type furnace
or burner Including ducts or vents attached to such appliance
Up to and including 200,000 BTU.h $24 18.52.050
Over 200,000 BTU.h up to and including 300,000 BTU.h $34 18.52.050
Over 300,000 BTU.h up to an including 1,000,000 BTU.h $53 18.52.050
Over 1,000,000 BTU.h $53 18.52.050
Each additional 500,000 BTU.h or part thereof $19 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $14 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of each suspended, recessed wall or floor mounted unit heaters
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 15
Up to and including 200,000 BTU.h $19 18.52.050
Over 200,000 BTU.h up to and including 300,000 BTU.h $34 18.52.050
Over 300,000 BTU.h $53 18.52.050
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance
vent installed and not included on an appliance permit $14 18.52.050
For the repair of, alteration of or addition to each heating
appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit or each
heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system
Including alteration of controls regulated by this code
Up to $1,000 contract value $34 18.52.050
Greater than $1,000 contract value $82 18.52.050For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to
and including 3 horsepower, or each absorption system to and
including 200,000 BTU.h
$24 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of boilers:
Over 200,000 BTU.h to and including 300,000 BTU.h $34 Each 18.52.050
Over 300,000 BTU.h to and including 1,000,000 BTU.h $53 Each 18.52.050
Over 1,000,000 BTU.h to and including 2,000,000 BTU.h $82 Each 18.52.050
Over 2,000,000 BTU.h $82 Plus $17 for each additional 500,000 BTU.h or part thereof 18.52.050
Air handling unit
To and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto $24
This fee shall not apply to air handling unit which is a portion of a factory assembled cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which permit is required elsewhere in this code.
18.52.050
Over 10,000 cubic feet per minute $53 18.52.050
Evaporative cooler other than portable type
Up to 6,500 cubic feet per minute $19 Each 18.52.050
More than 6,500 cubic feet per minute $53 Each 18.52.050
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct $14 18.52.050
Ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air
conditioning system authorized by a permit $14 18.52.050
Installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust,
including the ducts for each unit $34 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of domestic type incinerator $19 Each 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of commercial or industrial type
incinerator $53 Each 18.52.050
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code
but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no
other fee is listed in this code
$19 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of cooling towers:
1 1/2 horsepower up to and including 4 horsepower or tons $24 18.52.050
4 1/2 horsepower up to and including 10 horsepower or tons $33 18.52.050
11 horsepower or tons and over $63 18.52.050
For the purpose of calculating the rate in tons, the tonnage shall be considered not less than then the following:
a. Total maximum BTU peer hour of capacity of the installation divided by 12,000 or
b. The nameplate horsepower of any compressor prime mover unit or for any air conditioning installations; or
c. 2/3 of the nameplate horsepower subsection A18b of this section, for any refrigeration installation
Installation or relocation of compressor or absorption systems
1 1/2 horsepower to and including 4 horsepower or tons $19 18.52.050
4 horsepower to and including 5 horsepower or tons $23 18.52.050
5 horsepower to and including 6 horsepower or tons $29 18.52.050
6 horsepower to and including 7 horsepower or tons $32 18.52.050
7 horsepower to and including 8 horsepower or tons $35 18.52.050
8 horsepower to and including 9 horsepower or tons $39 18.52.050
9 horsepower to and including 10 horsepower or tons $44 18.52.050
Each additional horsepower or tons $3 18.52.050
Other appliances*$19 18.52.050
*Fee for each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other
appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in Section 18.52.050
Mobile Home Park Construction Permits
General building permit - pads, patio slabs, metal sheds, curb,
gutter, drives, piers, sidewalks, fence, wall.$2 Per mobile home space 18.76.050
Inspection of gas line/meter for utility clearance purposes $19 18.56.040
Electric meter stands or pedestals
First 10 $6 Each 18.76.050
Next 90 $4 Each 18.76.050
Over 100 $2 Each 18.76.050
Park plumbing system, including sewer and water risers $6 Per mobile home space 18.76.050
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 16
Permanent buildings, swimming pools, etc.Regular and normal fee schedule 18.76.050
Fire hydrants within property lines $6 Each hydrant 18.76.050
News Racks
Permit application $55 14.36.080
News Rack Fee $6 Per news rack in the public right-of-way
News Rack Relocation Fee $11 Per news rack, per relocation
Removal of Non-Compliant News Rack $318 Per news rack
Storage of Non-Compliant News Rack $6 Per news rack, per day at a city facility
Certificate filing fee $6 Per news rack 14.36.110
Plan Review Fees
Plan review fee 65% of building permit fee 18.32.035
Expedited building plan review Twice the cost of a standard plan review fee See Section 18.20.050 18.20.050
Condominium preliminary review $356 Per plan, plus $11 per unit 21A.56.040
Condominium final review $233 Per plan, plus $11 per unit 21A.56.040
Renewing expired plan review
One half the original plan review fee, maximum of $1,215 plus $138 per hour for review necessitated by changes in codes and ordinances, two hour minimum.
See section 18.20.110 18.20.110
Plumbing Permits
Base fee $47 18.56.040
Inspection of gas line/meter for utility clearance purposes $19 18.56.040
Air conditioning device discharging into the building drainage
system $8 Each 18.56.040
Change, alteration or replacement of soil, waste or vent pipe $6 18.56.040
Change or repair of a drain, waste, vent (DWV) system $10 Each 18.56.040
Grey water system $16 Each 18.56.040
Lawn sprinkler control valve on devices $8 Each 18.56.040
Medical gas piping $16 Each 18.56.040
Plumbing fixture or trap roughed in for installation or relocation $6 Each 18.56.040
Refrigeration drain and each safe drain discharged directly or
indirectly into the building drain $6 Each 18.56.040
Roof drain $6 Each 18.56.040
Roof drain installed inside building $6 Each 18.56.040
Settling tank or grease trap $47 Each 18.56.040
Soda fountain carbonator $13 Each 18.56.040
Store, restaurant or home appliance or device connected to the
culinary water supply and/or building drainage system $6 Each 18.56.040
Vacuum breaker or backflow device on tanks, etc $8 Each 18.56.040
Water heater $13 Each 18.56.040
Water softener or conditioning device $13 Each 18.56.040
Revolving Loan Application Fee $113 Each 03.16.005
Re - Inspection Fee $106 18.20.200
Solar Panel Permit Fee
System Size in kW Fee
0 - 5 kW $212
6 - 10 kW $372
11 - 50 kW $425
51 - 100 kW $956
Sidewalk Entertainer and Artist Registration $36 Annual 14.38.100
Sidewalk Vending Cart - Revocable Land Use Fee $310 Annual 05.65.030
Temporary Metering
Up to 100 amp load capacity $21 18.36.110
Each additional, or part thereof, 100 amp capacity $5 18.36.110
Temporary Re-locatable Office Buildings
Installation permit $91 Per unit 18.84.070
Interior inspection $91 Per unit 18.84.070
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 17
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
For questions regarding Economic Development fees Contact: 801.535.7200
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Foreign Trade Zone
Application Fee $3,718 52-2017
Additional General Purpose Zone $3,399 52-2017
Special Purpose Subzone (Non/minimal-manufacturing)$4,249 52-2017
Special Purpose Subzone (Manufacturing)$6,905 52-2017
Expansions $1,700 52-2017
Annual Fee for Operators/Subzones/Usage-Driven Sites $10,622 52-2017
Annual Fee for General Purpose Zone Usage-Driven Sites $5,311 52-2017
ENGINEERING
For questions regarding Engineering Fees Contact: 801.535.6159
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Excavation Permits
Shallow Trenching $0.29 Per linear foot 14.32.400
Minimum charge $2,900 14.32.400
Hard surfaced $0.37 Per sq. foot 14.32.400
Minimum charge $225 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Minimum charge $300 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Soft Surfaced $0.24 Per sq. foot 14.32.400
Minimum charge $150 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Minimum charge $175 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Permit within a restricted area Fees double See Section 14.32.400 A3 14.32.400
Landscaping Permit for Public Right of Way $18 Per job, or $80.66 Per year 2.26.210
Multiple Utility Excavation Permits
Hard surfaced
Per multiple $148 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Per multiple $218 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Pothole/excavation < 10 sq. ft. (per each)$35 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Pothole/excavation < 10 sq. ft. (per each)$44 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Test holes (per each)$2 14.32.400
Soft Surface
Per multiple $90 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Per multiple $100 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Pothole/excavation < 10 sq. ft. (per each)$18 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Pothole/excavation < 10 sq. ft. (per each)$26 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Test holes (per each)$1 14.32.400
Poles and Anchors $51 Each pole, concrete pedestal or anchor 14.32.400
Public Survey Monuments
Monument (per each) $73 14.10.040
Public Way Improvements
Curb and gutter $2 Per linear foot 14.32.405
Sidewalk, driveway approach $0.35 Per sq. foot 14.32.405
Minimum charge $200 April 1 - November 15 14.32.405
Minimum charge $250 November 16 - March 31 14.32.405
In-kind No charge See section 14.32.405 D 14.32.405
Public Way Obstruction Permits
Short term (One Week)
Sidewalk Canopy $17 Per Week (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Dumpster/pod $44 Each, per Week (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Lane or sidewalk closure $87 Per Week (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Long term: (1 Month Increments)
Sidewalk Canopy $70 Each, per month (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Dumpster/pod $175 (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Lane or sidewalk closure $349 Each, per month (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Small Wireless Facility Fees
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 18
Application fees 14.56.060
Small cell facility to collocate a small wireless facility on an existing or replacement utility pole $100 Per wireless facility 14.56.060
Install, modify or replace a utility pole associated with a small wireless facility, where permitted under Utah Code Section 54-21-204, or its successor $250 Per wireless facility 14.56.060
Install, modify or replace a utility pole associated with a small wireless facility, where NOT permitted under Utah Code Section 54-21-204, or its successor $1,000 Per wireless facility 14.56.060
Collation Rate As set forth in Utah CodeSection 54-21-504 14.56.070
Street Banners on Utility Poles $50 Application outside of boundaries of a coordinated street banner program 21A.46.170
FIRE
For questions regarding Fire Fees Contact: 801.535.4150
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Amusement Building Permit $352 Single event 2.12.040
Cost Recovery
Hazardous material emergency Actual cost See Section 9.44.030 9.44.030
Fire emergency Actual cost See Section 9.48.030 9.48.030
Distributed Antenna System Inspection Fee $208 Includes 1 hour of plan review and 1 hour of post-construction inspection. Each additional hour of plan review is $127 and each additional hour of inspection is $81.02.12.040
EMS CHARGES
EMS Billing $56 2.12.040
EMS Equipment Surcharge $56 2.12.040
Medical Report $18 2.12.040
Healthcare Provider CPR $56 2.12.040
Heartsaver CPR Courses $34 2.12.040
Heartsaver CPR/AED Cards & Student Manual $20 Manual Required ($3) with Card ($17)2.12.040
Heartsaver CPR/AED BLS Provider - Card & Student Manual $15 Manual Required ($13) with Card ($2)2.12.040
Exhibit and Trade Show Permits
0 - 5,000 sq. feet $237 Single event 2.12.040
5,001 - 10,000 sq. feet $286 Single event 2.12.040
10,001 - 25,000 sq. feet $382 Single event 2.12.040
25,001 - 50,000 sq. feet $473 Single event 2.12.040
50,001 - 80,000 sq. feet $558 Single event 2.12.040
80,001 - 125,000 sq. feet $649 Single event 2.12.040
125,001 - 200,000 sq. feet $740 Single event 2.12.040
Each additional 20,000 sq. feet above 200,000 $116 Single event, in addition to $610 2.12.040
Explosive Permits
Fireworks Vendor $564 Permit for stores/tents/selling fireworks 2.12.040
Fireworks $589 Public display outdoors 2.12.040
Blasting $771 Annual 2.12.040
Fire System and Equipment Installation Permit $116 Fee assessed for each man hour to perform inspection
during each phase of installation 2.12.040
Fire Watch $51 Per hour 2.12.040
After Hour Fireman Rate $68 Per hour 2.12.040
Hazardous Materials Permits
Minimal dispensing, use or storage $237
Annual / Solids: <500 lbs. Compressed gas: <200 cu. ft.
Oxygen: <504 cu. ft.
Liquids: <55 gal.
2.12.040
Backup generator systems $176 Annual 2.12.040
Storage quantities exceeding minimal storage $291 Annual 2.12.040
Dispensing or use $473 Annual, quantities exceeding minimum use or dispensing 2.12.040
Body shop/garage $237 Annual, under 5,000 sq. feet 2.12.040
Production and processing $589 Annual 2.12.040
Gas stations $206 Annual 2.12.040
Tank installation, alteration, abandonment, removal or disposal:Single event
Up to 3 tank per site $473 2.12.040
Each additional tank $116 2.12.040
High Rise Permits
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 19
7 - 12 floors $589 Annual 2.12.040
13 - 18 floors $710 Annual 2.12.040
19 - 24 floors $825 Annual 2.12.040
25 - 30 floors $946 Annual 2.12.040
31 - 36 floors $1,068 Annual 2.12.040
37 - 42 floors $1,183 Annual 2.12.040
Over 42 floors $116 Annual; in addition to $1,011, per each additional 6 floors 2.12.040
Hospitals $589 Annual 2.12.040
Hot Works Operation Permit $176 Annual 2.12.040
National Fire Incident Report (NFIR)$18 Per request; form or property incident search report 2.12.040
Open Burning Permit $237 Annual 2.12.040
Place of Assembly Permits
0 - 5,000 sq. feet $237 Annual 2.12.040
5,001 - 10,000 sq. feet $352 Annual 2.12.040
10,001 - 25,000 sq. feet $504 Annual 2.12.040
25,001 - 50,000 sq. feet $679 Annual 2.12.040
50,001 - 80,000 sq. feet $855 Annual 2.12.040
80,001 - 125,000 sq. feet $1,068 Annual 2.12.040
125,001 - 200,000 sq. feet $1,359 Annual 2.12.040
Each additional 20,000 sq. feet above 200,000 $116 Annual; in addition to $1,183 2.12.040
Property Search $18 2.12.040
Pyrotechnic Special Effects Materials Permit
Flame effects $237 Before an audience; single event 2.12.040
Indoor Fireworks $237 Single event 2.12.040
1.4 grain fireworks $237 Single event 2.12.040
Theatrical display $237 Single event 2.12.040
Re-inspection $23 Fee assessed for each ¼ man hour to perform re-
inspection, including paperwork and travel time.2.12.040
State Licensed Healthcare Facilities
0 - 3,000 sq. feet $176 Annual 2.12.040
3,001 - 6,000 sq. feet $238 Annual 2.12.040
6,001 - 10,000 sq. feet $291 Annual 2.12.040
10,001 sq. feet or greater $352 Annual 2.12.040
Temporary Membrane Structures, Tents or Canopies
Single event $176 Up to 180 days. See Also Special Events.2.12.040
Each additional structure on same site $1 See Also Special Events 2.12.040
Re-inspection of additional set up $1 1 - 2 per week. See Also Special Events 2.12.040
GALLIVAN CENTER
Ice Skating - Adults $9 Includes admission and skates 15.16.120
Ice Skating - Children & Seniors $8 Includes admission and skates 15.16.120
GOLF
For questions regarding Golf Fees Contact: 801.485.7730
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Advance Tee Time Reservations
0-8 days in advance No fee 15.16.031
9 days to one year in advance $5.00 Per player, minimum 18 holes 15.16.031
No-Show Fee $5.00 Per player for 9 or 18 holes 15.16.031
Membership Programs Regular Junior (17 years old or younger)
Senior (60 year old and older)
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 20
LoyalTee Discount Cards $75 NA $65 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.6 15.16.031
Birdie Passports Without Cart $1,300 NA $1,000 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.7 15.16.031
Birdie Passports With Cart $1,900 NA $1,600 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.7 15.16.031
Double Eagle Passports Without Cart $1,900 NA $1,500 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.8 15.16.031
Double Eagle Passports With Cart $2,500 NA $2,100 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.8 15.16.031
Junior Annual Passport NA $550 NA Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.10 15.16.031
Junior Summer Passport NA $350 NA Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.9 15.16.031
Membership Card Replacement $5 $5 $5 15.16.031
Golf Gift Cards
Golf Gift Card Monthly Service $3 Applied monthly after 12 months of inactivity 15.16.031
Golf Cart Rentals 9 Holes 18 Holes 15.16.031
Double rider $14 $28 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Single rider $7 $14 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Double Rider $16.00 $32.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Single Rider $8.00 $16.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Twilight Cart Double Rider N/A $24.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Twilight Cart Single Cart Rider N/A $12.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Private Cart Trail Fee $5.00 $10.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Cover rental $5.00 $10.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Golf Club Rentals
Regular $7 $14 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Premium $15 $30 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Premium $20 $35 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
USGA Grant Junior Clubs $3 $6 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Grandfathered Senior Season Golf Passes 9 Holes 18 Holes
Base fee $400 See Section 15.16.031.A.2 15.16.031
Resident surcharge $3 $6 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Nonresident surcharge $4 $8 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Green Fees: As of January 1, 2012 $1.00 per 9-hole/$2.00 per 18-hole round less sales tax will be allocated to a dedicated Golf CIP fund to be used exclusively for golf course improvement projects.
Actual green fees charged for seniors, juniors, school golf teams, and group rates are subject to change and may vary from the prices listed on the Consolidated Fee Schedule
Green Fees - Tax included in listed green fees
General Public Rates
Time frame subject to change as needed by Golf Director
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes General Public Rate Time Frame
Bonneville $20.00 $40.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Bonneville $25.00 NA Sat/Sun before 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $16.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $12.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Glendale $17.00 $34.00 All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $20.00 $40.00 All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park $15.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $10.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Rose Park $15.00 $30.00 15.16.031
Senior Rates - Age 60 and above See Section 15.16.031.B.
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Senior Rate Time Frame
Bonneville $17.00 $34.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $14.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $11.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Glendale $14.00 $28.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $17.00 $34.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park $13.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $9.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Rose Park $13.00 $26.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Regular LoyalTee Program Rates
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Regular LoyalTee Time Frame
Bonneville $17.00 $34.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $14.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $11.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Glendale $14.00 $28.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 21
Mountain Dell $17.00 $34.00 All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park $12.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $9.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Rose Park $12.00 $24.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Senior LoyalTee Program Rates
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Senior LoyalTee Time Frame
Bonneville $14.00 $28.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $12.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $10.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Glendale $12.00 $24.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $14.00 $28.00 All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park $10.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $8.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Rose Park $11.00 $22.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Young Adult Rates - Age 18-25
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Young Adult Time Frame
Bonneville $15.00 $30.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $13.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Glendale $13.00 $26.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $15.00 $30.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park $11.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Rose Park $11.00 $22.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Junior Rates - Age 6 through Age 17
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Junior Rates Time Frame
Bonneville $10.00 $20.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $9.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Glendale $9.00 $18.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $10.00 $20.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park $8.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Rose Park $8.00 $16.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Twilight Rates
Mountain Dell NA $30.00 Time frame to be determined by course and posted in the clubhouse 15.16.031
Pull Cart Rental 9 Holes 18 Holes
Pull Cart $4.00 $8.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Range Balls Tax included in fee
Small bucket $6.00 Per bucket 15.16.031
Large bucket $10.00 Per bucket 15.16.031
10 Bucket Range Pass $70.00 10 large buckets 15.16.031
20 Bucket Range Pass $130.00 20 large buckets 15.16.031
High School Golf Team
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes School Golf Team Rate Time Frame
Bonneville $10.00 $20.00 Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $9.00 NA Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Glendale $9.00 $18.00 Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $10.00 $20.00 Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley park $8.00 NA Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Rose Park $8.00 $16.00 Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Large Bucket of Range Balls $7.00 Per Bucket 15.16.031
University Team Rates
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes University Team Rate Time Frame
Bonneville $13.00 $26.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $12.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Glendale $10.00 $20.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $13.00 $26.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park $10.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Rose Park $10.00 $20.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Large Bucket of Range Balls $7.00 Per Bucket 15.16.031
Tournament Fees/Group Fees
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 22
9 holes $5.00 Per person, plus green fees 15.16.031
18 holes $10.00 Per person, plus green fees 15.16.031
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (HAND)
For questions regarding HAND contact: 801.535.6533
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Rehabilitation Loan $364 2.61.030
First Time Home Buyer Application $26 2.61.030
First Time Home Buyer Loan $416 2.61.030
Rehabilitation Technical Assistance $364 2.61.030
Foreclosure $520 2.61.030
Late Loan Payment Fee 4%A different amount may apply if specified in the loan documents 2.61.030
Returned Check or EFT Transfer $21 2.61.030
Mortgage Insurance 0.5% - 1.0%Depending on loan fund sourcing 2.61.030
Loan Subordination $52 2.61.030
Payoff $51 2.61.030
Appraisal Actual Charge up to $500 2.61.030
First Time Home Buyer Repurchase $130 2.61.030
Property Inspection Fee Up To $200 2.61.030
Vending Cart Application $30 Not including Mobile Ice cream vendors 5.65.030
Vending License - Mobile Ice Cream Vendors $30 5.64.670
IMPACT FEES
For questions regarding Impact fees contact: 801.535.7712
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Appeals Process $50 18.98.090
Developers Independent Calculation Deposit $150 Could be refunded or increased based upon actual total costs.18.98.160
Impact Fees Single Family Multi-Family Office Industrial Commercial/ Retail
Residential (per Unit)(Per 1,000 SF)
Fire $171 $171 $53 $25 $250 18.98.160
Park $5,173 $3,078 $0 $0 $0 18.98.090
Police $59 $59 $20 $10 $86 18.98.160
Transportation $429 $242 $498 $290 $1,955 18.98.090
Storm Water $374 Per 1/4 acre 17.81.400
PARKING AND TRAFFIC
For questions regarding Parking and Traffic contact: 801.535.6630
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Administrative Fee For Collection of Past Due Debts $53 12.56.550
Area Regular Parking Permits
One year $42 10 - 12 Months 12.64.090
9 - 11 months $32 7 - 9 Months 12.64.090
5 - 8 months $21 4 - 6 Months 12.64.090
1 - 4 Months $11 1 - 3 Months 12.64.090
Area Seasonal Parking Collection
5 - 8 months $21 4 - 6 Months 12.64.090
3 - 4 months $11 1 -3 Months 12.64.090
Barricade Permit $34 14.32.418
Electric Vehicle (EV) Level 3 Fast Charging Stations
Base Fee Per Charging Event $2 PLUS per kilowatt hour charge 12.56.600
Electricity Charge $0.22 Per kilowatt hour 12.56.600
Freight Curb Loading Zone Permit Base Business License fee Annual; plus sticker fee 12.56.330
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 23
Vehicle sticker $81 Annual 12.56.330
Vehicle sticker replacement $6 12.56.330
Vehicle sticker transfer of vehicle $6 12.56.330
House Number Certificate (public works)$12 14.08.040
Library Parking Fees
Library Daily Rates $1.50/half hour First half hour is free, $12 daily maximum 12.56.580
Loading Zone & Restricted Parking
Loading zone & restricted parking $28/vehicle per day For provisions and exemptions see Section 12.56.325 12.56.325
Events $12/vehicle per day For provisions and exemptions see Section 12.56.325 12.56.325
Filming (movie, television series or commercial)$12/vehicle per day For provisions and exemptions see Section 12.56.325 12.56.325
Business Parking Permit $500 12.56.580
Parking Meter Rates Shall not exceed $2.25 per hour 12.56.170
Residential Transit Pass (Hive Pass)
Annual Hive Voucher Pass $350 Only available to qualifying individuals through social service agencies 3.16.2060
Annual Hive Co-op Pass $475 3.16.2060
Monthly Hive Co-op Pass $42 3.16.2060
Street Name Change Application $292 14.08.015
Traffic School
Traffic School $65 12.8.150
Traffic School - Tier II $90 At the prosecutor's discretion 12.8.150
Traffic School - Tier III $105 At the prosecutor's discretion 12.8.150
Temporary Closure - Parking Meters $28 Per meter, per day 14.12.130
Temporary Placing of Bags on Parking Meters $28 Per day 12.56.210
During filming of a movie/television series/ commercial $12 Per day 12.56.210
For an event that continues for not less than 3 days $12 Per day/must significantly foster area business promotion and have an expected attendance exceeding 5,000 12.56.210
For a religious or charitable organization No charge Limited to 30 days per calendar year 12.56.210
For use under the direction of the city in connection with a city sponsored event No charge 12.56.210
Vehicle Relocation Fee $79 12.56.540
POLICE
For questions regarding Police fees contact: 801.799.3101
Service Fee Additional Information Section
911 Emergency Service fee See Fire
Background Search and Letter Not more than $16 Age 65+ exempt/waiver available, see Section 2.10.090 2.10.080
Fingerprinting Not more than $55 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.010
ID Cards Not more than $55 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.010
Incident Reports See Additional Information Not more than the fee charged by the State of Utah for similar reports 2.64.040
Personal Criminal History Record $6 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.050
Service fee for Party, Gathering, or Event
Non-rental property $364 Each visit 11.14.020
Rental property, renter responsibility
Each visit up to 2 visits $364 For 3rd visit or more see rental property, owner responsibility 11.14.020
Rental property, owner responsibility
Third visit $122 11.14.020
Each additional visit in any 365 day period $364 11.14.020
Theft Reports Not more than $55 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.010
User's Security and Privacy Non-disclosure Agreement Not more than $55 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.050
Vehicle Booting Fee
Vehicle booting fee $75 12.96.025
Late removal of boot fee $28 Per day after first 24 hours 12.96.025
Boot damage or replacement fee City's actual costs incurred Determined by the total cost(s) required by the City for replacement or repair of the immobilization device 12.96.025
Registration Fee $35 12.96.025
Sex Offender Registration Fee $25
Special Events
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 24
Police Coverage during special event $62 Per hour estimated on duration of event. Invoice to be trued up at the end of the event.3.50.080
Police Special Equipment Fee (Car Charge)$7 Per every 4 hours, plus fuel surcharge 3.50.080
Vehicle Relocation Fee $79 12.56.540
Towing Operational Costs: MUST COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATION R909-19
Size of tow Base Tow Rate Varies based on size of vehicle 12.96.025
Light Duty $168 There will be an additional $36.25 added for each additional 15 minutes. Any vehicle with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less 12.96.025
Medium Duty $280 There will be an additional $60.00 added for each additional 15 minutes. Vehicles with a GVWR of 10,001 to 26,000 lbs 12.96.025
Heavy Duty $347 There will be an additional $75.00 added for each additional 15 minutes. Vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs or greater 12.96.025
Vehicle Storage Fee: MUST COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATION R909-19
Size of tow (Non-Consent Police Generated Tow)Varies based on size and location stored 12.96.025
Light Duty - Stored Inside $45 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Light Duty - Stored Outside $40 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Medium Duty - Stored Inside $85 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Medium Duty - Stored Outside $60 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Heavy Duty - Stored Inside $85 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Heavy Duty - Stored Outside $60 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Vehicles Used in Transporting Hazardous Material - Stored Inside $165 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Vehicles Used in Transporting Hazardous Material - Stored Outside $115 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Administration Fee $35 Maximum Per Vehicle (Notification for reporting non-consent tows)12.96.025
Vehicle Storage Fee: MUST COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATION R909-19
Size of tow (Non-Consent Non-Police Generated Tow)Varies based on size and location stored 12.96.025
Light Duty - Stored Inside $45 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Light Duty - Stored Outside $40 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Medium Duty - Stored Inside $85 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Medium Duty - Stored Outside $60 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Heavy Duty - Stored Inside $85 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Heavy Duty - Stored Outside $60 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Vehicles Used in Transporting Hazardous Material - Stored Inside $165 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Vehicles Used in Transporting Hazardous Material - Stored Outside $115 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Administration Fee $35 Maximum Per Vehicle (Notification for reporting non-consent tows)12.96.025
Fuel Surcharge: MUST COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATION R909-19-15
Fuel Surcharge Based on Fuel Price Varies based on the daily Rocky Mountain Average as determined by the Department of Energy (http://www.fwccinc.com/doefuel.html). When the price of fuel reaches $3.25 per gallon, a tow truck motor carrier may charge a surcharge equal to 5% of the base tow rate. An additional 5% shall be allowed for each $0.25 per gallon increase. Conversely, as the price of fuel drops, the fuel surcharge shall decrease by the same rate
See Utah Regulation R909-19-15
Fuel Price $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00
Size of Tow
Light Duty $14.50 $29.00 $43.50 $58.00
Medium Duty $24.00 $48.00 $72.00 $96.00
Heavy Duty $30.00 $60.00 $90.00 $120.00
Property Removal Fee $85 Per each 30 minute time period
Body Cam Redaction and Video Production $38 Per Hour; Billable in quarter hour increments. No charge for the first quarter hour of staff time.2.64.040
Body Cam DVD $27 2.64.040
GRAMA Request $20 Per Hour; Billable in quarter hour increments
PUBLIC LANDS
For questions regarding Public Lands contact: 801.972.7800
Service Fee Additional Information Section
After School Programs Formula based See Section 15.16.090 15.16.090
Athletic Facility Reservations
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 25
Recreational (Non-organized or affiliate group), one-time use Tier B field 20.00 Per hour/two hour minimum 15.16.010
Recreational (Non-organized or affiliate group), one-time use Tier C field 15.00 Per hour/two hour minimum 15.16.010
RECREATIONAL ATHLETIC FIELDS:
Organized League Use per Hour per Field Tier B Field Tier C Field
Youth Non-Profit*$10 $8 15.16.010
Adult Non-Profit*$15 $12 15.16.090
Youth & Adult For-Profit $25 $20 15.16.010
*MUST TURN IN PROOF OF NON-PROFIT STATUSProof of residency and non-profit status will count toward field priority order as in the past
Recreational tournaments with season reservations $108 Per Day 15.16.090
Recreational tournaments without season reservations $215 Per Day 3.50.080
Any cleaning required after field and pavilion usage $42 Per staff hour 15.16.010
Community Stewardship & Education Programs
Youth not more than $31
Adult not more than $47
Jordan River Paddle Share
Kayak - single $25 for reservation window
Kayak - tandem $40 for reservation window
Picnic Facility Reservations Resident Non-resident
Pavilions (does not include Liberty Park Rice Pavilion and Washington Park/Mountain Dell)$49 $59 Full day 15.16.020
Washington Park/Mountain Dell Pavilions (AM)$91 $121 Half day (8am - 2pm)15.16.020
Washington Park/Mountain Dell Pavilions (PM)$91 $121 Half day (3pm - 10pm)15.16.020
Liberty Park - Rice Pavilion (AM)$49 $61 Half day (8am - 2pm)15.16.020
Liberty Park - Rice Pavilion (PM)$49 $61 Half day (3pm - 10pm)15.16.020
Cottonwood Park - Pavilion $31 $42 Full day 15.16.020
Premier Fields Athletic Center (RAC):
Fields are available for games only Weekdays, Per Hour Weekends, Per Hour Full Day Lights Per Hour
Youth Resident Field Rental $49 $57 $16 15.16.010
Adult Resident Field Rental $68 $78 $16 15.16.010
Youth Non-Resident Field Rental $68 $78 $16 15.16.010
Adult Non-Resident Field Rental $78 $88 $16 15.16.010
Resident Stadium Field Rental $146 $161 $16 15.16.010
Non-Resident Stadium Field Rental $161 $177 $16 15.16.010
Tournament Field Rental*$728 $42 15.16.010
Full Complex Rental $208 15.16.010
* Does not include additional tournament fees
Recreation Kit Rental $15 plus sales tax Each with pavilion reservation; limit 2 per reservations 15.16.020
Recreation kit rental - late fee $6 Late fee day, per day 15.16.020
Recreation kit rental - replacement fee $276 plus sales tax Total cost of the entire recreation kit if it needs to be replaced 15.16.020
Recreation Bag $52 Replacement cost of bag only 15.16.020
Volleyball Net $42 Replacement cost of volleyball net only 15.16.020
Volleyball $21 Replacement cost of volleyball only 15.16.020
Baseball bat (2)$31 each Replacement cost per baseball bat only 15.16.020
Softball (2)$10 each Replacement cost per softball only 15.16.020
Football $21 Replacement cost of football only 15.16.020
Soccer Ball $21 Replacement cost of soccer ball only 15.16.020
Horseshoe Set $42 Replacement cost of horseshoe set only 15.16.020
Community Outdoor Recreation Programs
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 26
Youth not more than $31
Adult not more than $47
Seasonal Youth League Food and Beverage Service Permits
Concession Stands
Concession - with electricity and/or plumbing $61 Per month 15.16.110
Concession - temporary without electricity and/or plumbing $30 Per month 15.16.110
Special Event Permit $121 Commercially related (community events)3.50.080
Special Event Filming Permit $121 21A.42.070
Special Event Demonstrations (Free Expression)$6 21A.42.070
YouthCity Programs: After School and Summer Programs Formula based
Income Qualifications Amount per participant
Residents of Salt Lake City Household income:***After School Program*Summer Program**
$10,000 or less per year $12 $12 15.16.090
More than $10,000 per year but less than or equal to 42% of the area median income, or with free lunch status $42 $61 15.16.090
More than 42% but less than or equal to 60% of the area median income, or with reduced lunch status $91 $121 15.16.090
More than 60% but less than or equal to 80% of the area median income $152 $182 15.16.090
More than 80% but less than or equal to 100% of the area median income $182 $273 15.16.090
More than 100% of the area median income $243 $476 15.16.090
Non-residents of Salt Lake City Household income:***After School Program*Summer Program**
Regardless of income or lunch status $242 $476 15.16.090
*After school program fees will be charged on a monthly basis, with the exception of the months with 12 days or less of scheduled programming which shall be half of the monthly fee, and months with 5 days or less of scheduled programming which shall be one quarter of the monthly fee, as determined by the family median income.
**Summer program fees will be charged on a session basis, as determined by the family median income.
***For purpose of the after school and the summer program, area median income shall be determined based on the federal housing and urban development guidelines for the Salt Lake City metropolitan statistical area.
Tennis Courts
Dee Glenn Smith and Liberty Park
Hours:
Monday - Friday
7:00am to close
Saturday, Sunday & holidays
8:00am to close
Indoor (bubble)
Court $24 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Prepaid court $22 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Tournament $13 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Tournament Cleaning Deposit $250 Per Tournament 15.16.060
Outdoor (summer)
Court (12 or Less Courts Used)$7 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Court (13 or More Courts Used $10 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Reservation Fee $2 Per court, per reservation 15.16.060
Tournament $3 Per court, per day reservation fee
Tournament Cleaning Deposit $250 Per Tournament 15.16.060
All Other Courts No charge 15.16.060
Unity Center - Rental rates are for 6 hour consecutive period, unless otherwise noted. For questions regarding the Unity Center contact: 801.535.6533
Staffing Charge $28 Per hour over 6 hours 3.50.080
Janitorial Rate $42 Per hour, 1 hour minimum 3.50.080
Main lobby/gallery
For profit business/individuals $303 Not residents of Glendale or Poplar Grove 15.16.090
Glendale or Poplar Grove residents $212 Per group 15.16.090
Nonprofit charging a fee $273 15.16.090
Nonprofit not charging fee $243 15.16.090
City/Community activities No charge Including community council meetings 15.16.090
Theater - Storage or theater dark days during multi-day rentals incur the 6 hour rate per day
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 27
For profit business/individuals $238 Not residents of Glendale or Poplar Grove 15.16.090
Glendale or Poplar Grove residents $149 Per group 15.16.090
Nonprofit charging a fee $208 15.16.090
Nonprofit not charging fee $179 15.16.090
City/Community activities No charge Including community council meetings 15.16.090
Lobby & Theater
For profit business/individuals $512 Not residents of Glendale or Poplar Grove 15.16.090
Glendale or Poplar Grove residents $425 Per group 15.16.090
Nonprofit charging a fee $485 15.16.090
Nonprofit not charging fee $455 15.16.090
City/Community activities No charge Including community council meetings 15.16.090
Full facility rental $607 15.16.090
Classroom $29 Per hour 15.16.090
Rental Reservation and Damage deposits
Up to 75 participants $121 15.16.090
More than 75 participants $303 15.16.090
Equipment rental and service rates
Chair riser setup $303 15.16.090
Stage setup $182 15.16.090
Table setup $6 Per table 15.16.090
Chair setup $1 Per chair 15.16.090
Community Art/Enrichment Classes
Youth Not more than $31 15.16.090
Parent/child Not more than $47 15.16.090
Wedding Ceremony Permit Fee $182 Additional $42 per hour for any cleaning required after pavilion use 15.16.100
International Peace Gardens $182 for a 2 hour block Additional $42 per hour for any cleaning required after pavilion use 15.16.100
Urban Forestry
Public Tree Work Permit $15 per tree or$152 per year Permit processing fee, to account for staff time to issue permit and update inventory.3.50.080
Tree Removal Mitigation The Contracted Rate This is the average cost (per inch) to purchase and plant a new tree. This fee is charged when code protected trees are removed or damaged.3.50.080
Outdoor Volleyball Court Fees and Liberty Park
Recreational One Time Use Fees $10 Per Hour 15.16.010
Youth Volleyball League $5 Per Hour Per Court (1/2 of one time use field rate)15.16.010
Adult Volleyball League $7 Per Hour Per Court (1/2 of one time use field rate)15.16.010
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 28
RECORDS AND ELECTIONS
For questions regarding Records and Election fees contact: 801.535.7671
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Candidate Filing Fees Mayor Council
File $383 $91 Or petition/ see Section 2.68.010 2.68.010
With Nomination $376 $91 Or additional petition signatures/see Section 2.68.010 2.68.010
Write - in $376 $91 2.68.020
Copies of Records
Employee time Not more $20 Per hour minus the first 15 minutes compiling records as listed
in Section 2.64.130A 2.64.040
Paper photocopies Not more than $0.10 Per copy 2.64.040
Size C blueprint Not more than $1 Per copy 2.64.040
Produced a microfilm printer (silver paper)Not more than $2 Per copy 2.64.040
From microfilm (plain paper)Not more than $0.10 Per copy 2.64.040
From a photograph Not more than $5 Per copy 2.64.040
Tapes or discs Cost of media, plus
$11/hour for employee time See Section 2.64.130 2.64.040
Incident Reports See Additional Information Not more than the fee charged by the State of Utah for similar
reports 2.64.040
Mylar or Vellum Prints
24" x 36"Not more than $6 2.64.040
Larger than 24" x 36"Not more than $2 per square
foot 2.64.040
GRAMA Request $20 Per Hour; Billable in quarter hour increments.
Declaration of Mutual Commitment $29 10 3 050
Termination of Declaration of Mutual Commitment No charge 10.03.030
REFUSE
For questions regarding Waste Collection Service fees contact: 801.535.6999
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Green Waste and Recycling Green
Waste Recycling
Residences receiving City garbage service No additional
charge
No additional
charge
Charge is included in the fee for garbage, recycling and
green waste 9.08.030
Eligible recycling customers & green waste
customers $7.85 $7.85
Per month, per container/eligible recycling customers and green waste customers are non-garbage customers who meet City's service criteria regarding access to curb and location within service route; minimum subscription 12 months.
9.08.030
Glass recycling for residences $7 Per month 9.08.030
Garbage
40 gallon container $15.50 Per month, per container 9.08.030
60 gallon container $19.75 Per month, per container 9.08.030
90 gallon container $23.50 Per month, per container 9.08.030
Replacement or Removal of Containers
When damage is caused by property owner Actual city cost to purchase container plus
$11 9.08.140
When stolen and theft reported to police No charge 9.08.140
When stolen and theft not reported to police Actual city cost for purchase of container 9.08.140
With one of a different size No charge 9.08.140
Removal of containers for residences and for eligible recycling customers $11 Per container 9.08.030
Green Waste Trailer Service Delivery & Removal $225 Per container 9.08.030
Green Waste Trailer Material Contamination Fee $15 Per container 9.08.030
Authorized Waste Hauler Permit Fee $315 Annual 9.08.200
WASTE & RECYCLING - SPECIAL EVENTS
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 29
Can Delivery, Removal & 1st Dump <100 cans $22 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Can Delivery, Removal & 1st Dump >100 cans $19 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Recycling Can Contamination $22 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Additional Can Dump Service $4 Each Can/Dump 3.50.080
Can Replacement Cost $50 Each Can/Contract Cost 3.50.080
Landfill Tipping Fee $33 Per Ton 3.50.080
Landfill Tipping Fee (Hazardous Material)$100 Per Ton 3.50.080
Temporary Meter Charge Deposit $1,061 Per Event 3.50.080
Waste & Recycling - Special Events, Use of Equipment
Flat Bed Truck $24 Per Hour 3.50.080
Leafbed/10 Wheeler $60 Per Hour 3.50.080
Loader $93 Per Hour 3.50.080
Refuse Packer $186 Per Hour 3.50.080
Trailer $3 Per Hour 3.50.080
Waste & Recycling - Special Events, Staff Costs
Full-Time Employee $35 Per Hour 3.50.080
Supervisor $50 Per Hour 3.50.080
Seasonal Employee $16 Per Hour 3.50.080
Additional information on termination or suspension see Section 9.08.030F
Low Income Abatement: Customers who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a 50% abatement of the minimum monthly charge per Section 9.08.030.
SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES
For questions regarding Sanitary Sewer Charges contact: 801-483.6727
Customer Classifications
Customer Class BOD(mg/l)TSS(mg/l)Additional Information
1 <300 <300
More than one class may apply to a customer at the same time. Customer classifications is set based on the estimated BOD and TSS discharge rate.
2 300 - 600 300 - 600
3 601 - 900 601 - 900
4 901 - 1,200 901 - 1,200
5 1,201 - 1,500 1,201 - 1,500
See Section 17.72.030.C61,501 - 1,800 1,501 - 1,800
7 >1,800 >1,800
Sewer Charges
Customer Class*Flow Rate BOD TSS Total Additional Information Section
1 $3.19 $1.12 $0.82 $5.13 Monthly service charge for customers in classes 1 to 6 equal to the greater of:
1. Cumulative flow rate, BOD rate and TSS rate set forth in the following chart per 100 cubic feet of metered water usage during winter months, or
2. Minimum charge of $10.26.
All Residents will always be classified as a Class 1 category and the total sewer rate will be $5.13 per unit. Commercial customers with waste strengths higher than Class 1 may have BOD and TSS rates that are in different classes, thus their totals will not match class totals to the left. Example AAA Inc has a BOD in Class 4 and TSS in Class 2, thus the total rate is $3.19+$4.31+$1.64= $9.14.
2 $3.19 $1.83 $1.64 $6.66
3 $3.19 $3.01 $2.80 $9.00
4 $3.19 $4.31 $3.81 $11.31
5 $3.19 $5.4 $4.96 $13.55 17.72.030
6 $3.19 $6.66 $6.00 $15.85
7
Monthly Service charge for each customer in class 7 and all other
separately monitored classes based on actual discharge strength
Flow component charged at $3.19 per 100 cubic feet of metered
water used during a billing period
Charge for COD, BOD, and TSS billed on actual pounds of
discharge
Category Cost per Pound of Discharge ($/Pound)
COD $0.3632
BOD $0.7263
TSS $0.4322
New sewer accounts - Applicable until data required by Section 17.72.030.C.1.a is received
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 30
Single $41.04 per month Based on average residential AWC of 8 ccf.17.72.030
Duplex $41.04 per month/per dwelling unit Based on average residential AWC of 8 ccf.17.72.030
Triplex $41.04 per month/per dwelling unit Based on average residential AWC of 8 ccf.17.72.030
Multiple dwelling
$41.04 per month per dwelling unit minimum or $3.19 per one hundred cubic feet of total water consumption whichever is highest
Based on average AWC of 8 ccf.17.72.030
All other users
$41.04 per month per dwelling unit or class average AWC by meter size times rates whichever is highest
Customer Class Flow Rate Per 100 Cubic Feet
17.72.030
1 $3.19
2 $4.15
3 $5.60
4 $7.04
5 $8.43
6 $9.86
Customer class 7
Monthly service charge for each customer in class 7 and all other separately monitored classed based on actual discharge strength
See Section 17.72.030 E.1.a 17.72.030
Service charge adjustment As needed to ensure equitable service charges, determined by director 17.72.030
Low Income Abatement: Customers who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a four dollar *$4.00) abatement of the monthly charge.
SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION FEES
For questions regarding Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees contact: 801.483.6727
Service/Size Fee Additional Information Section
Connection fees on new development property:
Residential single dwelling $545 per connection or unit Includes condominiums and twin homes single dwellings 17.72.030
Multi-family dwellings
Duplex $818 17.72.030
Triplex $1,226 17.72.030
Townhouse/Apartment, per unit $409 per unit 17.72.030
Commercial/Industrial
Without kitchen or restaurant $273 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
With a kitchen or restaurant $363 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
With a kitchen and a restaurant $363 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
General commercial and industrial $27 per each equivalent fixture unit Base on Utah plumbing code 17.72.030
Trailer Park $545 per equivalent fixture unit Three trailer spaces shall equal one residential single dwelling unit 17.72.030
Recreation park $545 per equivalent fixture unit Six trailer spaces shall equal one residential single dwelling 17.72.030
Special industrial and commercial uses $27 per equivalent fixture unit, as specified in uniform plumbing code Including car washes, Laundromats,, etc.17.72.030
Sewer connection fees on property with prior development:
Residential building See Section 17.72.030 17.72.030
Commercial building See Section 17.72.030 Hotel, motel, industrial building, etc.17.72.030
Temporary sewer connections $500 Not to exceed 24 months 17.72.030
Unauthorized manhole or utility access
First incident $500 17.36.220
Subsequent Incidents Previous charge + $500 17.36.220
SANITARY SEWER PERMITS
For questions regarding Sanitary Sewer Permits contact: 801.483.6727
Service Fee Additional Information
Sewer Permit Fees Section
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 31
Sewer and miscellaneous inspection $165 17.72.030
Grease trap survey and inspection $165 17.72.030
Sewer repair inspection $72 17.72.030
Trial sewer survey $100 17.72.030
Sewer survey $130 17.72.030
Resurvey charge $100 Each Occasion 17.72.030
Installation of sewer special wyes and tees up to 8-inches $219 17.72.030
Installation of sewer special wyes and tees greater than 8-inches $319 17.72.030
Video inspection $55 17.72.030
Sewer Construction, Connection and Repair Permits
Additional surveys or inspections Fee Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.030
Application for repairs and replacements fee Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.040
Trial sewer survey fee Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.030
Re-inspection additional fee Fee to cover the cost of the work See Section 17.44.110 17.44.040
Survey stakes resetting fee Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.030
Opening sewer when junction pipe not available Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.040
Replacing damaged junction pipe Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.030
SANITARY SEWER PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
For questions regarding Sanitary Sewer Pretreatment Program contact: 801.799.4002
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Pretreatment Program services
Permit application Determined by Publicly Owned treatment Works (POTW)For Provisions see Section 17.52.030 17.52.040
Metering of sewage flows Based upon actual sewer meter readings 17.72.030
Sample and analysis fees Fee to cover all cost associated with labor and testing 17.64.040
New Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit $100 17.64.040
Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit Renewal $50 17.64.040
Pretreatment Sampling Fees
Manual sampling $80 17.64.040
Automatic sampler composite $50 17.64.040
Grab sample $20 17.64.040
Grease Interceptor Inspection Fee
1st trip Free 17.64.040
Additional follow up inspection $75 17.64.040
3rd trip $150 17.64.040
Noncompliance Violation Fee
Notice of Violation for Non-compliance $100 Noncompliance violation fee covers fixed cost of notice of violation. Fines for violations may also apply.
17.64.040
Significant Non-compliance Violation $350 17.64.040
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 32
SPECIAL EVENTS
For questions regarding Special Events contact: TBD
Service Fee Additional Information Section
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - SPECIAL EVENTS
Alcohol Concessions Agreement $282 Per Applications 3.50.080
Staffing Charge $28 Per hour over 6 hours 3.50.080
Janitorial Rate See Notes Fee is equal to fee charged by facilities for janitorial services 3.50.080
FIRE - TEMPORARY MEMBRANE STRUCTURES, TENTS OR CANOPIES - SPECIAL EVENTS
Single event - Initial Inspection $176 Up to 180 days. See Also Fire Code under 2.12.040 3.50.080
Each additional structure on same site $1 See Also Fire Code 2.12.040 3.50.080
Re-inspection of additional setup $1 Using the same plan that was previously inspected. See Also
Fire Code under 2.12.040 3.50.080
PUBLIC LANDS - SPECIAL EVENTS
Site: Set Up/Takedown $70 Per Day 3.50.080
Event Fee $69 Per day, 0-299 participants with minimal set up 3.50.080
Event Fee $140 Per day, 300 + participants 3.50.080
Special Event Permit $121 Commercially related (community events)3.50.080
Special Event Filming Permit $121 21A.42.070
Special Event Demonstrations (Free Expression)$6 21A.42.070
Staff costs
Supervisor $30 Per Hour 3.50.080
Sr. Groundskeeper $21 Per Hour 3.50.080
Groundskeeper $15 Per Hour 3.50.080
Seasonal Employee $13 Per Hour 3.50.080
Plumber $28 Per Hour 3.50.080
Irrigation Tech $24 Per Hour 3.50.080
Irrigation Seasonal $17 Per Hour 3.50.080
Electrical Usage $0.09 Per Kilowatt Hour - $15.29 Minimum 3.50.080
Restroom Cleaning $34 Per Cleaning 3.50.080
Damage to Landscape
Sod Replacement $0.31 Per Square Foot 3.50.080
Peat Moss $16 Per Bale (cost is $15.88)3.50.080
Lawn Seed $113 Per Bag 3.50.080
Top Soil $36 Per Yard 3.50.080
Fertilizer $36 Per Bag 3.50.080
Tree Replacement Varies per size of tree Based on city's cost to replace damaged tree 3.50.080
Wetting Agent $116 Per 40 lb bag 3.50.080
Wetting Agent + Organic 3-1-0 $49 Per 50 lb bag 3.50.080
Paver Replacement
Paver Cleaning $300 per 1/2 day; $600 per day Based on city's cost 3.50.080
Equipment Damage and Parts Varies based on damage Based on city's cost 3.50.080
Irrigation Damage and Parts Varies based on damage Based on city's cost 3.50.080
Fuel Costs $3 3.50.080
Use of Equipment
1 Ton Dump Truck $28 Per Hour 3.50.080
Aerator (Walk Behind)$9 Per Hour 3.50.080
Aerator, Tractor Mounted (including Tractor)$16 Per Hour 3.50.080
ATLV $15 Per Hour 3.50.080
Backhoe $48 Per Hour 3.50.080
Blower, Backpack (Stihl)$2 Per Hour 3.50.080
Blower (Walk Behind)$7 Per Hour 3.50.080
Edger, Grass (Power Trim)$7 Per Hour 3.50.080
Leafbed/10 Wheeler $67 Per Hour 3.50.080
Loader $68 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mixer $13 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mower, Bagger (Snapper)$7 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mower, Riding (Toro/Kubota)$16 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mower, Side Discharge (Eastman)$6 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mower, Wide Area (Jacobsen 9016)$35 Per Hour 3.50.080
Pickup Truck $14 Per Hour 3.50.080
Plow, Jeep Mounted (Including Jeep)$12 Per Hour 3.50.080
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 33
Plow, Truck (Including Truck)$24 Per Hour 3.50.080
Pressure Washer $8 Per Hour 3.50.080
Pressure Washer with Heat $21 Per Hour 3.50.080
Snowthrower (Toro)$3 Per Hour 3.50.080
Sprayer, Pull Behind (Including Pickup)$19 Per Hour 3.50.080
Spreader, Pull Behind (Including Pickup)$19 Per Hour 3.50.080
Sweeper, Tractor Mounted (Including $28 Per Hour 3.50.080
Track hoe $18 Per Hour 3.50.080
Tractor and Seeder $18 Per Hour 3.50.080
Trimmer, Hedger (Stihl)$4 Per Hour 3.50.080
Trimmer, Line (Maruyama, Echo)$14 Per Hour 3.50.080
Utility Truck (Cushman)$14 Per Hour 3.50.080
Utility Truck (Kawasaki Mule)$14 Per Hour 3.50.080
Van, Mower ( Including Trailer)$20 Per Hour 3.50.080
PARKING AND TRAFFIC - SPECIAL EVENTS
Temporary Placing of Bags on Parking Meters $28 Per day 12.56.210
During filming of a movie/television series/
commercial $12 Per day 12.56.210
For an event that continues for not less than
3 days $12 Per day/must significantly foster area business promotion
and have an expected attendance exceeding 5,000 12.56.210
For a religious or charitable organization No Charge Limited to 30 days per calendar year 12.56.210
For use under the direction of the city in
connection with a city sponsored event No Charge 12.56.210
POLICE - SPECIAL EVENTS
Police Coverage for Special Events $62 Per Hour, Per Officer 3.50.080
Police Secondary Employment Car Charge $7 Per Every 4 Hours, plus fuel surcharge 3.50.080
Vehicle Relocation Fee $79 12.56.540
WASTE & RECYCLING - SPECIAL EVENTS
Can Delivery, Removal & 1st Dump <100 cans $22 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Can Delivery, Removal & 1st Dump >100 cans $19 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Recycling Can Contamination $22 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Additional Can Dump Service $4 Each Can/Dump 3.50.080
Can Replacement Cost $50 Each Can/Contract Cost 3.50.080
Landfill Tipping Fee $31 Per Ton 3.50.080
Landfill Tipping Fee (Hazardous Material)$100 Per Ton 3.50.080
Temporary Meter Charge Deposit $1,061 Per Event 3.50.080
Waste & Recycling - Special Events, Use of Equipment
Flat Bed Truck $24 Per Hour 3.50.080
Leafbed/10 Wheeler $60 Per Hour 3.50.080
Loader $93 Per Hour 3.50.080
Refuse Packer $186 Per Hour 3.50.080
Trailer $3 Per Hour 3.50.080
Waste & Recycling - Special Events, Staff Costs
Full-Time Employee $30 Per Hour 3.50.080
Supervisor $45 Per Hour 3.50.080
Seasonal Employee $16 Per Hour 3.50.080
Special Event Permits Per Day in Protected Watershed Areas (Races, walks, filming, etc)
# of Participants Fee Deposit Additional Information
0 to 20 $0 $0
One toilet required per 40 participants at start.
Running races over 5 miles require toilets at
intermittent mile markers and aid stations (e.g.
miles 1,3,5…)
17.08.030
20 to 50 $25 $50
50 to 100 $50 $100
100 to 200 $100 $200
200 to 400 $200 $500
400 to 600 $500 $1,000
600 to 1,000 $1,000 $2,000
*Over 1,000 *Contacted watershed manager
Filming Fees (per day)$200 minimum to $1,000 minimum
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 34
STORM WATER
For questions regarding Storm Water contact: 801.483.6727
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Drainage connection fee $374 Per 1/4 acre, rounded up 17.81.400
Storm water inspection fee $110 17.16.050
Storm Water Fees
Single family residential and duplex parcels, less
than 0.25 acres $5.98 Per month 17.81.200
Single family residential and duplex parcels, more
than 0.25 acres $8.36 Per month 17.81.200
Triplex and fourplex residential $11.96 Per month 17.81.200
All other developed parcels $5.98 per ERU Per month, see Section 17.81.200 for formula 17.81.200
Undeveloped parcels No assessment levied 17.81.200
Parcel mitigation credit Formula based See Section 17.81.200 17.81.200
Low income abatement 50% reduction to service
charge See Section 17.81.200 17.81.200
Non-service abatement Formula based See Section 17.81.200 17.81.200
Discharge into City Storm Water Sewer System Not to exceed $125 17.84.400
Discharge into City Storm water Sewer System
Registration Fee $20 18.16.050
Discharge into City Storm Water Re-inspection Fee Not to exceed $30 17.16.050
STREET LIGHTING
For questions regarding Street Lighting fees contact: 801.498.6700
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Base Level Lighting Services City-Wide $3.73 Per ERU Per month. No bills shall be less one ERU.17.95.300
Enhanced Lighting Fees
Group 1 Decorative Lights - High Efficiency $5.67 per ERU Per month - residential 17.95.300
Group 2 Decorative Lights $15.94 per ERU Per month - residential 17.95.300
Group 3 Decorative Multi- Head Lights $43.82 per ERU Per month - commercial 17.95.300
Note: 1 ERU = 1 residential property or 75 feet of street frontage for non-residential properties.
1 - Group 1 rates apply to the existing, predominantly residential properties with a number of enhanced decorative lights; lights have generally received energy
efficiency upgrades and large capital expenditures are not expected within the year.
2 - Group 2 rates apply to the existing, predominantly residential properties with a number of enhanced decorative lights; many lights require energy efficiency
upgrades and large capital expenditures are scheduled within the year.
3 - Group 3 rates apply to the existing properties in the predominantly commercial area with a number of enhanced decorative lights; many lights require energy
efficiency upgrades and large capital expenditures are scheduled within the year.
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Service Fee
Minimum Charge Rate Table
Size of connection Charge Daily Amount Monthly Amount
City County City County
3/4 inch Minimum charge 0.3295 0.4448 $10.03 $13.54 17.16.670
1 inch Minimum charge 0.4310 0.5818 $13.12 $17.71 17.16.670
1 1/2 inch Minimum charge 0.6847 0.9242 $20.84 $28.13 17.16.670
2 inch Minimum charge 0.9896 1.3359 $30.12 $40.66 17.16.670
3 inch Minimum charge 1.8014 2.4319 $54.83 $74.02 17.16.670
4 inch Minimum charge 2.7144 3.6646 $82.62 $111.54 17.16.670
6 inch Minimum charge 5.2527 7.0913 $159.88 $215.84 17.16.670
8 inch Minimum charge 8.2977 11.2020 $252.56 $340.96 17.16.670
10 inch Minimum charge 21.4942 29.0172 $654.23 $883.21 17.16.670
>10 inches Minimum charge Based proportionately on meter capacity, as determined by
Public Utilities Director.
Fire Hydrant $7.7497 $10.4621 $235.88 $318.44 17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a four dollar fifty cent ($4.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Water Meter Rates 17.16.680
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 35
All rates charged are per each 100 cubic feet of water.
**Summer months are April through October
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
City County City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
1-10 hundred
cubic feet
$1.48 $2.00
$1.48 $2.00
Block 2:
11-30 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased to 47.94
Cubic feet for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$2.02 $2.73
Block 3:
31-60 hundred
cubic feet
$2.80 $3.78
Block 4:
>61 hundred
cubic feet
$2.99 $4.04
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
1-13 hundred
cubic feet
$1.48 $2.00
$1.48 $2.00
Block 2:
14-30 hundred
cubic feet
$2.02 $2.73
Block 3:
31-60 hundred
cubic feet
$2.80 $3.78
Block 4:
>61 hundred
cubic feet
$2.99 $4.04
Triplex residence
Block 1:
1-16 hundred
cubic feet
$1.48 $2.00
$1.48 $2.00
Block 2:
17-30 hundred
cubic feet
$2.02 $2.73
Block 3:
31-60 hundred
cubic feet
$2.80 $3.78
Block 4:
>61 hundred
cubic feet
$2.99 $4.04
Fourplex residence/Commercial
and Industrial
0 Cubic feet
Through AWC $1.61 $2.17
$1.61 $2.17
Above AWC
through 300% of AWC $2.21 $2.98
Over 300% through
600% of AWC $3.07 $4.14
Over 600% of AWC $3.26 $4.40
Note:
"AWC" means average winter consumption, and is calculated as the average amount of water used by customer during the months of November through March,
inclusive (a "winter period"), taking into account the highest number of complete winter periods available for that customer, up to a maximum of 3 winter periods.
Any customer that at the time of calculation has not established an AWC will be assigned a class average AWC by meter size for such customer's classification.
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be assigned the class
average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other consumption information specific to such
account to determine AWC.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Irrigation
City County City County Cost
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $1.94 $2.62
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $2.70 $3.65 $1.94 $2.62
Over 300% of
target budget $2.87 $3.87
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 50
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $183.79 $0.42
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $420.66 $0.97 $175.05 $0.41
Over 300% of
target budget $706.49 $1.62
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment
Range from
$81.63 to
$204.11
Annually
NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$75 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$125 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $75 $75 17.16.660
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel 68.5 plus tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.620
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.620
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public
Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $362.56 per year 17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $181.28 per year 17.04.030
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.04.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size City Cost**County Cost
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $2,439.07 $2,520.07
Single family 1 inch $3,994.30 $4,191.30
Duplex 1 inch $3,994.30 $4,191.30
Triplex 1 inch $3,994.30 $4,191.30
Fourplex 1 inch $3,994.30 $4,191.30
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 51
Commercial/Industrial
Compound
3/4 inch $4,527.30 $4,910.30
1 inch $4,527.30 $4,910.30
1.5 inch $9,946.98 $10,684.98
2 inch $14,547.83 $15,605.83
3 inch $30,108.54 $32,268.54
4 inch $35,254.54 $35,254.54
6 inch $65,657.59 $65,657.59
8 inch $100,190.54 $100,190.54
Turbo
2 inch Price upon request Price upon request
3 inch Price upon request Price upon request
4 inch Price upon request*Price upon request*
6 inch Price upon request*Price upon request*
8 inch Price upon request*Price upon request*
FM
4 inch $37,200.93 $37,200.93
6 inch $67,557.57 $67,557.57
8 inch $104,974.63 $104,974.63
10 inch $147,135.18 $147,135.18
Hydroverse 8 inch $105,070.4 $105,070.4
10 inch $146,084.18 $146,084.18
*For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA M-22
method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
** Cost includes actual hardware cost, inspection fees and impact fees.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check
6-inch $1,691.00 17.16.050
8-inch $2,575.64 17.16.050
10-inch $4,389.03 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
New hydrant inspection $110.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water kill inspection $110.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350
WATERSHED RECREATIONAL FEES
For questions regarding Watershed Recreational fees contact: 801.483.6880
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Affleck Park Site Fees
Single Site $15 Per day 17.08.030
Group area #2 $50 Per day 17.08.030
Group area #3 $100 Per day 17.08.030
Little Dell Recreation Area Site Fee
Vehicle entry $5 Per car 17.08.030
Season pass $50 17.08.030
Senior season pass $25 17.08.030
City Creek Canyon Entry Fee
Vehicle entry $3 Per car 17.08.030
Site fees for picnic areas $3 - $75 17.08.030
Permits for Dogs in the Watershed – Applicants should refer to Section 17.04.160 of the City Code for information. If a bond is not submitted to Salt Lake County, the following deposit shall be paid.
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 52
Initial deposit - no violation $100 17.04.160(E)
Second deposit - after first violation $300 17.04.160(F)
Third deposit - after second violation $500 17.04.160(F)
Special Event Permits Per Day in Protected Watershed Areas (Races, walks, filming, etc)
# of Participants Fee Deposit Additional Information
0 to 20 $0 $0
One toilet required per 40 participants at start.
Running races over 5 miles require toilets at
intermittent mile markers and aid stations (e.g.
miles 1,3,5…)
17.08.030
20 to 50 $25 $50
50 to 100 $50 $100
100 to 200 $100 $200
200 to 400 $200 $500
400 to 600 $500 $1,000
600 to 1,000 $1,000 $2,000
*Over 1,000 *Contacted watershed manager
Filming Fees (per day)$200 minimum to $1,000 minimum
ZONING FEES
For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Determination of Nonconforming Use $202 21A.38.025.4
Administrative Interpretation $67 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6
Alley Vacation/Closure $269 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained.
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)14.52.030. A.5
Alternative Parking
Residential $403 21A.52.040 .A.3
Nonresidential $739 21A.52.040 .A.3
Amendments
Master plan $1,008 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for
required public notices (10.9a.204).
Utah Code
Annoted
10.9A.510
Zoning map amendment $1,075 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for
required public notices (21A.10.010.E).21A.50.040.B
Zoning text amendment $1,075 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.50.040.B
Annexation $1,344 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)Utah Code Annoted 10.2.401.5
Appeal of a Decision
Administrative decision $269 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B
Historic Landmark Commission $269 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B
Planning Commission $269 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B
Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office
First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90
Second scheduled hearing $67 21A.20.90
Billboard Construction or Demolition including the
demolition of a non-conforming billboard $269 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2
Conditional Building and Site Design Review $806 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for
required public notices (21A.10.010.E).21A.59.070.B
Conditional Use $806 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E).21A.54.060.C
Condominium
Preliminary $537 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices
(21.A.10.010.E).20.56.40.B
Final $403 Plus $24 per unit.20.56.40.B
Declaration of Surplus Real Property $403 2.58.040
Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application)
Major Alterations of a principal building $34 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020
New construction of a principal building $269 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020
Demolition of a contributing principal building $537 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020
Relocation of a contributing principal building $269 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020
Home Occupation
Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030
Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030
Outdoor Dining
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 53
Outdoor Dining Application $28 21A.40.065
Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables)$113 21A.40.065
Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables)$169 21A.40.065
Planned Development $806 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for
required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.55
Signs
Permit fee for signs
Based on the
adopted Building
Permit Fee
Schedule
21A.46.030
Plan checking fee $0.12 Of building permit value 21A.46.030
Inspection tag $13 21A.46.030
Site Development Permit $269 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E
Special Exception $269
For historic structures, see Section 21A.34.020 and
21A.46.070V. See also fee for required public notices
21A.10.010.E)
21A.52.040.A.3
Street Closure $403 See also fee for required public notices.2.58.040
Subdivision Amendments $403 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices
(20.36)20.04.120
Subdivision Preliminary Plat $403 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices
(20.36)20.04.120
Subdivision Final Plat $806 Plus $121 per lot.20.04.120
Subdivision Vacations $403 See also fee for required public notices (20.36)20.04.120
Engineering Review and Inspection Fee
5% of the 1st
$100,000 of public
improvements &
2% for the amount
above $100,000
20.04.120
Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $267 20.04.120
Subdivision Consolidating Lots $257 20.04.120
Temporary Uses $269 21A.42.060.B
Zoning Variance $403 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.18.040.B
As per applicable sections of the City and / or State Code, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to
property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required
public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance and State Law: Salt Lake City Code 21A.10.E and
Utah State Code Annotated 10.9a.204 and 510
GENERAL FUNDS MISCELLANEOUS FEES
For questions regarding General Funds Miscellaneous Fees contact: TBD
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Collection Fee $53 3.16.050
Legal Fee $204 2.75.040
Credit Card Use Surcharge 2.35%
This fee will be added at the register to all qualifying credit card
transactions described in Section 3.16.060 of the Salt Lake City Code.
**Max Galaxy, Sportsman software and Library Parking Garage does
not assess the credit card charge**
3.16.060
Pedestrian Crosswalk Flags
Plain Orange Non-Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10 Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for keeping the flags in stock. No fees assessed for flags sponsored in school zones.
12.76.100
Orange Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10
Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for
keeping the flags in stock. No fees assessed for flags sponsored in
school zones.
12.76.100
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 54
Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 1
Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule
This document shows fees charged by Salt Lake City to offset regulatory and administrative service
costs. Although most City fees are shown, this consolidated fee schedule does not show penalties,
such as fines and late fees; court fees; credit card processing fees; or fees required by a city
contract, such as concession and franchise fees. It also may not show fees authorized by
administrative rules or a general delegation of authority. The City intends that future versions of
this document will show such fees.
Fees are generally listed by City department and the associated service. References to a "section" in
the comments column means a section of the Salt Lake City Code. The code may be accessed by
going to Sterlingcodifiers.com
More than one fee may apply to a given set of circumstances. For answers to questions, please call
the number shown at the top of each section.
The fees here may change. The current consolidated fee schedule may be accessed by clicking
here. The fee schedule was originally adopted by Ordinance 2011-25 and has been subsequently
amended by:
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 2
Amended By:Code Sections Affected:
Ordinance 2011-44
5.04.070 5.48.030 5.76.120 5.76.120 15.16.090
5.09.010 5.56.040 5.90.010 5.90.010 17.16.670
5.14.040 5.60.030 6.16.030 6.16.030 17.72.030
5.16.060 5.61.120 12.56.170 12.56.170 17.81.200
5.16.180 5.64.280 12.56.210 12.56.210 18.44.030
5.37.080 5.70.040 14.52.030 14.52.030
5.42.030 5.74.080 15.16.031 15.16.031
Ordinance 2011-75 15.16.031
Ordinance 2012-3 8.04.065 8.04.070
Ordinance 2012-6 8.06.010
Ordinance 2012-27 18.98.190
Ordinance 2012-44
9.08.030 15.16.090 16.56.050 16.60.120
12.56.170 16.12.140 16.56.090 17.04.030
12.56.240 16.12.150 16.56.100 17.16.670
15.16.020 16.12.155 16.56.130 17.16.680
15.16.031 16.12.160 16.56.150 17.64.040
15.16.035 16.12.170 16.56.170 17.72.030
15.16.060 16.12.180 16.56.180 18.44.030
15.16.080 16.12.190 16.60.110 21A.64.010
Ordinance 2012-54 8.04.135
Ordinance 2012-69 15.16.090
Ordinance 2012-93 17.90.020 17.95.300
Ordinance 2013-17 15.16.010 15.16.110
Ordinance 2013-28 2.12.040 3.02.020
Ordinance 2013-37 2.75.040
Ordinance 2013-38 3.16.050
Ordinance 2013-39 03.02.030 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2013-40 3.16.040
Ordinance 2013-42 15.16.020
Ordinance 2013-43 12.96.025
Ordinance 2013-51 15.24.290
Ordinance 2014-10 18.98.190 17.81.400
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 3
Ordinance 2014-27 17.16.590 17.16.670
Ordinance 2014-41
Annual CPI Adjustment 2.12.040 3.50.020 5.16.090
5.51.027 15.16.090 15.24.120 18.98.090 18.98.160
3.16.005 12.56.600 15.16.120
Ordinance 2014-50 15.16.031 15.16.035
Ordinance 2014-51 15.16.031
Ordinance 2014-55 21A.06.030 21A.46.120
21A.06.050 21A.50
Ordinance 2015-01
Ordinance 2015-44
Ordinance 2015-65 5.04.070 5.15.020
Ordinance 2015-72 9.08.030 9.08.115 9.08.140 9.08.200
Ordinance 2016-01 12.96.025
Ordinance 2016-10 21A.16.010
Ordinance 2016-41 2.61.030
Ordinance 2016-43 15.16.090
Ordinance 2016-44
Ordinance 2016-45 15.16.031 15.16.035
Ordinance 2016-46 Authority to Set Municipal Fees
Ordinance 2016-49 09.08.030 15.16.090
Ordinance 2016-58 5.63.050
Ordinance 2016-79 18.98.020 18.98.050
Ordinance 2017-09 12.56.00 12.28.095
Ordinance 2017-11 15.16.031 15.16.035
Ordinance 2017-22 15.16.031
Ordinance 2017-38 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2017-52 Federal Trade Zone
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 4
Ordinance 2018-11 9.08.200
Ordinance 2018-25 18.58.010
Ordinance 2018-34 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2018-42 14.56.060 14.56.070
Ordinance 2019-06 18.98.020 18.98.120 18.98.160
Ordinance 2019-10 16.60.065 16.64.030
Ordinance 2019-21 8.04.390
Ordinance 2019-30 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2019-31
Ordinance 2019-32 12.56.550 12.56.580
Ordinance 2019-55
Ordinance 2020-2020-26 Annual CPI Adjustment
Ordinance 2020-30
Ordinance 2020-53 18.48.100
Ordinance 2021-Annual CPI Adjustment
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 5
Consolidated Fee Schedule
Table of Contents
Page(s)
Airport 7 - 8
Animal Services 8
Building Rental/Use: City and County Building, Washington Square, Public Safety Building
and Pioneer Precinct 8
Business Licensing 9 - 13
Cemetery 13
City and County Building Rental and Washington Square Use 8
Community Development 14 - 22
Economic Development 22
Engineering 22 - 24
Fire 24 - 27
Gallivan Center 20
Golf 27 - 30
HAND - Housing and Neighborhood Development 30
Impact Fees 31
Parking and Traffic 31 - 33
Parks and Recreation 33 - 32
Police 32 - 38
Public Lands 33 - 32
Records and Elections 38
Refuse 38 - 39
Sanitary Sewer Utilities 39 - 43
Special Events 43 - 45
Storm Water 45
Street Lighting 45
Water 45 - 54
Watershed Recreational 54
Zoning Fees 54 - 56
General Fund Miscellaneous Fees 56
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 6
Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule
AIRPORT
For questions regarding Airport Fees Contact: 801-575-2721
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Aircraft Parking Fees
Daily
Less than 12,500 pounds (U42 - SVRA)$10.00
$15.00
Ramp and tie down parking 16.56.100
12,500 pounds to 44,999 pounds (U42 - SVRA)$30.00 Ramp and tie down parking 16.56.090
45,000 pounds and aboveTooele Valley Airport (TVY)$15.00
$60.00
Ramp and tie down parking 16.56.100
Aircraft parking fees exemption: Any person engaging in air transportation services having an assigned gate hold
Aeronautical Services
Aircraft rental permit $250.00 Annual, per aircraft rentalrental aircraft 16.56.090
Aircraft sales permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.100
Commercial flight service permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.130
Commercial Flight service aircraft owner permit $250.00 Annual, per aircraft in addition to
Commercial Flight Service Permit Fee 16.56.130
Flight training permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.150
Flight training aircraft owner permit $250.00 Annual, per aircraft in addition to flight
training owner permit fee 16.56.150
Airframe and/or Power Plant Repair $250.00 Annual 16.56.170
Radio, instrument or propeller repair service permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.170
Hangar Application Wait List Fee $150.00 $50 refundable 16.56.050
Miscellaneous business permit $250.00 Annual 16.56.050
Multiple aeronautical services
Any person desiring to engage in two (2) or more commercial aeronautical
activities is responsible for payment of all fees as established for each
aeronautical activity engaged in; however, fees for owned aircraft (as the
term "owner" is defined in Section 16.04.30 of this title), will be assessed for
one (1) aeronautical activity only.
16.56.180
Any Person offering any such services, or combinations thereof, shall do so under written lease or permit agreement with the City. For exemptions and other information, see Section 16.56.010.
AVI Fees (Automated Vehicle Identification)
Vehicle Category Fee
1 to 5 passengers Set forth in current rate
schedule based on
Administrative Rules and
Regulations
16.60.110;16.60.120
6 to 9 passengers Rates established by Administrative Rules and Regulations (See Ground
Transportation Rules and Regulations, Section 2.0); also see the current rate
schedule.
10 to 15 passengers
16 to 24 passengers
> 24 passengers
Campus Dwell Time
30 minutes No Cost 16.56.090
30-45 minutes $2.00 16.56.100
45-60 minutes $10.00 16.56.090
Every 5 minutes over 60 minutes $20.00 16.56.100
Terminal Front Dwell Time 16.56.090
0-20 minutes No Cost 16.56.100
20-30 minutes $3.00 16.56.090
30-40 minutes $20.00 16.56.100
Every minute over 40 minutes $5.00 16.56.090
Cargo Carrier Ramp Use Fees Formula based See Section 16.12.170 16.12.170
Fuel Royalties $0.06 per gallon of fuel For provisions, see Section 16.12.190 16.12.190
Landing Fees
Fixed-wing aircraft Formula based See Section 16.12.160 16.12.160
For Landing Fee Exemptions: See Section 16.12.160
Off Airport In-Flight Caterers 7% of gross sales at airport Paid within 15 days of the end of each month, see
Section 16.12.155 for provisions 16.12.155
Parking
Economy Lot
First hour $5
$2
12.56.240
Each additional hour $5
$1
12.56.240
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 7
Daily maximum $10 12.56.240
Click N Park Daily $3 12.56.240
Hourly/Daily (Parking Garage)
First hour $5 12.56.240
Each additional hour $5 12.56.240
Daily maximum $35 12.56.240
Walking Lot
First hour $5 12.56.240
Each additional hour $5 12.56.240
Daily maximum $21 12.56.240
Concierge
Daily rate only $55 12.56.240
Terminal use Fees*
Annual terminal space rental Formula based See Section 16.12.150
Annual basement & baggage make-up space Formula based See Section 16.12.150 16.12.140
Common use bag claim Formula based Per enplaned passenger 16.12.150
Common use ticket counter and bag make-up space Formula based Per use/ Use equals 3 hours Rates established by Administrative
Rules and Regulations; also see the
current rate schedule.
Common use gates Formula based Per use/ Use equals 3 hours
Common use boarding bridge Formula based Per use/ Use equals 3 hours
Use of international arrival building Formula based Per passenger deplaned
*Terminal use fee exemption: Any airline that has a valid and existing agreement
with the City covering use of bag claim and terminal facilities.
ANIMAL SERVICES
Note: Salt Lake City contracts with Salt Lake County for Animal Services.
Animal service fees are set and administered by Salt Lake County.
http://slco.org/animal-services/about-us/fees-and-services/
For questions regarding Animal Service Fees Contact: 385-468-7387
BUILDING RENTAL/USE: CITY and COUNTY BUILDING RENTAL and WASHINGTON SQUARE USEBUILDING, WASHINGTON SQUARE, PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING and PIONEER PRECINCT
For questions regarding Building and Square fees Contact: 801.535.7280
Service Fee Deposit Additional Information Section
Activity with food $789
$776
$485
$478
15.14.020
Filming (Commercial)
Fewer than 8 staff, crew and other persons $303
$299
$607
$597
Each 4 hour block 15.14.020
8 - 15 staff, crew and other persons $595
$586
$893
$879
Each 4 hour block 15.14.020
More than 15 staff, crew and other persons $1,273
$1,253
$1,820
$1,791
Each 4 hour block 15.14.020
Filming (Religious or Charitable)As defined in Section 15.14.010
Fewer than 8 staff, crew and other persons No Charge $607
$597
15.14.020
8 - 15 staff, crew and other persons No Charge $910
$896
15.14.020
More than 15 staff, crew and other persons No Charge $1,809
$1,780
15.14.020
Miscellaneous Meetings
Regular city business hours (8am - 5pm)$26/hr $91
$90
Up to 40 people, no more than three hours 15.14.020
Non-city business hours $26/hr $91
$90
See Section 15.14.020 15.14.020
Supplemental Charge for Exclusive Building Use 121
119
NA 15.14.020
Wedding Ceremony
Base fee for two hours $176
$173
$91
$90
No food 15.14.020
See Section 15.14.010 for damage and deposit provisions, additional fees and exceptions.
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 8
BUSINESS LICENSING
For questions regarding Business Licensing Fees Contact: 801-535-6644
Service Fee Additional Information Section
All Businesses pay a Base License Fee and Employee Fee as listed below
Base License Fees
Before Sept' 2021
Effective Sept' 2021
Home occupation businesses $124
$121
$126
$124
5.04.070
Non-home occupations $157
$153
$159
$157
5.04.070
Employee Fee $23
$22
$23 Annual, per full or part-time employee, if business has
more than one employee.
Additional fees may apply depending on type of business according to list below
Before
Sept'
2021
Effective
Sept'
2021
Fees with an effective date other than July 1, 2011 are
indicated by two columns.
Amusement Devices $4 $4 Annual, per device 5.70.040
Amusement Devices Wholesale $27
$26
$27 Annual 5.76.120
Apartment Units (until 9/1/2011)See Rental Dwelling 5.90.010
Application for Certificates
Public convenience and necessity $137
$134
$139
$137
5.05.130
Auctioneer $134
$131
$136
$134
Per auctioneer 5.16.060
Auction House, Transient $253
$247
$257
$253
Per day, per business 5.16.180
Automobiles
Auto Dealers New/Used $61
$60
$62
$61
Annual 5.76.120
Parts sales $115
$112
$117
$115
Annual 5.76.120
Auto/RV/Other Rental agenciesAgencies $27
$26
$27 Annual 5.76.120
RepairAuto/Truck & Mechanic Related Services $61
$60
$62
$61
Annual 5.76.120
Towing / Wrecking $21
$20
$21 Annual 5.76.120
Automobile Towing/Wrecking $20 $20 Annual 5.76.120
Automobile Trailer Court License Refer to base license fee listed in this section Annual per trailer, per space on premises, see section 5.86.056 5.86.056
BanksFinancial Institution $129
$127
$132
$129
Annual 5.76.120
Beer LicensesSales Before Sept' 2021
Effective Sept' 2021
Retail Beer $320
$313
$325
$320
Annual, per license 5.90.010
Restaurant $253
$247
$257
$253
Annual, per license 5.90.010
Bar Tavern $358
$350
$363
$358
Annual, per license 5.90.010
Special Event $253
$247
$257
$253
Annual, per license 5.90.010
Microbrew pub $253
$247
$257
$253
Annual, per license 5.90.010
Recreational facility beer $320
$313
$325
$320
Annual, per license 5.90.010
Beer LicensesSales Application Fee No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 6.08.110
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 9
Billiards/Pool Tables $4
$3
$4 Annual, per device 5.70.040
Billiards/Pool Tables - Pool Hall $24 $25
$24
Annual 5.76.120
Business License Transfers
Information Change - Non Regulated $18 $19
$18
5.02.210
Information Change - Regulated $42
$41
$43
$42
5.02.210
Childcare Facilities $134
$131
$136
$134
Annual 5.76.120
Clothing Sales $101
$99
$103
$101
Annual 5.76.120
Construction Business $27 $28
$27
Annual 5.76.120
Convalescent and Retirement Facilities $161
$158
$164
$161
Annual 5.76.120
Dance HallReception/Venue Centers $20 $21
$20
Annual 5.90.020
Dance Studio Refer to base license fee listed in this section 9.04.050
Dance
Restaurant Refer to base license fee listed in this section 9.04.170
Tavern Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 9.04.170
Private Club Refer to base license fee listed in this section 9.04.170
Dance Hall - Public Dance Hall License Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 9.04.040
Dating/Marriage Service $107
$105
$109
$107
Per Business 5.42.030
Dry Cleaning and Laundry $134
$131
$136
$134
Annual 5.76.120
Electronic Goods Sales $161
$157
$164
$161
Annual 5.76.120
EngineeringConsulting $27
$26
$27 Annual 5.76.120
Entertainment
Concert $94
$92
$95
$94
Annual, per exhibition room 5.90.010
Dance hall $20 $21
$20
Annual, per room 5.90.010
Live entertainment No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.90.010
Theater, live $134
$131
$136
$134
Annual, per exhibition room 5.90.010
Theater, motion picture No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.90.010
Fire and Damaged Goods Sales No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.32.025
Fireworks
Inside $83
$81
$84
$83
Annual, per location 5.90.010
Outside $83
$81
$84
$83
Annual, per location 5.90.010
Fireworks Sales Refer to base license fee listed in this section Paid at least 10 days prior to opening of business. See also 2.120.040 under Fire 9.20.020
Furniture Sales $61
$60
$62
$61
Annual 5.76.120
Gas/Oil, Wholesale Gas $273
$267
$278
$273
Annual 5.90.010
Gas/Oil, Wholesale Businesses $27
$26
$27 Annual 5.76.120
Gasoline Stations $158
$154
$160
$158
Annual 5.76.120
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 10
Government Owned Alcohol Related Business $179
$175
$182
$179
Annual 5.90.010
Grocery/Convenience Stores $134
$131
$136
$134
Annual 5.76.120
Hardware Stores $134
$131
$136
$134
Annual 5.76.120
Healthcare ServicesRelated $48
$47
$48 Annual 5.76.120
Ice Cream Truck Vehicle Inspection $31
$30
$31 5.64.740
Ice Cream Truck Operator Application Fee No more than $31 5.64.580
Ice Cream Vendors $34
$33
$35
$34
Annual 5.90.010
Interior DesignDesign Services $27
$26
$27 Annual 5.76.120
JanitorialCleaning/Janitorial $74
$73
$76
$74
Annual 5.76.120
LawyersLegal Services/Law Office $21
$20
$21 Annual 5.76.120
Licenses Requiring a Special Public Hearing $61
$60
$62
$61
Plus actual costs 5.02.240
Liquor Consumption License $27 $28
$27
Annual, per license 6.16.030
Live Entertainment
Concerts $20 $21
$20
5.76.120
Private Club Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 5.28.080
Restaurants Refer to base license fee listed in this section 5.28.080
Taverns Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 5.28.080
Locksmiths No Charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.90.010
Manufacturing $48
$47
$48 Annual 5.76.120
Miscellaneous Services $26 $27
$26
Annual 5.76.120
Motion Picture Theaters $98
$95
$99
$98
Annual 5.76.120
Numismatic and/or Bullion Dealer Refer to base license fee listed in this section See Section 5.47.030 5.47.030
Nursing Home License Refer to base license
fee listed in this section See Section 5.86.306 5.86.306
Out of Doors - Restaurants & Occasional Banquets No Charge For occasional banquets, fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.54.040
Participant License Fee Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 5.64.330
Pawnshop and Secondhand Dealer
Pawnbroker $1,679
$1,641
$1,706
$1,679
Annual, per business 5.48.030
Secondhand compact disk exchange dealer $504
$493
$512
$504
Annual, per business 5.60.030
Secondhand computer exchange dealer $224
$219
$227
$224
Annual, per business 5.60.030
Pedi-cabs No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 5.90.010
Private Club Licenses
Bar Establishment $449
$439
$457
$449
Annual, per business 5.90.010
Banquet & Catering $287
$281
$292
$287
Annual 5.90.010
Proprietor's LicenseProprietor $43
$42
$44
$43
Per automatic amusement device 5.12.050
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 11
Real Estate Agencies $20 $21
$20
Annual 5.76.120
Rental Dwelling - Before 9/1/2011 Formula based See section 5.14.040 5.14.040
Rental Dwelling License with Good Landlord Certification - Effective 9/1/2011 (Per Ordinance)
Dwelling units $20 Per rental unit 5.14.040
Fraternities, sororities, rooming and boarding
house $20 Per room for lodging or sleeping purposes 5.14.040
Rental Dwelling License without Good Landlord Certification - Effective 9/1/2011 (Per Ordinance)
Dwelling units $342 Per rental unit 5.14.040
Fraternities, sororities, rooming and boardinghouse $342 Per room for lodging or sleeping purposes 5.14.040
Restaurants/Cafeterias $101
$99
$103
$101
Annual 5.76.120
Retail/Wholesale Sales $48
$47
$48 Annual 5.76.120
Retail Service Station Refer to base license
fee listed in this section 5.86.410
Room Rentals (rooming houses, boarding houses and for profit residential treatment facilities)
Boarding/rooming house $6 $6 Annual, per rental unit 5.56.040
Hotel $6 $6 Annual, per rental unit 5.56.040
Motel $6 $6 Annual, per rental unit 5.56.040
RV Parks and Campgrounds $26 $27
$26
Annual 5.76.120
Scrap Metal Processor Refer to base license
fee listed in this section See Section 5.58.030 5.58.030
Sexually Oriented Business
Adult business $387
$378
$393
$387
Annual, per business 5.61.120
Nude agency $1007
$984
$1023
$1007
Annual, per business 5.61.120
Nude entertainment business $387
$378
$393
$387
Annual, per business 5.61.120
Semi-nude dance agency $389
$381
$396
$389
Annual, per business 5.61.120
Semi nude dancing bar $299
$292
$303
$299
Annual, per business 5.61.120
Outcall agency $1,343
$1,313
$1,364
$1,343
Annual, per agency 5.61.120
Adult employee (non-escort)$236
$231
$240
$236
Annual, per employee 5.61.120
Outcall non-performer (non-escort)$236
$231
$240
$236
Annual, per employee 5.61.120
Nude performer employee*$269
$263
$273
$269
Annual, per nude performer; for prorated formula see
Section 5.90.010 5.61.120
Semi-nude dance performer*$269
$263
$273
$269
Annual, per semi-nude performer; for prorated formula see Section 5.90.010 5.61.120
Semi-nude performer employee*$269
$263
$273
$269
Annual, per semi-nude performer; for prorated formula
see Section 5.90.010 5.61.120
Outcall performer (escort)*$1007
$984
$1023
$1007
Annual, per outcall performer; for prorated formula see section 5.90.010 5.61.120
Sexually oriented business transfer $94
$92
$96
$94
Annual, per performer transfer 5.61.120
Photography (adult)$188
$184
$191
$188
Annual, per photographer 5.61.120
*These fees shall be prorated as follows: If 180 days or fewer remain before the employer's license expires, the fee shall be 50% of the full fee. If 181 or more days
remain before the employer's license expires, the full fee shall be charged
Shared Mobility per Device $30 $30 Per device
Shared Mobility per Ride $0.10 $0.10 Per ride
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 12
Shipping CompaniesMailing/Shipping/Logistics $48
$47
$48 Annual 5.76.120
Solicitor $134
$131
$136
$134
Per Individual 5.64.280
Solicitor ID Card $31
$30
$31 For period of time stated on card 5.64.130
Solicitor Registration $18 $18 For ID card 5.64.430
Special Event - Alcohol Concession Agreement $278
$271
$282
$278
This fee is a daily rate. Rate estimated on the number of
days the alcohol would be served for the Special Event
Sporting Goods Sales $48
$47
$48 Annual 5.76.120
Storage ServicesStorage/Warehouse $61
$60
$62
$61
Annual 5.76.120
Theater, Concert Hall, Motion Picture House or Other Place
of Amusement $61
$60
$62
$61
Per day 5.74.080
Temporary Merchant License Refer to base license fee listed in this section See Section 5.64.310 5.64.310
Tobacco Products - Retail Sales $115
$112
$116
$115
Annual, includes grocery and convenience stores,
taverns, private clubs, hotels, motels and restaurants.5.76.120
Tobacco Sales License Refer to base license fee listed in this section Annual 5.86.480
Towing Operations
Refer to base license
fee listed in this
section
5.84.140
Unmanned Kiosks $47
$45
$47 Redbox, Best Buy, Etc
Vehicle Authorized Certificate
Refer to base license
fee listed in this
section
5.72.170
Wrecker Service License Refer to base license fee listed in this section 5.84.040
CEMETERY
For questions regarding Cemetery fees Contact: 801.596.5020
Service Fee Additional Information Section
After Hours Surcharge
After 4PM any day $211
$207
Per hour 15.24.290
Saturday $364
$359
Per day 15.24.290
Sunday or holiday $540
$532
Per day 15.24.290
Burial Rights Adult Infant
Resident $913
$898
$604
$594
15.24.120
Non-resident $1,491
$1,467
$950
$935
15.24.120
Continuing Care Fees Adult Infant
Resident $309
$304
$155
$152
15.24.120
Non-resident $540
$532
$272
$268
15.24.120
Cremains
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 13
Burial:15.24.290
Residents $368
$362
15.24.290
Non-residents $647
$636
15.24.290
Removal $587
$578
Marker Monitoring
Ground level $74
$73
15.24.290
Upright $147
$144
15.24.290
Opening and Closing
Single grave:Adult Infant
Residents $735
$723
$440
$433
Infant: 5' in length or less 15.24.290
Non-residents $1,284
$1,264
$771
$759
Infant: 5' in length or less 15.24.290
Removal of remains $1,468
$1,445
$735
$723
15.24.290
Double deep grave:Lower Grave Top Grave
Residents $881
$867
$735
$723
15.24.290
Non-residents $1,542
$1,518
$1,284
$1,264
15.24.290
Burial on top of open grave $87 15.24.290
Winter fee - grave opening $300 15.24.290
Winter fee - cremains $50 15.24.290
Fort Douglas cemetery $1,249
$1,229
15.24.290
Jewish cemetery $1,134
$1,116
15.24.290
Removal and lowering Adult Infant
Resident $2,203
$2,168
$1,615
$1,589
15.24.290
Non-resident $2,717
$2,674
$1,983
$1,951
15.24.290
Transfer of Burial Rights $45
$44
15.24.180
Continuing care on property transfer Adult Infant 15.24.180
Resident $304 $152 15.24.180
Non-resident $532 $268 15.24.180
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS (CAN)
For questions regarding Community Development fees Contact: 801.535.6000
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Boarding or Securing of Buildings
Done by city $121
$119
Plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.110 18.48.110
Initial (first year)$849
$836
Each Structure 18.48.140
Plumbing permit to install external irrigation hose bib, if required $7 18.48.140
Annual Fee $1,456
$1,433
Per each structure, due on or before boarding permit anniversary 18.48.180
City maintenance of building $206
$203
Annual, plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.270 18.48.270
City maintenance of landscaping $206
$203
Annual, plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.270 18.48.280
City removal of snow $206
$203
Annual, plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.270 18.48.290
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 14
Building Permits
Total project valuation:
$0.01 - $500.00 $44.98
$44.27
18.32.035
$500.01 - $2,000.00
$44.27$44.98 for the first $500 plus $4 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000
18.32.035
$2,000.01 - $25,000.00
$104.27$104.98 for the first $2,000 plus $20 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
18.32.035
$25,000.01 - $50,000.00
$564.27$564.98 for the first $25,000 plus $14 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
18.32.035
$50,000.01 - $100,000.00
$914.27$914.98 for the first $50,000 plus $10 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
18.32.035
$100,000.01 - $500,000.00
$1,414.27$1,414.98 for the first $100,000 plus $8 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
18.32.035
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00
$4,614.27$4,614.98 for the first $500,000 plus $7 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000
18.32.035
$1,000,000.01 and up
$8,114.27$8,114.98 for the first $1,000,000 plus $5 for each additional $1,000 or fraction there of and above
18.32.035
Demolition Landscaping Waivers
Property inspection $134
$132
If waiver is denied, this fee will be refunded 18.64.030
Pre-demolition salvage permit 20% of demolition fee See Section 18.64.080 18.64.030
Demolition Permit Application Fees
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 15
Building floor area:
5 - 2,000 sq. feet $81
$79
18.64.030
2,001 - 4,000 sq. feet $94
$93
18.64.030
4,001 - 6,000 sq. feet $108
$106
18.64.030
6,001 - 8,000 sq. feet $148
$145
18.64.030
8,001 - 10,000 sq. feet $161
$159
18.64.030
10,001 - 12,000 sq. feet $202
$198
18.64.030
12,001 - 14,000 sq. feet $242
$238
18.64.030
14,001 - 16,000 sq. feet $282
$278
18.64.030
16,001 - 18,000 sq. feet $322
$317
18.64.030
18,001 - 20,000 sq. feet $356
$350
18.64.030
20,001 - 22,000 sq. feet $403
$397
18.64.030
22,001 - 24,000 sq. feet $457
$450
18.64.030
24,001 - 26,000 sq. feet $497
$489
18.64.030
26,001 - 28,000 sq. feet $551
$542
18.64.030
28,001 - 30,000 sq. feet $605
$595
18.64.030
30,001 - 32,000 sq. feet $652
$641
18.64.030
Square feet over 32,000 $14
$13
Per 500 sq. ft. unit 18.64.030
Electrical Permits (Commercial and Industrial)
Minimum fee (up to $1,600)$32 18.36.120
Base Fee $47
$46
18.36.100
New service or change of service Alterations or repairs of 600 volt or less capacity service entrance equipment 18.36.120
Up to 100 amps $32 18.36.120
101 amps to 200 amps $32 18.36.120
Each additional 100 amps or fraction $5 18.36.120
Motor generator installation for emergency or standby power
Up to 500 kVa $116
$114
18.36.120
Above 500 kVa $172
$169
18.36.120
Alternate fee schedule - Bids Under $100,000
Electrical work up to $10,000 .0166 of total valuation When a fee cannot be computed on the standard schedules, it shall be computed as outlined in this section up to, but not exceeding, $100,000 18.36.120
Electrical work between $10,001 and $100,000 Bid minus $10,000 multiplied by .0039 + 136
When a fee cannot be computed on the standard schedules, it shall be computed as outlined in this section up to, but not exceeding, $100,000 18.36.120
Electrical Permits - Work Exceeding $100,000
Work exceeding $100,000 but less than $250,000 $484
$476
Plus $0.4252 of 1% over $100,000 18.36.130
Work exceeding $250,000 $1,128
$1,111
Plus $0.1452 of 1% all work at $250,000 or more 18.36.130
Electrical Permits (Residential)
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 16
Base Fee $47
$46
18.36.100
Minor remodel and additional circuits $32 18.36.100
Service change with 1 or 2 new circuits $32 18.36.100
Service change or alteration $32 18.36.100
Homeowner electrical remodel permit $39
$38
18.36.100
New single family dwelling
Up to 1,500 sq. feet $0.0480
$0.0472
Per square foot 18.36.100
Above 1,500 sq. feet $0.0328
$0.0323
Per square foot 18.36.100
Total renovation of electrical systems
Existing single family dwelling $32 18.36.100
Multi-unit apartment building*
1 or 2 units $32 18.36.100
3rd and 4th units $13 Each 18.36.100
Additional units including house meter $6 Each 18.36.100
Note: Projects including multi buildings or row houses shall be computed for each building or house separately.
*New Multi-unit apartments (excluding transient occupancies, such as hotel or motel which are classified as commercial)
First 3 unit $0.054
$0.053
Per sq. foot 18.36.100
4 - 10 units $13 Each 18.36.100
11 units and above $6 Each 18.36.100
Projects including multiple buildings and/or row houses Computed for each building or house separately
Power panel with no issue for single occupancy buildings $12 18.36.100
Power to panel for construction purposes only
60 Days 30 Day Extension
No issue fee $24 $8 18.36.100
Individual apartments in an apartment building, or condominium
units nor for occupancy $5 Each additional meter 18.36.100
Electrical Temporary Metering
Up to 100 amp load capacity $21 18.36.100
Each additional, or part thereof, 100 amp capacity $5 18.36.100
Fencing Permit $38
$37
18.36.100
Fire Extinguishing Systems
Base Fee $47
$46
18.36.100
Automatic fire sprinklers in range hood or vent $6 18.56.040
Dry standpipe $16 Plus $3 each outlet 18.56.040
Fire pump $48 Each 18.56.040
Fire sprinkler systems:
1 to 100 sprinkler heads $40 18.56.040
Over 100 sprinkler heads $41
$40
Plus $0.1398 per head 18.56.040
Flow switch $8 Each 18.56.040
Hood extinguishing system $40 Each 18.56.040
Hydrants on private property $13 Each 18.56.040
Tamper valve $8 Each 18.56.040
Underground piping $21 18.56.040
Water storage tank $16 Each 18.56.040
Wet standpipe $16 Each, plus $2 each hose cabinet 18.56.040
Fire Suppression and Monitoring Equipment Inspection Fees
Underground water main for water-based fire suppression
Water supply line for fire suppression system to three fire hydrants $347
$342
18.44.030
Each additional supply line or fire hydrant $116
$114
18.44.030
Water-based fire suppression systems tenant improvements
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 17
Change of existing fire sprinkler system from 0 to 3,000 square foot area $116
$114
18.44.030
Each add'l 1 to 52,000 square foot area added $116
$114
18.44.030
New water-based fire suppression systems
Up to 26,000 square feet $347
$342
18.44.030
26,001 to 52,000 square feet $695
$684
18.44.030
Each add'l 1 to 52,000 square feet on single floor added $232
$228
18.44.030
New interlock and non-interlock pre-action water-based fire suppression systems per riser
New dry pipe system with fire sprinkler heads: 1,000 heads or less $348
$342
(Detection system is additional)18.44.030
Per additional 1 to 500 heads $116
$114
(Detection system is additional)18.44.030
Standpipe Class III basic, 30 to 74 feet (fee is in addition to fire sprinkler fee)
Per standpipe $174
$171
(Detection system is additional)18.44.030
Standpipe Class III high rise, 75 to 150 feet (fee is in addition to fire sprinkler fee)
Per standpipe $232
$228
18.44.030
Each additional 1 to 50 feet in height $116
$114
18.44.030
Standpipe Class I basic
One automatic wet standpipe, 30 to 74 feet in height $347
$342
18.44.030
Each additional wet standpipe $116
$114
18.44.030
Automatic dry or semi-automatic dry add to the above basic fee $58
$57
18.44.030
Standpipe Class I high rise, 75 to 150 feet (fee is addition to fire sprinkler fee)
Two automatic wet standpipes per standpipe (7 hours initial)$405
$399
18.44.030
Each additional 1 to 50 ft in height, per standpipe $116
$114
18.44.030
Standpipe Class II
Two class II hose outlets are required by code, supply from automatic fire sprinkler system $116
$114
18.44.030
Each additional pair of class II hose outlet added to any system $29 18.44.030
Water supply separate riser system (FDC) add $116
$114
18.44.030
Fire extinguishing system hoods
CO2, wet chemical, dry chemical and clean gas extinguishing agents $232
$228
18.44.030
Hood systems, per hood $116
$114
18.44.030
Fire alarm systems for monitoring
Clean gas systems $347
$342
18.44.030
Fire alarm notification devices in all occupancies except A, with voice over:
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 18
Horn and strobe for notification 1 to 26,000 square feet $232
$228
18.44.030
Horn and strobe for notification 26,001 to 52,000 square feet $347
$342
18.44.030
Horn and strobe for notification 52,001 to 250,000 square feet $579
$570
18.44.030
Horn and strobe for notification 250,001 to 500,000 square feet $695
$684
18.44.030
Horn and strove for notification > 500,001, individually determined, per review hour $116
$114
18.44.030
Each additional 1 to 50 feet in height $116
$114
18.44.030
With voice control and emergency voice/alarm communications system add to above 1 to 50 square feet $116
$114
18.44.030
Fire pumps
For structures requiring a fire pump to include jockey pumps either internal combustion driven or electric $637
$627
18.44.030
Paint booths $347
$342
per booth 18.56.040
Addition to an existing system $116
$114
18.44.030
Re-inspection of fire suppression and monitoring equipment $114 per hour of inspector time
$112 per hour of inspector
time
In the event that the fire suppression and monitoring equipment does not pass the first scheduled inspection, for whatever reason, subsequent re-inspections shall be billed to the applicant
18.56.040
Housing Inspections
Existing single-family dwelling Not more than $27 18.48.030
Additional dwelling units on premises $12 Each 18.48.030
Loan Subordination $54
$53
2.61.030
Mechanical Permits
Base Fee $47
$46
18.52.050
Installation or relocation of each forced air or gravity type furnace
or burner Including ducts or vents attached to such appliance
Up to and including 200,000 BTU.h $24 18.52.050
Over 200,000 BTU.h up to and including 300,000 BTU.h $34
$33
18.52.050
Over 300,000 BTU.h up to an including 1,000,000 BTU.h $53
$52
18.52.050
Over 1,000,000 BTU.h $53
$52
18.52.050
Each additional 500,000 BTU.h or part thereof $19 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $14 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of each suspended, recessed wall or floor mounted unit heaters
Up to and including 200,000 BTU.h $19 18.52.050
Over 200,000 BTU.h up to and including 300,000 BTU.h $34
$33
18.52.050
Over 300,000 BTU.h $53
$52
18.52.050
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance
vent installed and not included on an appliance permit $14 18.52.050
For the repair of, alteration of or addition to each heating
appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit or each
heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system
Including alteration of controls regulated by this code
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 19
Up to $1,000 contract value $34
$33
18.52.050
Greater than $1,000 contract value $82
$81
18.52.050
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to
and including 3 horsepower, or each absorption system to and
including 200,000 BTU.h
$24 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of boilers:
Over 200,000 BTU.h to and including 300,000 BTU.h $34
$33
Each 18.52.050
Over 300,000 BTU.h to and including 1,000,000 BTU.h $53
$52
Each 18.52.050
Over 1,000,000 BTU.h to and including 2,000,000 BTU.h $82
$81
Each 18.52.050
Over 2,000,000 BTU.h $82
$81
Plus $17 for each additional 500,000 BTU.h or part thereof 18.52.050
Air handling unit
To and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto $24
This fee shall not apply to air handling unit which is a portion of a factory assembled cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which permit is required elsewhere in this code.
18.52.050
Over 10,000 cubic feet per minute $53
$52
18.52.050
Evaporative cooler other than portable type
Up to 6,500 cubic feet per minute $19 Each 18.52.050
More than 6,500 cubic feet per minute $53
$52
Each 18.52.050
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct $14 18.52.050
Ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air
conditioning system authorized by a permit $14 18.52.050
Installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust,
including the ducts for each unit $34
$33
18.52.050
Installation or relocation of domestic type incinerator $19 Each 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of commercial or industrial type
incinerator $53
$52
Each 18.52.050
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code
but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no
other fee is listed in this code
$19 18.52.050
Installation or relocation of cooling towers:
1 1/2 horsepower up to and including 4 horsepower or tons $24 18.52.050
4 1/2 horsepower up to and including 10 horsepower or tons $33 18.52.050
11 horsepower or tons and over $63
$62
18.52.050
For the purpose of calculating the rate in tons, the tonnage shall be considered not less than then the following:
a. Total maximum BTU peer hour of capacity of the installation divided by 12,000 or
b. The nameplate horsepower of any compressor prime mover unit or for any air conditioning installations; or
c. 2/3 of the nameplate horsepower subsection A18b of this section, for any refrigeration installation
Installation or relocation of compressor or absorption systems
1 1/2 horsepower to and including 4 horsepower or tons $19 18.52.050
4 horsepower to and including 5 horsepower or tons $23
$22
18.52.050
5 horsepower to and including 6 horsepower or tons $29 18.52.050
6 horsepower to and including 7 horsepower or tons $32 18.52.050
7 horsepower to and including 8 horsepower or tons $35 18.52.050
8 horsepower to and including 9 horsepower or tons $39
$38
18.52.050
9 horsepower to and including 10 horsepower or tons $44
$43
18.52.050
Each additional horsepower or tons $3 18.52.050
Other appliances*$19 18.52.050
*Fee for each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other
appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in Section 18.52.050
Mobile Home Park Construction Permits
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 20
General building permit - pads, patio slabs, metal sheds, curb,
gutter, drives, piers, sidewalks, fence, wall.$2 Per mobile home space 18.76.050
Inspection of gas line/meter for utility clearance purposes $19 18.56.040
Electric meter stands or pedestals
First 10 $6 Each 18.76.050
Next 90 $4 Each 18.76.050
Over 100 $2 Each 18.76.050
Park plumbing system, including sewer and water risers $6 Per mobile home space 18.76.050
Permanent buildings, swimming pools, etc.Regular and normal fee schedule 18.76.050
Fire hydrants within property lines $6 Each hydrant 18.76.050
News Racks
Permit application $55
$54
14.36.080
News Rack Fee $6
$5
Per news rack in the public right-of-way
News Rack Relocation Fee $11 Per news rack, per relocation
Removal of Non-Compliant News Rack $318
$313
Per news rack
Storage of Non-Compliant News Rack $6 Per news rack, per day at a city facility
Certificate filing fee $6 Per news rack 14.36.110
Plan Review Fees
Plan review fee 65% of building permit fee 18.32.035
Expedited building plan review Twice the cost of a standard plan review fee See Section 18.20.050 18.20.050
Condominium preliminary review $356
$351
Per plan, plus $11 per unit 21A.56.040
Condominium final review $233
$229
Per plan, plus $11 per unit 21A.56.040
Renewing expired plan review
One half the original plan review fee, maximum of $1,195$1,215 plus $135$138 per hour for review necessitated by changes in codes and ordinances, two hour minimum.
See section 18.20.110 18.20.110
Plumbing Permits
Base fee $47
$46
18.56.040
Inspection of gas line/meter for utility clearance purposes $19 18.56.040
Air conditioning device discharging into the building drainage
system $8 Each 18.56.040
Change, alteration or replacement of soil, waste or vent pipe $6 18.56.040
Change or repair of a drain, waste, vent (DWV) system $10 Each 18.56.040
Grey water system $16 Each 18.56.040
Lawn sprinkler control valve on devices $8 Each 18.56.040
Medical gas piping $16 Each 18.56.040
Plumbing fixture or trap roughed in for installation or relocation $6 Each 18.56.040
Refrigeration drain and each safe drain discharged directly or
indirectly into the building drain $6 Each 18.56.040
Roof drain $6 Each 18.56.040
Roof drain installed inside building $6 Each 18.56.040
Settling tank or grease trap $47
$46
Each 18.56.040
Soda fountain carbonator $13 Each 18.56.040
Store, restaurant or home appliance or device connected to the
culinary water supply and/or building drainage system $6 Each 18.56.040
Vacuum breaker or backflow device on tanks, etc $8 Each 18.56.040
Water heater $13 Each 18.56.040
Water softener or conditioning device $13 Each 18.56.040
Revolving Loan Application Fee $113
$111
Each 03.16.005
Re - Inspection Fee $106
$105
18.20.200
Solar Panel Permit Fee
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 21
System Size in kW Fee
0 - 5 kW $212
$209
6 - 10 kW $372
$366
11 - 50 kW $425
$418
51 - 100 kW $956
$941
Sidewalk Entertainer and Artist Registration $36
35.1859827
Annual 14.38.100
Sidewalk Vending Cart - Revocable Land Use Fee $310
$305.3152707
Annual 05.65.030
Temporary Metering
Up to 100 amp load capacity $21 18.36.110
Each additional, or part thereof, 100 amp capacity $5 18.36.110
Temporary Re-locatable Office Buildings
Installation permit $91
$90
Per unit 18.84.070
Interior inspection $91
$90
Per unit 18.84.070
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
For questions regarding Economic Development fees Contact: 801.535.7200
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Foreign Trade Zone
Application Fee $3,718
$3,659
52-2017
Additional General Purpose Zone $3,399
$3,346
52-2017
Special Purpose Subzone (Non/minimal-manufacturing)$4,249
$4,182
52-2017
Special Purpose Subzone (Manufacturing)$6,905
$6,796
52-2017
Expansions $1,700
$1,673
52-2017
Annual Fee for Operators/Subzones/Usage-Driven Sites $10,622
$10,455
52-2017
Annual Fee for General Purpose Zone Usage-Driven Sites $5,311
$5,228
52-2017
Gallivan Center
Ice Skating - Adults $9.22 Includes admission and skates 15.16.120
Ice Skating - Children & Seniors $8.07 Includes admission and skates 15.16.120
ENGINEERING
For questions regarding Engineering Fees Contact: 801.535.6159
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Excavation Permits
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 22
Shallow Trenching $0.29 Per linear foot 14.32.400
Minimum charge $2,900 14.32.400
Hard surfaced $0.37
$0.36
Per sq. foot 14.32.400
Minimum charge $225
$176
April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Minimum charge $300
$245
November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
OtherSoft Surfaced $0.24 Per sq. foot 14.32.400
Minimum charge $150
$107
April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Minimum charge $175
$159
November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Permit extension $66 See Section 14.32.400 C 14.32.400
Permit within a restricted area Fees double See Section 14.32.400 A3 14.32.400
Landscaping Permit for Public Right of Way $18 Per job, or $80.66 Per year 2.26.210
Multiple Utility Excavation Permits
Hard surfaced
Minimum charge $106 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Minimum charge $165 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Per multiple $148 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Per multiple $218 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Pothole/excavation < 10 sq. ft. (per each)$35 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Pothole/excavation < 10 sq. ft. (per each)$44 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Test holes (per each)$2 14.32.400
OtherSoft Surface
Minimum charge $60 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Minimum charge $96 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Per multiple $90 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Per multiple $100 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Pothole/excavation < 10 sq. ft. (per each)$18 April 1 - November 15 14.32.400
Pothole/excavation < 10 sq. ft. (per each)$26 November 16 - March 31 14.32.400
Test holes (per each)$1 14.32.400
Poles - Application for Permit to Erect Utility Poles $2 For each pole 14.40.030
Poles and Anchors $51
$50
Each pole, concrete pedestal or anchor 14.32.400
Public Survey Monuments
1st monumentMonument (per each) $73
$72
14.10.040
Additional monuments $14 In addition to the $66 fee, same application 14.10.040
Replacement of a monument by survey $1,433 Minimum cost, see Section 14.10.090 14.10.040
Replacement of a monument by survey ties $657 Minimum cost, see Section 14.10.090 14.10.040
Public Way Improvements
Curb and gutter $2 Per linear foot 14.32.405
Sidewalk, driveway approach $0.35 Per sq. foot 14.32.405
Minimum charge $200
$165
April 1 - November 15 14.32.405
Minimum charge $250
$236
November 16 - March 31 14.32.405
Permit extension $66 14.32.405
In kindIn-kind No charge See section 14.32.405 D 14.32.405
Public Way Obstruction Permits
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 23
Short term (5 days or less)(One Week)$36 14.32.410
Sidewalk Canopy $17 Per Week (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Dumpster/pod $44 Each, per Week (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Lane or sidewalk closure $87 Per Week (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Long term: (more than 5 days)(1 Month Increments)
Up to 1 block face $221 Per month (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Additional block faces $203 Each, per month (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Permit extension $239 (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Sidewalk Canopy $70 Each, per month (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Dumpster/pod $175 (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Lane or sidewalk closure $349 Each, per month (Construction barricades)14.32.410
Short term permit extension $48 14.32.410
Small Wireless Facility Fees
Application fees 14.56.060
Small cell facility to collocate a small wireless facility on an existing or replacement utility pole $100
$105
Per wireless facility 14.56.060
Install, modify or replace a utility pole associated with a small wireless facility, where permitted under Utah Code Section 54-21-204, or its successor $250
$261
Per wireless facility 14.56.060
Install, modify or replace a utility pole associated with a small wireless facility, where NOT permitted under Utah Code Section 54-21-204, or its successor $1,000
$1,046
Per wireless facility 14.56.060
Collation Rate As set forth in Utah CodeSection 54-21-504 14.56.070
Street Banners on Utility Poles $50
$60
Application outside of boundaries of a coordinated street banner program 21A.46.170
FIRE
For questions regarding Fire Fees Contact: 801.535.4150
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Amusement Building Permit $352
$346
Single event 2.12.040
Cost Recovery
Hazardous material emergency Actual cost See Section 9.44.030 9.44.030
Fire emergency Actual cost See Section 9.48.030 9.48.030
Distributed Antenna System Inspection Fee $208
$205
Includes 1 hour of plan review and 1 hour of post-construction inspection. Each additional hour of plan review is $125$127 and each additional hour of inspection is $80.$81.
02.12.040
EMS CHARGES
EMS Billing $56 2.12.040
EMS Equipment Surcharge $56 2.12.040
Medical Report $18
$17
2.12.040
Healthcare Provider CPR $56 2.12.040
Heartsaver CPR Courses $34
$33
2.12.040
Heartsaver CPR/AED Cards & Student Manual $20
$19.5
Manual Required ($2.50)($3) with Card ($17)2.12.040
Heartsaver CPR/AED BLS Provider - Card & Student Manual $15
$15.45
Manual Required ($13.25)($13) with Card ($2.20)($2)2.12.040
Exhibit and Trade Show Permits
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 24
0 - 5,000 sq. feet $237
$233
Single event 2.12.040
5,001 - 10,000 sq. feet $286
$281
Single event 2.12.040
10,001 - 25,000 sq. feet $382
$376
Single event 2.12.040
25,001 - 50,000 sq. feet $473
$466
Single event 2.12.040
50,001 - 80,000 sq. feet $558
$549
Single event 2.12.040
80,001 - 125,000 sq. feet $649
$639
Single event 2.12.040
125,001 - 200,000 sq. feet $740
$729
Single event 2.12.040
Each additional 20,000 sq. feet above 200,000 $116
$114
Single event, in addition to $610 2.12.040
Explosive Permits
Fireworks Vendor $564
$555
Permit for stores/tents/selling fireworks 2.12.040
Fireworks $589
$579
Public display outdoors 2.12.040
Blasting $771
$758
Annual 2.12.040
Fire System and Equipment Installation Permit $116
$114
Fee assessed for each man hour to perform inspection
during each phase of installation 2.12.040
Fire Watch $51
$50
Per hour 2.12.040
After Hour Fireman Rate $68
$67
Per hour 2.12.040
Hazardous Materials Permits
Minimal dispensing, use or storage $237
$233
Annual / Solids: <500 lbs. Compressed gas: <200 cu. ft.
Oxygen: <504 cu. ft.
Liquids: <55 gal.
2.12.040
Backup generator systems $176
$173
Annual 2.12.040
Storage quantities exceeding minimal storage $291
$287
Annual 2.12.040
Dispensing or use $473
$466
Annual, quantities exceeding minimum use or dispensing 2.12.040
Body shop/garage $237
$233
Annual, under 5,000 sq. feet 2.12.040
Production and processing $589
$579
Annual 2.12.040
Gas stations $206
$203
Annual 2.12.040
Tank installation, alteration, abandonment, removal or disposal:Single event
Up to 3 tank per site $473
$466
2.12.040
Each additional tank $116
$114
2.12.040
High Rise Permits
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 25
7 - 12 floors $589
$579
Annual 2.12.040
13 - 18 floors $710
$699
Annual 2.12.040
19 - 24 floors $825
$812
Annual 2.12.040
25 - 30 floors $946
$932
Annual 2.12.040
31 - 36 floors $1,068
$1,051
Annual 2.12.040
37 - 42 floors $1,183
$1,164
Annual 2.12.040
Over 42 floors $116
$114
Annual; in addition to $1,011, per each additional 6 floors 2.12.040
Hospitals $589
$579
Annual 2.12.040
Hot Works Operation Permit $176
$173
Annual 2.12.040
National Fire Incident Report (NFIR)$18
$17
Per request; form or property incident search report 2.12.040
Open Burning Permit $237
$233
Annual 2.12.040
Place of Assembly Permits
0 - 5,000 sq. feet $237
$233
Annual 2.12.040
5,001 - 10,000 sq. feet $352
$346
Annual 2.12.040
10,001 - 25,000 sq. feet $504
$496
Annual 2.12.040
25,001 - 50,000 sq. feet $679
$669
Annual 2.12.040
50,001 - 80,000 sq. feet $855
$842
Annual 2.12.040
80,001 - 125,000 sq. feet $1,068
$1,051
Annual 2.12.040
125,001 - 200,000 sq. feet $1,359
$1,338
Annual 2.12.040
Each additional 20,000 sq. feet above 200,000 $116
$114
Annual; in addition to $1,183 2.12.040
Property Search $18
$17
2.12.040
Pyrotechnic Special Effects Materials Permit
Flame effects $237
$233
Before an audience; single event 2.12.040
Indoor Fireworks $237
$233
Single event 2.12.040
1.4 grain fireworks $237
$233
Single event 2.12.040
Theatrical display $237
$233
Single event 2.12.040
Re-inspection $23 Fee assessed for each ¼ man hour to perform re-
inspection, including paperwork and travel time.2.12.040
State Licensed Healthcare Facilities
0 - 3,000 sq. feet $176
$173
Annual 2.12.040
3,001 - 6,000 sq. feet $238
$234
Annual 2.12.040
6,001 - 10,000 sq. feet $291
$287
Annual 2.12.040
10,001 sq. feet or greater $352
$346
Annual 2.12.040
Temporary Membrane Structures, Tents or Canopies
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 26
Single event $176
$173
Up to 180 days. See Also Special Events.2.12.040
Each additional structure on same site $1 See Also Special Events 2.12.040
Re-inspection of additional set up $1 1 - 2 per week. See Also Special Events 2.12.040
GALLIVAN CENTER
Ice Skating - Adults $9 Includes admission and skates 15.16.120
Ice Skating - Children & Seniors $8 Includes admission and skates 15.16.120
GOLF
For questions regarding Golf Fees Contact: 801.485.7730
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Advance Tee Time Reservations
0-8 days in advance No fee 15.16.031
9 days to one year in advance $5.00 Per player, minimum 18 holes 15.16.031
No-Show Fee $5.00 Per player for 9 or 18 holes 15.16.031
Membership Programs Regular Junior (17 years old or younger)
Senior (60 year old and older)
LoyalTee Discount Cards $75 NA $65 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.6 15.16.031
Birdie Passports Without Cart $1,300 NA $1,000 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.7 15.16.031
Birdie Passports With Cart $1,900 NA $1,600 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.7 15.16.031
Double Eagle Passports Without Cart $1,900 NA $1,500 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.8 15.16.031
Double Eagle Passports With Cart $2,500 NA $2,100 Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.8 15.16.031
Junior Annual Passport NA $550 NA Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.10 15.16.031
Junior Summer Passport NA $350 NA Plus tax, See Section 15.16.031.A.9 15.16.031
Membership Card Replacement $5 $5 $5 15.16.031
Golf Gift Cards
Golf Gift Card Monthly Service $3 Applied monthly after 12 months of inactivity 15.16.031
Golf Cart Rentals 9 Holes 18 Holes 15.16.031
Double rider $14 $28 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Single rider $7 $14 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Double Rider $16.00 $32.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Single Rider $8.00 $16.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Twilight Cart Double Rider N/A $24.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Twilight Cart Single Cart Rider N/A $12.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Private Cart Trail Fee $5.00 $10.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Cover rental $5.00 $10.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Golf Club Rentals
Regular $7 $14 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Premium $15 $30 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Mountain Dell Premium $20 $35 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
USGA Grant Junior Clubs $3 $6 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Grandfathered Senior Season Golf Passes 9 Holes 18 Holes
Base fee $400 See Section 15.16.031.A.2 15.16.031
Resident surcharge $3 $6 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Nonresident surcharge $4 $8 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Green Fees: As of January 1, 2012 $1.00 per 9-hole/$2.00 per 18-hole round less sales tax will be allocated to a dedicated Golf CIP fund to be used exclusively for golf course improvement projects.
Actual green fees charged for seniors, juniors, school golf teams, and group rates are subject to change and may vary from the prices listed on the Consolidated Fee Schedule
Green Fees - Tax included in listed green fees
General Public Rates
Time frame subject to change as needed by Golf Director
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 27
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes General Public Rate Time Frame
Bonneville $20.00 $40.00
$38.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Bonneville $25.00 NA Sat/Sun before 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $16.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $12.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Glendale $17.00 $34.00
$32.00
All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $20.00 $40.00
$38.00
All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park $15.00
$14.00
NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $10.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Rose Park $15.00 $30.00 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $11.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $9.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Senior Rates - Age 60 and above See Section 15.16.031.B.
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Senior Rate Time Frame
Bonneville $17.00 $34.00
$32.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $14.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $11.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Glendale $14.00 $28.00
$26.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $17.00 $34.00
$32.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park $13.00
$12.00
NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $9.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Rose Park $13.00 $26.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $10.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $8.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Regular LoyalTee Program Rates
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Regular LoyalTee Time Frame
Bonneville $17.00 $34.00
$32.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $14.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $11.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Glendale $14.00 $28.00
$24.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $17.00 $34.00
$32.00
All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park $12.00
$11.00
NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $9.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Rose Park $12.00 $24.00
$22.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $10.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $8.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Senior LoyalTee Program Rates
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 28
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Senior LoyalTee Time Frame
Bonneville $14.00 $28.00
$26.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $12.00
$11.00
NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $10.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Glendale $12.00 $24.00
$22.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $14.00 $28.00
$26.00
All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park $10.00
$9.00
NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $8.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Rose Park $11.00 $22.00
$20.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale Re-Round $10.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Nibley Park Re-Round $8.00 NA All Day, Every Day 15.16.031
Young Adult Rates - Age 18-25
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Young Adult Time Frame
Bonneville $15.00
$13.00
$30.00
$26.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $13.00
$12.00
NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Glendale $13.00
$10.00
$26.00
$20.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $15.00
$13.00
$30.00
$26.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park $11.00
$10.00
NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Rose Park $11.00
$10.00
$22.00
$20.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Junior Rates - Age 6 through Age 17
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes Junior Rates Time Frame
Bonneville $10.00 $20.00
$18.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $9.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Glendale $9.00 $18.00
$17.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $10.00 $20.00
$18.00
Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park $8.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Rose Park $8.00 $16.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Twilight Rates
Mountain Dell NA $30.00 Time frame to be determined by course and posted in the clubhouse 15.16.031
Pull Cart Rental 9 Holes 18 Holes
Regular $2.00 $4.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
PremiumPull Cart $4.00 $8.00 Tax included in fee 15.16.031
Range Balls Tax included in fee
Small bucket $6.00 Per bucket 15.16.031
Large bucket $10.00
$9.00
Per bucket 15.16.031
10 Bucket Range Pass $70.00 10 large buckets 15.16.031
20 Bucket Range Pass $130.00 20 large buckets 15.16.031
High School Golf Team
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 29
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes School Golf Team Rate Time Frame
Bonneville $10.00 $20.00 Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $9.00 NA Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Glendale $9.00 $18.00 Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $10.00 $20.00 Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley park $8.00 NA Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Rose Park $8.00 $16.00 Mon. - Thurs. all day & Sat./Sun. after 12PM 15.16.031
Large Bucket of Range Balls $7.00
$6.00
Per Bucket 15.16.031
University Team Rates
Courses 9 Holes 18 Holes University Team Rate Time Frame
Bonneville $13.00 $26.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Forest Dale $12.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Glendale $10.00 $20.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Mountain Dell $13.00 $26.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Nibley Park $10.00 NA Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Rose Park $10.00 $20.00 Mon - Fri, all day & Sat/Sun after 12PM 15.16.031
Large Bucket of Range Balls $7.00
$6.00
Per Bucket 15.16.031
Tournament Fees/Group Fees
9 holes $5.00 Per person, plus green fees 15.16.031
18 holes $10.00 Per person, plus green fees 15.16.031
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (HAND)
For questions regarding HAND contact: 801.535.6533
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Rehabilitation Loan $364
$358
2.61.030
First Time Home Buyer Application $26 2.61.030
First Time Home Buyer Loan $416
$409
2.61.030
Rehabilitation Technical Assistance $364
$358
2.61.030
Foreclosure $520
$512
2.61.030
Late Loan Payment Fee 4%A different amount may apply if specified in the loan documents 2.61.030
Returned Check or EFT Transfer $21
$20
2.61.030
Mortgage Insurance 0.5% - 1.0%Depending on loan fund sourcing 2.61.030
Loan Subordination $52
$51
2.61.030
Payoff $51
$26
2.61.030
Appraisal Actual Charge up to $500 2.61.030
First Time Home Buyer Repurchase $130
$128
2.61.030
Property Inspection Fee Up To $200 2.61.030
Vending Cart Application $30 Not including Mobile Ice cream vendors 5.65.030
Vending License - Mobile Ice Cream Vendors $30 5.64.670
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 30
IMPACT FEES
For questions regarding Impact fees contact: 801.535.7712
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Appeals Process $50 18.98.090
Developers Independent Calculation Deposit $150 Could be refunded or increased based upon actual total costs.18.98.160
Impact Fees Single Family Multi-Family Office Industrial Commercial/ Retail
Residential (per Unit)(Per 1,000 SF)
Fire $171 $171 $53 $25 $250 18.98.160
Park $5,173 $3,078 $0 $0 $0 18.98.090
Police $59 $59 $20 $10 $86 18.98.160
Transportation $429
$330
$242
$231
$498
$429
$290
$297
$1,955
$1,650
18.98.090
Storm Water $374 Per 1/4 acre 17.81.400
PARKING AND TRAFFIC
For questions regarding Parking and Traffic contact: 801.535.6630
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Administrative Fee For Collection of Past Due Debts $53
$52
12.56.550
Area Regular Parking Permits
One year $42
$41
10 - 12 Months 12.64.090
9 - 11 months $32
$31
7 - 9 Months 12.64.090
5 - 8 months $21 4 - 6 Months 12.64.090
1 - 4 Months $11
$10
1 - 3 Months 12.64.090
Area Seasonal Parking Collection
5 - 8 months $21 4 - 6 Months 12.64.090
3 - 4 months $11
$10
1 -3 Months 12.64.090
Barricade Permit $34
$33
14.32.418
Electric Vehicle (EV) Level 3 Fast Charging Stations
Base Fee Per Charging Event $2 PLUS per kilowatt hour charge 12.56.600
Electricity Charge $0.22 Per kilowatt hour 12.56.600
Freight Curb Loading Zone Permit Base Business License fee Annual; plus sticker fee 12.56.330
Vehicle sticker $81
$80
Annual 12.56.330
Vehicle sticker replacement $6 12.56.330
Vehicle sticker transfer of vehicle $6 12.56.330
House Number Certificate (public works)$12 14.08.040
Library Parking Fees
Library Daily Rates $1.50/half hour First half hour is free, $12 daily maximum 12.56.580
Library Monthly Parking $80 12.56.580
Loading Zone & Restricted Parking
Loading zone & restricted parking $28/vehicle per day For provisions and exemptions see Section 12.56.325 12.56.325
Events $12/vehicle per day For provisions and exemptions see Section 12.56.325 12.56.325
Filming (movie, television series or commercial)$12/vehicle per day For provisions and exemptions see Section 12.56.325 12.56.325
Business Parking Permit $500 12.56.580
Parking Meter Rates Shall not exceed $2.25 per hour 12.56.170
Residential Transit Pass (Hive Pass)
Annual Hive Voucher Pass $350 Only available to qualifying individuals through social service agencies 3.16.2060
3/16/2060
Annual Hive Co-op Pass $475 3.16.2060
3/16/2060
Monthly Hive Co-op Pass $42 3.16.2060
3/16/2060
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 31
Street Name Change Application $292
$288
14.08.015
Traffic School
Traffic School $65 12/8/15012.8.150
Traffic School - Tier II $90 At the prosecutor's discretion 12/8/15012.8.150
Traffic School - Tier III $105 At the prosecutor's discretion 12/8/15012.8.150
Temporary Closure - Parking Meters $28 Per meter, per day 14.12.130
Temporary Placing of Bags on Parking Meters $28 Per day 12.56.210
During filming of a movie/television series/ commercial $12 Per day 12.56.210
For an event that continues for not less than 3 days $12 Per day/must significantly foster area business promotion and have an expected attendance exceeding 5,000 12.56.210
For a religious or charitable organization No charge Limited to 30 days per calendar year 12.56.210
For use under the direction of the city in connection with a city sponsored event No charge 12.56.210
Vehicle Relocation Fee $79
$75
12.56.540
POLICE
For questions regarding Police fees contact: 801.799.3101
Service Fee Additional Information Section
911 Emergency Service fee See Fire
Background Search and Letter Not more than $16 Age 65+ exempt/waiver available, see Section 2.10.090 2.10.080
Fingerprinting Not more than $55 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.010
ID Cards Not more than $55 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.010
Incident Reports See Additional Information Not more than the fee charged by the State of Utah for similar reports 2.64.040
Personal Criminal History Record $6 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.050
Service fee for Party, Gathering, or Event
Non-rental property $364
$359
Each visit 11.14.020
Rental property, renter responsibility
Each visit up to 2 visits $364
$359
For 3rd visit or more see rental property, owner responsibility 11.14.020
Rental property, owner responsibility
Third visit $122
$120
11.14.020
Each additional visit in any 365 day period $364
$359
11.14.020
Theft Reports Not more than $55 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.010
User's Security and Privacy Non-disclosure Agreement Not more than $55 Age 65+ exempt 2.10.050
Vehicle Booting Fee
Vehicle booting fee $75 12.96.025
Late removal of boot fee $28 Per day after first 24 hours 12.96.025
Boot damage or replacement fee City's actual costs incurred Determined by the total cost(s) required by the City for replacement or repair of the immobilization device 12.96.025
Registration Fee $35
$34
12.96.025
Sex Offender Registration Fee $25
Special Events
Police Coverage during special event $62
$61
Per hour estimated on duration of event. Invoice to be trued up at the end of the event.3.50.080
Police Special Equipment Fee (Car Charge)$7 Per every 4 hours, plus fuel surcharge 3.50.080
Vehicle Relocation Fee $79 12.56.540
Towing Operational Costs: MUST COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATION R909-19
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 32
Size of tow Base Tow Rate Varies based on size of vehicle 12.96.025
Light Duty $168
$166
There will be an additional $36.25 added for each additional 15 minutes. Any vehicle with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less 12.96.025
Medium Duty $280
$276
There will be an additional $60.00 added for each additional 15 minutes. Vehicles with a GVWR of 10,001 to 26,000 lbs 12.96.025
Heavy Duty $347
$343
There will be an additional $75.00 added for each additional 15 minutes. Vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs or greater 12.96.025
Vehicle Storage Fee: MUST COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATION R909-19
Size of tow (Non-Consent Police Generated Tow)Varies based on size and location stored 12.96.025
Light Duty - Stored Inside $45 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Light Duty - Stored Outside $40 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Medium Duty - Stored Inside $85 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Medium Duty - Stored Outside $60 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Heavy Duty - Stored Inside $85 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Heavy Duty - Stored Outside $60 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Vehicles Used in Transporting Hazardous Material - Stored Inside $165 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Vehicles Used in Transporting Hazardous Material - Stored Outside $115 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Administration Fee $35 Maximum Per Vehicle (Notification for reporting non-consent tows)12.96.025
Vehicle Storage Fee: MUST COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATION R909-19
Size of tow (Non-Consent Non-Police Generated Tow)Varies based on size and location stored 12.96.025
Light Duty - Stored Inside $45 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Light Duty - Stored Outside $40 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Medium Duty - Stored Inside $85 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Medium Duty - Stored Outside $60 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Heavy Duty - Stored Inside $85 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Heavy Duty - Stored Outside $60 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Vehicles Used in Transporting Hazardous Material - Stored Inside $165 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Vehicles Used in Transporting Hazardous Material - Stored Outside $115 Per Day (Except vehicles held in evidence)12.96.025
Administration Fee $35 Maximum Per Vehicle (Notification for reporting non-consent tows)12.96.025
Fuel Surcharge: MUST COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATION R909-19-15
Fuel Surcharge Based on Fuel Price Varies based on the daily Rocky Mountain Average as determined by the Department of Energy (http://www.fwccinc.com/doefuel.html). When the price of fuel reaches $3.25 per gallon, a tow truck motor carrier may charge a surcharge equal to 5% of the base tow rate. An additional 5% shall be allowed for each $0.25 per gallon increase. Conversely, as the price of fuel drops, the fuel surcharge shall decrease by the same rate
See Utah Regulation R909-19-15
Fuel Price $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00
Size of Tow
Light Duty $14.50 $29.00 $43.50 $58.00
Medium Duty $24.00 $48.00 $72.00 $96.00
Heavy Duty $30.00 $60.00 $90.00 $120.00
Property Removal Fee $85
$83
Per each 30 minute time period
Body Cam Redaction and Video Production $38
$37
Per Hour; Billable in quarter hour increments. No charge for the first quarter hour of staff time.2.64.040
Body Cam DVD $27 2.64.040
GRAMA Request $20 Per Hour; Billable in quarter hour increments
PARKS AND RECREATIONPUBLIC LANDS
For questions regarding Parks and RecreationPublic Lands contact: 801.972.7800
Service Fee Additional Information Section
After School Programs Formula based See Section 15.16.090 15.16.090
Athletic Facility Reservations
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 33
Recreational (Non-organized or affiliate group), one-time use Tier B field 20.00 Per hour/two hour minimum 15.16.010
Recreational (Non-organized or affiliate group), one-time use Tier C field 15.00 Per hour/two hour minimum 15.16.010
RECREATIONAL ATHLETIC FIELDS:
Organized League Use per Hour per Field Tier B Field Tier C Field
Youth Non-Profit*$10 $8 15.16.010
Adult Non-Profit*$15 $12 15.16.090
Youth & Adult For-Profit $25 $20 15.16.010
*MUST TURN IN PROOF OF NON-PROFIT STATUSProof of residency and non-profit status will count toward field priority order as in the past
Recreational tournaments with season reservations $108 Per Day 15.16.090
Recreational tournaments without season reservations $215 Per Day 3.50.080
Any cleaning required after field and pavilion usage $42 Per staff hour 15.16.010
Community Stewardship & Education Programs
Youth not more than $31
Adult not more than $47
Jordan River Paddle Share
Kayak - single $25 for reservation window
Kayak - tandem $40 for reservation window
Free Expression Activity Permit $6 3.50.080
Pedestrian Crosswalk Flags
Plain Orange Non-Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10 Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for keeping the flags in stock. Flags sponsored in school zones are receiving them at no cost.12.76.100
Orange Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10 Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for keeping the flags in stock. Flags sponsored in school zones are receiving them at no cost.12.76.100
Picnic Facility Reservations Resident Non-resident
Pavilions (does not include Liberty Park Rice Pavilion and Washington Park/Mountain Dell)$49
$48
$59
$58
Full day 15.16.020
Washington Park/Mountain Dell Pavilions (AM)$91
$90
$121
$119
Half day (8am - 2pm)15.16.020
Washington Park/Mountain Dell Pavilions (PM)$91
$90
$121
$119
Half day (3pm - 10pm)15.16.020
Liberty Park - Rice Pavilion (AM)$49
$48
$61
$60
Half day (8am - 2pm)15.16.020
Liberty Park - Rice Pavilion (PM)$49
$48
$61
$60
Half day (3pm - 10pm)15.16.020
Cottonwood Park - Pavilion $31 $42
$41
Full day 15.16.020
Premier Fields Athletic Center (RAC):
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 34
Fields are available for games only Weekdays, Per Hour Weekends, Per Hour Full Day Lights Per Hour
Youth Resident Field Rental $49
$46
$57
$56
$16
$15
15.16.010
Adult Resident Field Rental $68
$66
$78
$77
$16
$15
15.16.010
Youth Non-Resident Field Rental $68
$66
$78
$77
$16
$15
15.16.010
Adult Non-Resident Field Rental $78
$77
$88
$87
$16
$15
15.16.010
Resident Stadium Field Rental $146
$143
$161
$159
$16
$15
15.16.010
Non-Resident Stadium Field Rental $161
$159
$177
$174
$16
$15
15.16.010
Tournament Field Rental*$728
$716
$42
$41
15.16.010
Full Complex Rental $208
$205
15.16.010
* Does not include additional tournament fees
Recreation Kit Rental $15 plus sales tax Each with pavilion reservation; limit 2 per reservations 15.16.020
Recreation kit rental - late fee $6 Late fee day, per day 15.16.020
Recreation kit rental - replacement fee $276 plus sales tax Total cost of the entire recreation kit if it needs to be replaced 15.16.020
Recreation Bag $52
$51
Replacement cost of bag only 15.16.020
Volleyball Net $42
$41
Replacement cost of volleyball net only 15.16.020
Volleyball $21
$20
Replacement cost of volleyball only 15.16.020
Baseball bat (2)$31 each Replacement cost per baseball bat only 15.16.020
Softball (2)$10 each Replacement cost per softball only 15.16.020
Football $21
$20
Replacement cost of football only 15.16.020
Soccer Ball $21
$20
Replacement cost of soccer ball only 15.16.020
Horseshoe Set $42
$41
Replacement cost of horseshoe set only 15.16.020
Recreation Programs
Bike bonanza No fee 15.16.090
Friday Night Flicks No fee 15.16.090
4th of July celebration at Jordan Park No fee 15.16.090
24th of July firework celebration at Liberty Park No fee 15.16.090
Monster block party No fee 15.16.090
Highland bagpipe experience No fee 15.16.090
SLC Gets Fit
Online tracking No fee 15.16.090
5K $16 Admission fee 15.16.090
Volleyball tournament $21 Admission fee 15.16.090
International Culture Fest No fee 15.16.090
Community Outdoor Recreation Programs
Youth not more than $31
Adult not more than $47
Seasonal Youth League Food and Beverage Service Permits
Concession Stands
Concession - with electricity and/or plumbing $61
$60
Per month 15.16.110
Concession - temporary without electricity and/or plumbing $30 Per month 15.16.110
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 35
Special Event Permit $121
$119
Commercially related (community events)3.50.080
Special Event Filming Permit $121
$119
21A.42.070
Special Event Free ExpressionDemonstrations (Free Expression)$6 21A.42.070
YouthCity Programs: After School and Summer Programs Formula based
Income Qualifications Amount per participant
Residents of Salt Lake City Household income:***After School Program*Summer Program**
$10,000 or less per year $12 $12 15.16.090
More than $10,000 per year but less than or equal to 42% of the area median income, or with free lunch status $42 $61
$60
15.16.090
More than 42% but less than or equal to 60% of the area median income, or with reduced lunch status $91
$90
$121
$119
15.16.090
More than 60% but less than or equal to 80% of the area median income $152
$149
$182
$179
15.16.090
More than 80% but less than or equal to 100% of the area median income $182
$179
$273
$269
15.16.090
More than 100% of the area median income $243
$239
$476
$469
15.16.090
Non-residents of Salt Lake City Household income:***After School Program*Summer Program**
Regardless of income or lunch status $242
$239
$476
$468
15.16.090
*After school program fees will be charged on a monthly basis, with the exception of the months with 12 days or less of scheduled programming which shall be half of the monthly fee, and months with 5 days or less of scheduled programming which shall be one quarter of the monthly fee, as determined by the family median income.
**Summer program fees will be charged on a session basis, as determined by the family median income.
***For purpose of the after school and the summer program, area median income shall be determined based on the federal housing and urban development guidelines for the Salt Lake City metropolitan statistical area.
Tennis Courts
Dee Glenn Smith and Liberty Park
Hours:
Monday - Friday
7:00am to close
Saturday, Sunday & holidays
8:00am to close
Indoor (bubble)
Court $24 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Prepaid court $22 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Tournament $13 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Tournament Cleaning Deposit $250 Per Tournament 15.16.060
Outdoor (summer)
Court (12 or Less Courts Used)$7 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Court (13 or More Courts Used $10 Per court, per hour 15.16.060
Reservation Fee $2 Per court, per reservation 15.16.060
Tournament $3 Per court, per day reservation fee
Tournament Cleaning Deposit $250 Per Tournament 15.16.060
All Other Courts No charge 15.16.060
Unity Center - Rental rates are for 6 hour consecutive period, unless otherwise noted. For questions regarding the Unity Center contact: 801.535.6533
Staffing Charge $28 Per hour over 6 hours 3.50.080
Janitorial Rate $42
$41
Per hour, 1 hour minimum 3.50.080
Main lobby/gallery
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 36
For profit business/individuals $303
$299
Not residents of Glendale or Poplar Grove 15.16.090
Glendale or Poplar Grove residents $212
$209
Per group 15.16.090
Nonprofit charging a fee $273
$269
15.16.090
Nonprofit not charging fee $243
$239
15.16.090
City/Community activities No charge Including community council meetings 15.16.090
Theater - Storage or theater dark days during multi-day rentals incur the 6 hour rate per day
For profit business/individuals $238
$234
Not residents of Glendale or Poplar Grove 15.16.090
Glendale or Poplar Grove residents $149
$147
Per group 15.16.090
Nonprofit charging a fee $208
$205
15.16.090
Nonprofit not charging fee $179
$176
15.16.090
City/Community activities No charge Including community council meetings 15.16.090
Lobby & Theater
For profit business/individuals $512
$504
Not residents of Glendale or Poplar Grove 15.16.090
Glendale or Poplar Grove residents $425
$418
Per group 15.16.090
Nonprofit charging a fee $485
$478
15.16.090
Nonprofit not charging fee $455
$448
15.16.090
City/Community activities No charge Including community council meetings 15.16.090
Full facility rental $607
$597
15.16.090
Classroom $29 Per hour 15.16.090
Rental Reservation and Damage deposits
Up to 75 participants $121
$119
15.16.090
More than 75 participants $303
$299
15.16.090
Equipment rental and service rates
Chair riser setup $303
$299
15.16.090
Stage setup $182
$179
15.16.090
Table setup $6 Per table 15.16.090
Chair setup $1 Per chair 15.16.090
Community Art/Enrichment Classes
Youth Not more than $31 15.16.090
Parent/child Not more than $47 15.16.090
Wedding Ceremony Permit Fee $182
$179 for a 2 hour block
Additional $40$42 per hour for any cleaning fee if necessaryrequired after pavilion use 15.16.100
International Peace Gardens $182 for a 2 hour block Additional $42 per hour for any cleaning required after pavilion use 15.16.100
Urban Forestry
Public Tree Work Permit $15.00$15 per tree or$150.00$152 per year Permit processing fee, to account for staff time to issue permit and update inventory.3.50.080
Tree Removal Mitigation The Contracted Rate This is the average cost (per inch) to purchase and plant a new tree. This fee is charged when code protected trees are removed or damaged.3.50.080
Outdoor Volleyball Court Fees and Liberty Park
Recreational One Time Use Fees $10 Per Hour 15.16.010
Youth Volleyball League $5 Per Hour Per Court (1/2 of one time use field rate)15.16.010
Adult Volleyball League $7 Per Hour Per Court (1/2 of one time use field rate)15.16.010
Volleyball Court Lighting $10 Per Hour 15.16.010
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 37
RECORDS AND ELECTIONS
For questions regarding Records and Election fees contact: 801.535.7671
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Candidate Filing Fees Mayor Council
File $383
$376
$91
$90
Or petition/ see Section 2.68.010 2.68.010
With Nomination $376
$370
$91
$90
Or additional petition signatures/see Section 2.68.010 2.68.010
Write - in $376
$370
$91
$90
2.68.020
Copies of Records
Employee time Not more $20 Per hour minus the first 15 minutes compiling records as listed
in Section 2.64.130A 2.64.040
Paper photocopies Not more than $0.10 Per copy 2.64.040
Size C blueprint Not more than $1 Per copy 2.64.040
Produced a microfilm printer (silver paper)Not more than $2 Per copy 2.64.040
From microfilm (plain paper)Not more than $0.10 Per copy 2.64.040
From a photograph Not more than $5 Per copy 2.64.040
Tapes or discs Cost of media, plus
$11/hour for employee time See Section 2.64.130 2.64.040
Incident Reports See Additional Information Not more than the fee charged by the State of Utah for similar
reports 2.64.040
Mylar or Vellum Prints
24" x 36"Not more than $6 2.64.040
Larger than 24" x 36"Not more than $2 per square
foot 2.64.040
GRAMA Request $20 Per Hour; Billable in quarter hour increments.
Declaration of Mutual Commitment $29
29
10 3 050
Termination of Declaration of Mutual Commitment No charge 10.03.030
REFUSE
For questions regarding Waste Collection Service fees contact: 801.535.6999
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Green Waste and Recycling Green
Waste Recycling
Residences receiving City garbage service No additional
charge
No additional
charge
Charge is included in the fee for garbage, recycling and
green waste 9.08.030
Eligible recycling customers & green waste
customers $7.85
$7
$7.85
$7
Per month, per container/eligible recycling customers and green waste customers are non-garbage customers who meet City's service criteria regarding access to curb and location within service route; minimum subscription 12 months.
9.08.030
Glass recycling for residences $7 Per month 9.08.030
Garbage
40 gallon container $15.50
$13.75
Per month, per container 9.08.030
60 gallon container $19.75
$17.75
Per month, per container 9.08.030
90 gallon container $23.50
$21.00
Per month, per container 9.08.030
Replacement or Removal of Containers
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 38
When damage is caused by property owner Actual city cost to purchase container plus
$11 9.08.140
When stolen and theft reported to police No charge 9.08.140
When stolen and theft not reported to police Actual city cost for purchase of container 9.08.140
With one of a different size No charge 9.08.140
Removal of containers for residences and for eligible recycling customers $11 Per container 9.08.030
Green Waste Trailer Service Delivery & Removal $225
$225.00
Per container 9.08.030
Green Waste Trailer Material Contamination Fee $15 Per container 9.08.030
Authorized Waste Hauler Permit Fee $315 Annual 9.08.200
WASTE & RECYCLING - SPECIAL EVENTS
Can Delivery, Removal & 1st Dump <100 cans $22 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Can Delivery, Removal & 1st Dump >100 cans $19 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Recycling Can Contamination $22 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Additional Can Dump Service $4 Each Can/Dump 3.50.080
Can Replacement Cost $50 Each Can/Contract Cost 3.50.080
Landfill Tipping Fee $33 Per Ton 3.50.080
Landfill Tipping Fee (Hazardous Material)$100 Per Ton 3.50.080
Temporary Meter Charge Deposit $1,061 Per Event 3.50.080
Waste & Recycling - Special Events, Use of Equipment
Flat Bed Truck $24 Per Hour 3.50.080
Leafbed/10 Wheeler $60 Per Hour 3.50.080
Loader $93 Per Hour 3.50.080
Refuse Packer $186 Per Hour 3.50.080
Trailer $3 Per Hour 3.50.080
Waste & Recycling - Special Events, Staff Costs
Full-Time Employee $35 Per Hour 3.50.080
Supervisor $50 Per Hour 3.50.080
Seasonal Employee $16 Per Hour 3.50.080
Additional information on termination or suspension see Section 9.08.030F
Low Income Abatement: Customers who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a 50% abatement of the minimum monthly charge per Section 9.08.030.
SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES
For questions regarding Sanitary Sewer Charges contact: 801-483.6727
Customer Classifications
Customer Class BOD(mg/l)TSS(mg/l)Additional Information
1 <300 <300
More than one class may apply to a customer at the same time. Customer classifications is set based on the estimated BOD and TSS discharge rate.
2 300 - 600 300 - 600
3 601 - 900 601 - 900
4 901 - 1,200 901 - 1,200
5 1,201 - 1,500 1,201 - 1,500
See Section 17.72.030.C61,501 - 1,800 1,501 - 1,800
7 >1,800 >1,800
Sewer Charges
Customer Class*Flow Rate BOD TSS Total Additional Information Section
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 39
1 $3.19
2.70
$1.12
0.95
$0.82
0.69
$5.13
4.34
Monthly service charge for customers in classes 1 to 6 equal to the greater of:
1. Cumulative flow rate, BOD rate and TSS rate set forth in the following chart per 100 cubic feet of metered water usage during winter months, or
2. Minimum charge of $8.68.$10.26.
All Residents will always be classified as a Class 1 category and the total sewer rate will be $4.34$5.13 per unit. CommericalCommercial customers with waste strengths higher than Class 1 may have BOD and TSS rates that are in different classes, thus their totals will not match class totals to the left. Example AAA Inc has a BOD in Class 4 and TSS in Class 2, thus the total rate is $2.70+$3.65+$1.39= $7.74.$3.19+$4.31+$1.64= $9.14.
17.72.030
2 $3.19
2.70
$1.83
1.55
$1.64
1.39
$6.66
5.64
3 $3.19
2.70
$3.01
2.55
$2.80
2.37
$9.00
7.62
4 $3.19
2.70
$4.31
3.65
$3.81
3.23
$11.31
9.58
5 $3.19
2.70
$5.4
4.58
$4.96
4.20
$13.55
11.48
17.72.030
6 $3.19
2.70
$6.66
5.64
$6.00
5.09
$15.85
13.43
7
Monthly Service charge for each customer in class 7 and all other
separately monitored classes based on actual discharge strength
Flow component charged at $2.70$3.19 per 100 cubic feet of
metered water used during a billing period
Charge for COD, BOD, and TSS billed on actual pounds of
discharge
Category Cost per Pound of Discharge ($/Pound)
COD $0.3632
$0.3077
BOD $0.7263
$0.6155
TSS $0.4322
$0.3662
New sewer accounts - Applicable until data required by Section 17.34.030.E.117.72.030.C.1.a is received
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 40
Single $34.72$41.04 per month Based on average residential AWC of 8 ccf.17.72.030
Duplex $34.72$41.04 per month/per dwelling unit Based on average residential AWC of 8 ccf.17.72.030
Triplex $34.72$41.04 per month/per dwelling unit Based on average residential AWC of 8 ccf.17.72.030
Multiple dwelling
$34.72$41.04 per month per dwelling unit minimum or $2.70$3.19 per one hundred cubic feet of total water consumption whichever is highest
Based on average AWC of 8 ccf.17.72.030
All other users
$34.72$41.04 per month per dwelling unit or class average AWC by meter size times rates whichever is highest
Customer Class Flow Rate Per 100 Cubic Feet
17.72.030
1 $3.19
$2.70
2 $4.15
$3.51
3 $5.60
$4.74
4 $7.04
$5.96
5 $8.43
$7.14
6 $9.86
$8.35
Customer class 7
Monthly service charge for each customer in class 7 and all other separately monitored classed based on actual discharge strength
See Section 17.72.030 E.1.a
See Section 17.72.030 E.1.f
17.72.030
Service charge adjustment As needed to ensure equitable service charges, determined by director 17.72.030
Low Income Abatement: Customers who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a four dollar *$4.00) abatement of the monthly charge.
SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION FEES
For questions regarding Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees contact: 801.483.6727
Service/Size Fee Additional Information Section
Connection fees on new development property:
Residential single dwelling $545 per connection or unit Includes condominiums and twin homes single dwellings 17.72.030
Multi-family dwellings
Duplex $818 17.72.030
Triplex $1,226 17.72.030
Townhouse (apartment)Townhouse/Apartment, per unit $409
$409 per unit
per unit 17.72.030
Hotels and motels:
Without kitchen or restaurant $273 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
With a kitchen or restaurant $363 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
With a kitchen and a restaurant $363 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
Commercial/Industrial
Without kitchen or restaurant $273 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
With a kitchen or restaurant $363 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
With a kitchen and a restaurant $363 per dwelling unit 17.72.030
General commercial and industrial $27 per each equivalent fixture unit Base on Utah plumbing code 17.72.030
Trailer Park $545 per equivalent fixture unit Three trailer spaces shall equal one residential single dwelling unit 17.72.030
Recreation park $545 per equivalent fixture unit Six trailer spaces shall equal one residential single dwelling 17.72.030
Special industrial and commercial uses $27 per equivalent fixture unit, as specified in uniform plumbing code Including car washes, Laundromats,, etc.17.72.030
Sewer connection fees on property with prior development:
Residential building See Section 17.72.030 17.72.030
Commercial building See Section 17.72.030 Hotel, motel, industrial building, etc.17.72.030
Temporary sewer connections $500
$100
Not to exceed 24 months 17.72.030
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 41
Unauthorized manhole or utility access
First incident
First incident $500 17.36.220
Subsequent Incidents Previous charge + $500 17.36.220
SANITARY SEWER PERMITS
For questions regarding Sanitary Sewer Permits contact: 801.483.6727
Service Fee Additional Information
Sewer Permit Fees Section
Sewer and miscellaneous inspection $165
$60
17.72.030
Grease trap survey and inspection $165 17.72.030
Sewer repair inspection $72
$30
17.72.030
TrailTrial sewer survey $100
$35
17.72.030
Sewer survey $130 17.72.030
Resurvey charge $100
$35 Each Occasion
Each Occasion 17.72.030
Installation of sewer special wyes and tees up to 8-inches $219 17.72.030
Installation of sewer special ways Shall be determined by the director Cannot exceed the City's actual cost plus reasonable overhead 17.72.030
Installation of sewer special wyes and tees greater than 8-inches $319 17.72.030
Video inspection $55 17.72.030
Sewer Construction, Connection and Repair Permits
Additional surveys or inspections Fee Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.030
Application for repairs and replacements fee Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.040
Trial sewer survey fee Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.030
Re-inspection additional fee Fee to cover the cost of the work See Section 17.44.110 17.44.040
Survey stakes resetting fee Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.030
Opening sewer when junction pipe not available Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.040
Replacing damaged junction pipe Fee to cover the cost of the work 17.44.030
SANITARY SEWER PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
For questions regarding Sanitary Sewer Pretreatment Program contact: 801.799.4002
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Pretreatment Program services
Permit application Determined by Publicly Owned treatment Works (POTW)For Provisions see Section 17.52.030 17.52.040
Metering of sewage flows Based upon actual sewer meter readings 17.72.030
Sample and analysis fees Fee to cover all cost associated with labor and testing 17.64.040
New Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit $100 17.64.040
Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit Renewal $50 17.64.040
Pretreatment Sampling Fees
Manual sampling $80 17.64.040
Automatic sampler composite $50 17.64.040
Grab sample $20 17.64.040
Grease Interceptor Inspection Fee
1st trip Free 17.64.040
Additional follow up inspection $75
75
17.64.040
3rd trip $150
150
17.64.040
Noncompliance Violation Fee
Notice of Violation for Non-compliance $100 Noncompliance violation fee covers fixed cost of notice of violation. Fines for violations may also apply.
17.64.040
Significant Non-compliance Violation $350 17.64.040
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 42
Column(s) have been deleted from this table
SPECIAL EVENTS
For questions regarding Special Events contact: TBD
Service Fee Additional Information Section
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - SPECIAL EVENTS
Alcohol Concessions Agreement $282
$278
Per Applications 3.50.080
Staffing Charge $28 Per hour over 6 hours 3.50.080
Janitorial Rate See Notes Fee is equal to fee charged by facilities for janitorial services 3.50.080
FIRE - TEMPORARY MEMBRANE STRUCTURES, TENTS OR CANOPIES - SPECIAL EVENTS
Single event - Initial Inspection $176
$173
Up to 180 days. See Also Fire Code under 2.12.040 3.50.080
Each additional structure on same site $1 See Also Fire Code 2.12.040 3.50.080
Re-inspection of additional setup $1 Using the same plan that was previously inspected. See Also
Fire Code under 2.12.040 3.50.080
PARKSPUBLIC LANDS - SPECIAL EVENTS
Site: Set Up/Takedown $70
$69
Per Day 3.50.080
Event Fee $69
$68
Per day, 0-299 participants with minimal set up 3.50.080
Event Fee $140
$138
Per day, 300 + participants 3.50.080
Special Event Permit $121 Commercially related (community events)3.50.080
Special Event Filming Permit $121 21A.42.070
Special Event Demonstrations (Free Expression)$6 21A.42.070
Staff costs
Supervisor $30
$29
Per Hour 3.50.080
Sr. Groundskeeper $21 Per Hour 3.50.080
Groundskeeper $15 Per Hour 3.50.080
Seasonal Employee $13 Per Hour 3.50.080
Plumber $28 Per Hour 3.50.080
Irrigation Tech $24
$23
Per Hour 3.50.080
Irrigation Seasonal $17 Per Hour 3.50.080
Electrical Usage $0.09 Per Kilowatt Hour - $15.29 Minimum 3.50.080
Restroom Cleaning $34 Per Cleaning 3.50.080
Damage to Landscape
Sod Replacement $0.31 Per Square Foot 3.50.080
Peat Moss $16 Per Bale (cost is $15.88)3.50.080
Lawn Seed $113 Per Bag 3.50.080
Top Soil $36 Per Yard 3.50.080
Fertilizer $36 Per Bag 3.50.080
Tree Replacement Varies per size of tree Based on city's cost to replace damaged tree 3.50.080
Wetting Agent $116 Per 40 lb bag 3.50.080
Wetting Agent + Organic 3-1-0 $49 Per 50 lb bag 3.50.080
Paver Replacement
Paver Cleaning $300 per 1/2 day; $600 per day Based on city's cost 3.50.080
Equipment Damage and Parts Varies based on damage Based on city's cost 3.50.080
Irrigation Damage and Parts Varies based on damage Based on city's cost 3.50.080
Fuel Costs $3 3.50.080
Use of Equipment
1 Ton Dump Truck $28 Per Hour 3.50.080
Aerator (Walk Behind)$9 Per Hour 3.50.080
Aerator, Tractor Mounted (including Tractor)$16 Per Hour 3.50.080
ATLV $15 Per Hour 3.50.080
Backhoe $48 Per Hour 3.50.080
Blower, Backpack (Stihl)$2 Per Hour 3.50.080
Blower (Walk Behind)$7 Per Hour 3.50.080
Edger, Grass (Power Trim)$7 Per Hour 3.50.080
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 43
Leafbed/10 Wheeler $67 Per Hour 3.50.080
Loader $68 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mixer $13 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mower, Bagger (Snapper)$7 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mower, Riding (Toro/Kubota)$16 Per Hour 3.50.080
Mower, Side Discharge (Eastman)$6
$5
Per Hour 3.50.080
Mower, Wide Area (Jacobsen 9016)$35
$34
Per Hour 3.50.080
Pickup Truck $14 Per Hour 3.50.080
Plow, Jeep Mounted (Including Jeep)$12 Per Hour 3.50.080
Plow, Truck (Including Truck)$24 Per Hour 3.50.080
Pressure Washer $8
$7
Per Hour 3.50.080
Pressure Washer with Heat $21 Per Hour 3.50.080
Snowthrower (Toro)$3 Per Hour 3.50.080
Sprayer, Pull Behind (Including Pickup)$19 Per Hour 3.50.080
Spreader, Pull Behind (Including Pickup)$19 Per Hour 3.50.080
Sweeper, Tractor Mounted (Including $28 Per Hour 3.50.080
Track hoe $18 Per Hour 3.50.080
Tractor and Seeder $18 Per Hour 3.50.080
Trimmer, Hedger (Stihl)$4 Per Hour 3.50.080
Trimmer, Line (Maruyama, Echo)$14 Per Hour 3.50.080
Utility Truck (Cushman)$14 Per Hour 3.50.080
Utility Truck (Kawasaki Mule)$14 Per Hour 3.50.080
Van, Mower ( Including Trailer)$20 Per Hour 3.50.080
PARKING AND TRAFFIC - SPECIAL EVENTS
Temporary Placing of Bags on Parking Meters $28 Per day 12.56.210
During filming of a movie/television series/
commercial $12 Per day 12.56.210
For an event that continues for not less than
3 days $12 Per day/must significantly foster area business promotion
and have an expected attendance exceeding 5,000 12.56.210
For a religious or charitable organization No Charge Limited to 30 days per calendar year 12.56.210
For use under the direction of the city in
connection with a city sponsored event No Charge 12.56.210
POLICE - SPECIAL EVENTS
Police Coverage for Special Events $62
$61
Per Hour, Per Officer 3.50.080
Police Secondary Employment Car Charge $7 Per Every 4 Hours, plus fuel surcharge 3.50.080
Vehicle Relocation Fee $79 12.56.540
WASTE & RECYCLING - SPECIAL EVENTS
Can Delivery, Removal & 1st Dump <100 cans $22 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Can Delivery, Removal & 1st Dump >100 cans $19 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Recycling Can Contamination $22 Each Can/Per Event 3.50.080
Additional Can Dump Service $4 Each Can/Dump 3.50.080
Can Replacement Cost $50 Each Can/Contract Cost 3.50.080
Landfill Tipping Fee $31
$33
Per Ton 3.50.080
Landfill Tipping Fee (Hazardous Material)$100 Per Ton 3.50.080
Temporary Meter Charge Deposit $1,061 Per Event 3.50.080
Waste & Recycling - Special Events, Use of Equipment
Flat Bed Truck $24 Per Hour 3.50.080
Leafbed/10 Wheeler $60 Per Hour 3.50.080
Loader $93 Per Hour 3.50.080
Refuse Packer $186 Per Hour 3.50.080
Trailer $3 Per Hour 3.50.080
Waste & Recycling - Special Events, Staff Costs
Full-Time Employee $30
$35
Per Hour 3.50.080
Supervisor $45
$50
Per Hour 3.50.080
Seasonal Employee $16 Per Hour 3.50.080
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 44
Special Event Permits Per Day in Protected Watershed Areas (Races, walks, filming, etc)
# of Participants Fee Deposit Additional Information
0 to 20 $0 $0
One toilet required per 40 participants at start.
Running races over 5 miles require toilets at
intermittent mile markers and aid stations (e.g.
miles 1,3,5…)
17.08.030
20 to 50 $25 $50
50 to 100 $50 $100
100 to 200 $100 $200
200 to 400 $200 $500
400 to 600 $500 $1,000
600 to 1,000 $1,000 $2,000
*Over 1,000 *Contacted watershed manager
Filming Fees (per day)$200 minimum to $1,000 minimum
STORM WATER
For questions regarding Storm Water contact: 801.483.6727
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Drainage connection fee $374 Per 1/4 acre, rounded up 17.81.400
Storm water inspection fee $110
$85
17.16.050
Storm Water Fees
Single family residential and duplex parcels, less
than 0.25 acres $5.98
$5.43
Per month 17.81.200
Single family residential and duplex parcels, more
than 0.25 acres $8.36
$7.60
Per month 17.81.200
Triplex and fourplex residential $11.96
$10.87
Per month 17.81.200
All other developed parcels $5.43$5.98 per ERU Per month, see Section 17.81.200 for formula 17.81.200
Undeveloped parcels No assessment levied 17.81.200
Parcel mitigation credit Formula based See Section 17.81.200 17.81.200
Low income abatement 50% reduction to service
charge See Section 17.81.200 17.81.200
Non-service abatement Formula based See Section 17.81.200 17.81.200
Discharge into City Storm Water Sewer System Not to exceed $125 17.84.400
Discharge into City Storm water Sewer System
Registration Fee $20 18.16.050
Discharge into City Storm Water Re-inspection Fee Not to exceed $30 17.16.050
STREET LIGHTING
For questions regarding Street Lighting fees contact: 801.498.6700
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Base Level Lighting Services City-Wide $3.73 Per ERU Per month. No bills shall be less thank one ERUERU.17.95.300
Enhanced Lighting Fees
Group 1 Decorative Lights - High Efficiency $5.67 per ERU Per month - residential 17.95.300
Group 2 Decorative Lights $15.94 per ERU Per month - residential 17.95.300
Group 3 Decorative Multi- Head Lights $43.82 per ERU Per month - commercial 17.95.300
Note: 1 ERU = 1 residential property or 75 feet of street frontage for non-residential properties.
1 - Group 1 rates apply to the existing, predominantly residential properties with a number of enhanced decorative lights; lights have generally received energy
efficiency upgrades and large capital expenditures are not expected within the year.
2 - Group 2 rates apply to the existing, predominantly residential properties with a number of enhanced decorative lights; many lights require energy efficiency
upgrades and large capital expenditures are scheduled within the year.
3 - Group 3 rates apply to the existing properties in the predominantly commercial area with a number of enhanced decorative lights; many lights require energy
efficiency upgrades and large capital expenditures are scheduled within the year.
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 45
Service Fee
Minimum Charge Rate Table
Size of connection Charge Daily Amount Monthly Amount
City County City County
3/4 inch Minimum charge 0.3295
$0.3049
0.4448
$0.4117
$10.03
$9.28
$13.54
$12.53
17.16.670
1 inch Minimum charge 0.4310
$0.3989
0.5818
$0.5385
$13.12
$12.14
$17.71
$16.39
17.16.670
1 1/2 inch Minimum charge 0.6847
$0.6338
0.9242
$0.8555
$20.84
$19.29
$28.13
$26.04
17.16.670
2 inch Minimum charge 0.9896
$0.9160
1.3359
$1.2366
$30.12
$27.88
$40.66
$37.64
17.16.670
3 inch Minimum charge 1.8014
$1.6677
2.4319
$2.2515
$54.83
$50.76
$74.02
$68.53
17.16.670
4 inch Minimum charge 2.7144
$2.5133
3.6646
$3.3932
$82.62
$76.50
$111.54
$103.28
17.16.670
6 inch Minimum charge 5.2527
$4.8634
7.0913
$6.5656
$159.88
$148.03
$215.84
$199.84
17.16.670
8 inch Minimum charge 8.2977
$7.6830
11.2020
$10.3721
$252.56
$233.85
$340.96
$315.70
17.16.670
10 inch Minimum charge 21.4942
$19.9018
29.0172
$26.8675
$654.23
$605.76
$883.21
$817.78
17.16.670
>10 inches Minimum charge Based proportionately on meter capacity, as determined by
Public Utilities Director.
Fire Hydrant $7.7497
$3.6018
$10.4621
$4.8624
$235.88
$218.4
$318.44
$294.83
17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a four dollar fifty cent ($4.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Water Meter Rates 17.16.680
All rates charged are per each 100 cubic feet of water.
**Summer months are April through October
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
City County City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
1-10 hundred
cubic feet
$1.48
$1.37
$2.00
$1.84
$1.48
$1.37
$2.00
$1.84
Block 2:
11-30 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased to 47.94
Cubic feet for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$2.02
$1.87
$2.73
$2.52
Block 3:
31-60 hundred
cubic feet
$2.80
$2.59
$3.78
$3.50
Block 4:
>61 hundred
cubic feet
$2.99
$2.76
$4.04
$3.73
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 50
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
1-13 hundred
cubic feet
$1.48
$1.37
$2.00
$1.84
$1.48
$1.37
$2.00
$1.84
Block 2:
14-30 hundred
cubic feet
$2.02
$1.87
$2.73
$2.52
Block 3:
31-60 hundred
cubic feet
$2.80
$2.59
$3.78
$3.50
Block 4:
>61 hundred
cubic feet
$2.99
$2.76
$4.04
$3.73
Triplex residence
Block 1:
1-16 hundred
cubic feet
$1.48
$1.37
$2.00
$1.84
$1.48
$1.37
$2.00
$1.84
Block 2:
17-30 hundred
cubic feet
$2.02
$1.87
$2.73
$2.52
Block 3:
31-60 hundred
cubic feet
$2.80
$2.59
$3.78
$3.50
Block 4:
>61 hundred
cubic feet
$2.99
$2.76
$4.04
$3.73
Fourplex residence/Commercial
and Industrial
0 Cubic feet
Through AWC $1.61
$1.49
$2.17
$2.01
$1.61
$1.49
$2.17
$2.01
Above AWC
through 300% of AWC $2.21
$2.04
$2.98
$2.75
Over 300% through
600% of AWC $3.07
$2.84
$4.14
$3.83
Over 600% of AWC $3.26
$3.01
$4.40
$4.06
Note:
"AWC" means average winter consumption, and is calculated as the average amount of water used by customer during the months of November through March,
inclusive (a "winter period"), taking into account the highest number of complete winter periods available for that customer, up to a maximum of 3 winter periods.
Any customer that at the time of calculation has not established an AWC will be assigned a class average AWC by meter size for such customer's classification.
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be assigned the class
average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other consumption information specific to such
account to determine AWC.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Irrigation
City County City County Cost
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $1.94
$1.80
$2.62
$2.42
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $2.70
$2.50
$3.65
$3.37
$1.94
$1.80
$2.62
$2.42
Over 300% of
target budget $2.87
$2.66
$3.87
$3.59
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 51
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $183.79
$170.18
$0.42
$0.39
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $420.66
$389.50
$0.97
$0.75
$175.05
$162.08
$0.41
$0.37
Over 300% of
target budget $706.49
$654.16
$1.62
$1.51
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment
Range from
$81.63 to
$204.11
Annually
NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes
Deposit for water - carwashes
$600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$75
$40
17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$125
$75
17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30
$21
17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $75
$50
$75
$50
17.16.660
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel 68.5 plus tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.620
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.620
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public
Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $362.56 per year
$160.65 per year
17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $181.28 per year
$80.33 per year
17.04.030
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 52
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 (Effective January 1, 2019)
17.04.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size City Cost**County Cost
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $2,439.07
2,329.07
$2,520.07
3,884.30
Single family 1 inch $3,994.30
3,884.30
$4,191.30
4,081.30
Duplex 1 inch $3,994.30
3,885.30
$4,191.30
4,082.30
Triplex 1 inch $3,994.30
3,886.30
$4,191.30
4,083.30
Fourplex 1 inch $3,994.30
3,887.30
$4,191.30
4,084.30
Commercial/Industrial
Compound
3/4 inch $4,527.30
$4,417.30
$4,910.30
$4,800.30
1 inch $4,527.30
$4,417.30
$4,910.30
$4,800.30
1.5 inch $9,946.98
$9,836.98
$10,684.98
$10,574.98
2 inch $14,547.83
$14,437.83
$15,605.83
$15,495.83
3 inch $30,108.54
$29,998.54
$32,268.54
$32,158.54
4 inch $35,254.54
$35,144.54*
$35,254.54
$35,144.54*
6 inch $65,657.59
$65,547.59*
$65,657.59
$65,547.59*
8 inch $100,190.54
$100,080.54*
$100,190.54
$100,080.54*
Turbo
2 inch Price upon request Price upon request
3 inch Price upon request Price upon request
4 inch Price upon request*Price upon request*
6 inch Price upon request*Price upon request*
8 inch Price upon request*Price upon request*
FM
4 inch $37,200.93
$37,090.93
$37,200.93
$37,090.93
6 inch $67,557.57
$67,447.57
$67,557.57
$67,447.57
8 inch $104,974.63
$104,864.63
$104,974.63
$104,864.63
10 inch $147,135.18
$147,025.18
$147,135.18
$147,025.18
Hydroverse 8 inch $105,070.4 $105,070.4
10 inch $146,084.18 $146,084.18
*For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA M-22
method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
** Cost includes actual hardware cost, inspection fees and impact fees.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check
6-inch $1,691.00 17.16.050
8-inch $2,575.64 17.16.050
10-inch $4,389.03 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
Fire Lines
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 53
New hydrant inspection
New hydrants
$110.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water kill inspection
Hydrant and/or meter
$110.00 Per each inspection
Per each move/kill inspection
17.16.050
1 inch and smaller $12.00 17.16.410
Meters over 1 inch $25.00 17.16.410
When meter is found to be over-registering No charge Cost of test borne by the city 17.16.410
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Residential Metered Rates
$10.00
17.16.34517.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.34517.16
.350
WATERSHED RECREATIONAL FEES
For questions regarding Watershed Recreational fees contact: 801.483.6880
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Affleck Park Site Fees
Single Site $15 Per day 17.08.030
Group area #2 $50 Per day 17.08.030
Group area #3 $100 Per day 17.08.030
Little Dell Recreation Area Site Fee
Vehicle entry $5 Per car 17.08.030
Season pass $50 17.08.030
Senior season pass $25 17.08.030
City Creek Canyon Entry Fee
Vehicle entry $3 Per car 17.08.030
Site fees for picnic areas $3 - $75 17.08.030
Permits for Dogs in the Watershed – Applicants should refer to Section 17.04.160 of the City Code for information. If a bond is not submitted to Salt Lake County, the following deposit shall be paid.
Initial deposit - no violation $100 17.04.160(E)
Second deposit - after first violation $300 17.04.160(F)
Third deposit - after second violation $500 17.04.160(F)
Special Event Permits Per Day in Protected Watershed Areas (Races, walks, filming, etc)
# of Participants Fee Deposit Additional Information
0 to 20 $0 $0
One toilet required per 40 participants at start.
Running races over 5 miles require toilets at
intermittent mile markers and aid stations (e.g.
miles 1,3,5…)
17.08.030
20 to 50 $25 $50
50 to 100 $50 $100
100 to 200 $100 $200
200 to 400 $200 $500
400 to 600 $500 $1,000
600 to 1,000 $1,000 $2,000
*Over 1,000 *Contacted watershed manager
Filming Fees (per day)$200 minimum to $1,000 minimum
ZONING FEES
For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Determination of Nonconforming Use $202
$198
21A.38.025.4
Administrative Interpretation $67
$66
Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6
Alley Vacation/Closure $269
$265
Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained.
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)14.52.030. A.5
Alternative Parking
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 54
Residential $403
$397
21A.52.040 .A.3
Nonresidential $739
$727
21A.52.040 .A.3
Amendments
Master plan $1,008
$992
Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for
required public notices (10.9a.204).
Utah Code
Annoted
10.9A.510
Zoning map amendment $1,075
$1,058
Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for
required public notices (21A.10.010.E).21A.50.040.B
Zoning text amendment $1,075
$1,058
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.50.040.B
Annexation $1,344
$1,323
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)Utah Code Annoted 10.2.401.5
Appeal of a Decision
Administrative decision $269
$265
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B
Historic Landmark Commission $269
$265
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B
Planning Commission $269
$265
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B
Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office
First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90
Second scheduled hearing $67
$66
21A.20.90
Billboard Construction or Demolition including the
demolition of a non-conforming billboard $269
$265
21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2
Conditional Building and Site Design Review $806
$794
Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for
required public notices (21A.10.010.E).21A.59.070.B
Conditional Use $806
$794
See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E).21A.54.060.C
Condominium
Preliminary $537
$529
Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices
(21.A.10.010.E).20.56.40.B
Final $403
$397
Plus $24 per unit.20.56.40.B
Declaration of Surplus Real Property $403
$397
2.58.040
Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application)
Major Alterations of a principal building $34
$33
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020
New construction of a principal building $269
$265
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020
Demolition of a contributing principal building $537
$529
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020
Relocation of a contributing principal building $269
$265
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020
Home Occupation
Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030
Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030
Outdoor Dining
Outdoor Dining Application $28 21A.40.065
Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables)$113
$111
21A.40.065
Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables)$169
$167
21A.40.065
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 55
Planned Development $806
$793
Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for
required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.55
Signs
Permit fee for signs
Based on the
adopted Building
Permit Fee
Schedule
21A.46.030
Plan checking fee $0.12 Of building permit value 21A.46.030
Inspection tag $13 21A.46.030
Site Development Permit $269
$265
Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E
Special Exception $269
$265
For historic structures, see Section 21A.34.020 and
21A.46.070V. See also fee for required public notices
21A.10.010.E)
21A.52.040.A.3
Street Closure $403
$397
See also fee for required public notices.2.58.040
Subdivision Amendments $403
$397
Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices
(20.36)20.04.120
Subdivision Preliminary Plat $403
$397
Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices
(20.36)20.04.120
Subdivision Final Plat $806
$794
Plus $121 per lot.20.04.120
Subdivision Vacations $403
$397
See also fee for required public notices (20.36)20.04.120
Engineering Review and Inspection Fee
5% of the 1st
$100,000 of public
improvements &
2% for the amount
above $100,000
20.04.120
Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $267
$263
20.04.120
Subdivision Consolidating Lots $257
$253
20.04.120
Temporary Uses $269
$265
21A.42.060.B
Zoning Variance $403
$397
See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.18.040.B
As per applicable sections of the City and / or State Code, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to
property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required
public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance and State Law: Salt Lake City Code 21A.10.E and
Utah State Code Annotated 10.9a.204 and 510
Column(s) have been deleted from this table
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 56
GENERAL FUNDS MISCELLANEOUS FEES
For questions regarding General Funds Miscellaneous Fees contact: TBD
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Collection Fee $53
$52
3.16.050
Legal Fee $204
$201
2.75.040
Credit Card Use Surcharge 2.35%
This fee will be added at the register to all qualifying credit card
transactions described in Section 3.16.060 of the Salt Lake City Code.
**Max Galaxy, Sportsman software and Library Parking Garage does
not assess the credit card charge**
3.16.060
Pedestrian Crosswalk Flags
Plain Orange Non-Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10 Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for keeping the flags in stock. No fees assessed for flags sponsored in school zones.
12.76.100
Orange Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10
Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for
keeping the flags in stock. No fees assessed for flags sponsored in
school zones.
12.76.100
Amended XX/XX/2021 by Ord. 2021 - XX Page 57
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:July 13, 2021
RE: Goshen Street Alley Vacation
400-06-05
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a City-owned alley at approximately 740 South
Goshen Street between Goshen Street and 1075 West in City Council District Two. The subject alley is
approximately 15’ wide, 138’ long (2,070 square feet) and dead ends in line with the applicant’s western
property boundary as shown in the image below. A former intersecting north-south alley segment along
this boundary was vacated in 1962.
This is an old application on which the Council was initially briefed in 2007. At that time, an adjacent
property owner on the south side of the alley wanted to purchase half the alley. That property is in a
different subdivision from which the alley was created. According to a Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
interpretation of City code, when alleys are vacated they must be conveyed to abutting property owners
within the subdivision from which it was originally dedicated. Utah court case law supports this position.
In the period since the Council was first briefed on this alley closure, the adjacent property south of the
alley was sold and the current owner is supportive of the alley closure with the applicant receiving the alley
property (see email from adjacent property owner to the south included as attachment A).
Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code outlines the method of disposition for alleys (see pages 4-5 below).
For alleys abutting low density residential areas (single-family, duplex or twin homes), the alley is vacated
and deeded to abutting property owners. Since the applicant is the only abutting property owner within the
subdivision from which the alley was originally created, if the subject alley vacation is approved by the
Council the alley property will be deeded to them.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 13, 2021
Set Date: July 13, 2021
Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Page | 2
The previous City Council staff report is included with the Administration’s transmittal. The Planning
Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation.
Aerial view with the subject alley highlighted in yellow.
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 3-5 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.
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.
Page | 3
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.
Planning staff evaluated the application and found the alley meets Standard C, and does not serve as a
positive urban design element. They further determined the proposed alley closure complies with all City
Code requirements for an alley closure.
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)
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;
Page | 4
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
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.
Page | 5
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.
Page | 6
Attachment A
From: Miles Hunter <milesphunter@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 3:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: (EXTERNAL) status of alleyway vacation petition \ alleyway located
between 750 S Goshen St and 740 S Goshen St, 84104
To: <nong000001@gmail.com>
Hi Soulasaith and Tair,
The email below contains the information about the petition status for the alleyway's
vacation. We totally understand that the alleway will be deeded entirely to your property.
I'm sorry that your petition wasn't advanced in the past. If you choose to proceed with
this petition, we will completely support you. Either way, we'll consider this space as
yours.
We will install a fence in the future, but just in the back portion of our yard (to have a
secure place to let the dog out). The markers along our property are a fenceline marker
and were certified to be three inches inside our property. We'll make sure all fencing,
plants, etc. won't encroach on the alleyway property.
Thank you both. And thank you to your family. For being such kind, gracious neighbors.
Your welcome of us and your generosity has been so lovely. Thank you.
Our garden is starting to get going! We have A LOT of chard, arugula, kale, and
spinach right now. Would you and your family like any? I'll happily harvest and stop it
over to you!
Best,
Miles & Isai
750 S Goshen
801-599-4624
milesphunter@gmail.com
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
•I
STAFF REPORT BY:
AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS:
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT:
AND CONT ACT PERSON:
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS:
POTENTIAL MOTIONS:
April 10, 2007
Petition No. 400-06-05 -A request by M. Kiphibane, requesting
the vacation and closure of the alley property located at 740
South Goshen Street (approximately 1075 West) in Block 3 of
Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of way.
Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst
District 2
Community Development
Doug Dansie, Principal Planner
Newspaper advertisement once a week for 4 weeks prior to the
Public Hearing
1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance vacating the alley generally located at 740 South
Goshen Street, between Goshen Street and 1075 West.
2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance vacating the alley generally located at 740
South Goshen Street, between Goshen Street and 1075 West.
And/or
3. ["I further move that the Council"] request that half of the subject alleyway be deeded to each
abutting property owner, pursuant to the advice of the City Attorney.
Or
4. ["I further move that the Council"] request that the full width of the alleyway be deeded to the
petitioner.
FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION:
During the Council work session briefing, the Council discussed the issue of disposition of this
alley property. Council requested that the City Attorney investigate the matter and issue an
opinion on whether the property owner to the south has legal claim to the subject alley, even
though the property is technically outside of the boundaries of the subdivision. The Attorney's
Office has since indicated that they believe the property owner to the south does have legal
claim, as there is no physical barrier between this property owner and the subject alleyway, and
as the property owner to the south has been using the alleyway for secondary access to their
property. The Attorney's Office therefore recommends that the alleyway be disposed of in the
typical fashion, with half of the alleyway being deeded to each abutting property owner.
1
,,
The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on February 6,
2007. It is provided again for your reference.
KEY ELEMENTS:
A In this case the major policy issue before the Council, in addition to the alley vacation
decision, is whether or not to deed the entire alleyway to the petitioner, as is requested (and
as is recommended by Planning Staff), or to follow the typical alleyway vacation procedure,
which is to deed half to the alleyway to each abutting property owner.
1. Typically an alleyway that is vacated is divided equally between the two adjacent
property owners. If the property owners wish to deed the entire alley to one
property owner or the other, this is done through a private transaction after the alley
vacation process.
2. It is Planning Staff's position that because the property owner to the south is not a
part of the subdivision in which the subject alleyway is a part, and have access to
their lot through other means than the alleyway, they have no legal claim to the
alleyway.
3. The property owner to the north is technically the only abutting property owner in
the subdivision.
4. The property owner to the South has expressed an interest in splitting the alleyway.
5. Planning Staff indicates in the Council Transmittal that in a subdivision situation (as
this is), it has been City practice to distribute the alleyway to the abutting owners in
the subdivision, and not other abutting owners if they are outside the subdivision.
Council Staff has asked for past examples of this situation, and Planning Staff has
provided an example of this situation, dated May of 1995.
i. The ordinance (no. 32of1995) states "title to the vacated property shall be
quit-claimed to the abutting properties in the Country Club Place
Subdivision from which the alley was dedicated."
ii. The Council may wish to discuss this example further, to determine if there
were factors that made this determination more clear (abutting property
outside of the subdivision may or may not have had access to the alleyway).
6. See Matters at Issue for a further analysis of this situation.
B. Key points in the Administration's transmittal are the following:
1. The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City close the alleyway located in Block 3
of the Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of-way. The subject alley runs
directly south of the petitioner's property, located at 740 South Goshen Street
(approximately 1075 West). The petitioner would like to combine the full alleyway
with his lot in order to expand a single-family residential dwelling.
2. The alley was part of the original Seventh South Subdivision, platted in 1893. The
majority of the alleyway (running north-south) was vacated in 1962. The subject
alleyway runs east-west.
3. The property to the north of the subject alleyway (the petitioner's property) is part of
the original subdivision.
4. The property directly to the south of the subject alleyway is not part of the original
subdivision. The abutting property owner to the south has indicated (in statements
at the Planning Commission hearing and in the letter dated April 6, 2006 in the
2
transmittal) that she has been using the alleyway as an alternate access point for her
back yard.
5. The abutting property owner directly to the South has expressed a desire to either
not vacate the alleyway, or split the alleyway between the abutting north and south
properties. The Planning Commission and staff is recommending that the alleyway
be deeded only to the abutting property owner to the north, as they are the only
abutting property owner inside the subdivision, and are therefore the only abutting·
property owner with a legal claim (see the Matters at Issue section of this staff
report, page 2, for detail).
6. The Planning staff report notes the following findings:
i. Closing the subject alley would not deny sole access to any adjacent property.
11. The applicant is willing to purchase the southern half of the property at fair
market value (see Budget Related Facts, below, for detail).
iii. No abutting property owner, with legal standing, intends to build a garage
requiring access from the alley property.
7. Planning staff evaluated the application per Salt Lake City Code Section 14.52.020
"Method of Disposition" and determined that the alley meets Standard C, which
states that "the continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design
element."
C. The petitioner's property is zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). All of the
surrounding properties are also zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). The
surrounding land uses in all directions are single-family residential.
D. The street property requested for closure is approximately 15 feet wide and 138 feet long
(2,070 square feet).
E. All necessary City departments and divisions reviewed the petition and no negative
comments were received. Public Utilities did note that it is within the floodplain which will
ultimately affect the development of the property.
F. On March 24, 2006 the Poplar Grove Community Council reviewed the request. They
supported the vacation as long as the adjacent landowners were in support. It was noted in
their letter to Planning that they assumed that Planning would not have submitted the
petition to them for consideration unless all property owners were in support. Information
was provided to the contrary by the abutting property owner to the south (see below), at the
Planning Commission hearing, after the Poplar Grove Community Council heard the
petition.
G. On June 28, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The property owner to
the south spoke at the hearing and expressed an interest in obtaining half of the alley to
straighten the property line and provide a secondary access to her property. She stated that
her preference was not to have the alley vacated at all, but that if it is, she would prefer to
receive a part of it to maintain her secondary access. Minutes from the hearing indicate that
Planning staff clarified that the Planning Commission is responsible only to decide whether
or not the alley is needed for public use, and that the disposition issue can be determined at
the time of the City Council Public Hearing. However, the motion adopted by the Planning
Commission did address to whom the alleyway should be deeded. The Planning
Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to "vacate
and close the subject alley and deed it to the applicant with the following conditions:
3
1. That the proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent
with the method expressed in Section 14.52.020.
2. That prior to any building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the
parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventy South Subdivision, including the alley
property. "
H. Planning Staff has indicated in subsequent conversations with Gouncil Staff that the intent
of the Planning Commission was not to decide to whom the subject alleyway should be
deeded, even though the motion language does state the intent to deed the alleyway to the
petitioner. The ordinance drafted by the Attorney's Office is deliberately silent on the issue
of to whom the alleyway should be deeded.
I. An ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney's office subject to conditions of
approval identified by the Planning Commission.
MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
1. State Code states the following with regard to alley or street vacations. The Council may
wish to discuss in particular, subsection 2 below, with regard to the potential options for the
eventual deeding of this alleyway, since the Planning Commission's recommendation
appears to be at odds with this statute.
"72-5-105. Highways, streets, or roads once established continue until abandoned --
Temporary closure.
( 1) All public highways, streets, or roads once established shall continue to be highways,
streets, or roads until abandoned or vacated by order of a highway authority having jurisdiction or
by other competent authority.
(2) (a) For purposes of assessment, upon the recordation of an order executed by the proper
authority with the county recorder's office, title to the vacated or abandoned highway, street, or
road shall vest to the adjoining record owners, with 112 of the width of the highway, street, or
road assessed to each of the adjoining owners."
2. Currently neither the City Code (14.52.010), nor the Council's Official Policy on Alley
Vacations and Street Closures defines exactly how an alley is to be divided after vacation in
different situations (abutting residential properties in different subdivisions, abutting
residential properties in the same subdivision, etc.).
a. The Council may wish to discuss and incorporate an official policy statement on the
matter and/ or request that the Attorney's Office provide a draft ordinance or policy
statement for Council consideration.
b. Staff's experience is that typically in the case of an alley vacation, V2 of the alleyway
is deeded to each abutting property owner.
c. Planning Staff has provided an example (Ordinance no. 32 of 1995) in which an
alleyway was vacated and deeded only to the abutting property owners in the
subdivision from which the alleyway was dedicated (see Key Elements, A.5.).
3. The Council may wish to also consider the adopted policy statement below (in section
A.3.iii.3. of the Master Plan and Policy Considerations, Council Policy for Processing Alley
Closure Petitions) "The Council. .. will be sensitive to potential uses of the property for rear
access to residences and for accessory uses ... "
4
4. Should the Council elect to limit the legal claim to receive property to only those within the
same subdivision, this could be further clarified in City ordinance or policy.
5. A letter from the Assistant City Attorney, dated February 8, 1983 (submitted to Council Staff
by the petitioner after the Council received the Administration's Transmittal), addressed to
Property Management regarding a previous petition about the same alleyway, states the
following: ,,
"The alleyway was dedicated as a part of the Seventh South Subdivision ... therefore,
upon vacation of the alley, ownership of the entire alley will revert to the Abbots (staff
note: the previous owners of the petitioner's propertt;) rather than the usual instance of each
abutting owner receiving one-half interest."
• Council Staff notes that State Statue may have been different as of the date of the
letter. Current State Statue appears to support the opposite conclusion.
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
1. Ask the attorney's office for a formal review of the petition and issue a formal legal opinion
with regard to how the alley should be disposed of, in accordance with current State statute.
And/or
2. Close the alley and deed the entire alley to the petitioner (may conflict with current state
statute and may conflict with past practice).
And/or
3. Close the alley and deed 1/2 of the alley to the petitioner and 1/2 of the alley to the
property owner to the south (conflicts with Planning Staff's recommendation and may also
conflict with past practice).
And/or
4. Ask that the Administration incorporate the official City alley disposition practice into City
code.
Or
5. Do not close the alley.
MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
A. The Council's adopted alley closure policy (2003) states the following:
1. Modes of Disposition -The City may dispose of its entire legal interest in an alley by
closure and sale or by vacation. It may dispose of less than its entire legal interest
by, for example, revocable permit, license or joint use agreement (referred to as
"partial disposition").
2. Policy Considerations -The City will not consider disposing entirely or partially of
its interest in an alley unless it receives a petition in writing which positively
demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy
considerations:
5
i. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property, for example, appears of
record or is reflected on an applicable plat, but in fact it is evident from
inspection that the alley does not exist.
11. Public Safety. The property is contributing to crime, or unlawful activity or
unsafe conditions.
m. Urban Design. The property does not serve a positive urban design element.
,, iv. Communitt; Purpose. The petitioners are proposing restricting the general
public from use in favor of a community use such as a community play area
or garden.
3. Processing Petitions -There will be three phases for processing petitions under this
section involving, respectively, the City Administration, the City Planning
Commission, and the City Council.
i. Threshold Determination. The City Administration will determine whether
or not the petition meets the following requirements:
1. procedural: The petition must:
a. bear the signatures of no less than 80% of neighbors owning a
fee simple interest in a property which abuts the subject
property;
b. affirm that written notice has been given to all fee simple
owners of property within and contiguous with the block or
blocks within which the subject property is located;
c. provide documentation that the proposal has been reviewed
by the appropriate Community Council or Neighborhood
organization;
d. show that the necessary City processing fee has been paid.
2. substantizie: If the petition meets the procedural requirements, the
Administration will determine that:
a. The City Police and Fire Departments and the City
Transportation Division and all other relevant City
Departments and Divisions have no objection to the
disposition of the property;
b. The petition meets at least one of the stated policy
considerations;
c. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street
parking to any property;
d. The petition will not result in any property being land locked;
and
e. The disposition will not result in a use which is otherwise
contrary to the policies of the City, for example, applicable
master plans and other adopted statements of policy which
address, but are not limited to, mid-block walkways,
pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses.
ii. City Administration.
1. The Administration will deny the petition if it does not meet the
requirements stated in Policy Considerations section; or
2. The Administration:
a. may for appropriate consideration, grant a partial disposition
if the petition meets the requirements stated in B 1 of this
section; or
6
b. if it concludes that vacation or closure and sale is the
appropriate disposition, refer the petition to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation to the City
Council for final consideration.
iii. City Council. The City Council will consider petitions for vacation or
closure and sale which have been referred to it by the Administration as
required by law. In addition to the consideration set forth above, the City ''
Council:
1. will not act favorably on a petition if an opposing abutting property
owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property,
has made application for a building permit anytime before the
Council acts favorably on the petition, and completes construction
within 12 months of issuance of the building permit;
2. is more likely to act favorably on a petition for disposition of an
entire property rather than a small segment of it;
3. will be sensitive to potential uses of the property for rear access to
residences and for accessory uses;
4. will follow the requirements of applicable law with regard to any
requirement for consideration; and
B. The West Salt Lake Master Plan (1995) indicates that unused alleys in residential
neighborhoods are an undesirable neighborhood element and invite burglary and
vandalism, in addition to the problems that lack of maintenance can cause. The Master Plan
further states that unused alleys should be encouraged to be vacated through an initiation of
a petition for vacation by the abutting property owners.
C. The Open Space Master Plan identifies the Jordan River Parkway (which is nearby the
subject alleyway) as an open space corridor, but does not identify the subject alleyway as a
future trail or access point.
D. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council
that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following
criteria:
1. is aesthetically pleasing;
2. contributes to a livable community environment;
3. yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;
and
4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity.
BUDGET RELATED FACTS:
A The Administration's transmittal notes that the applicant has stated an intent to purchase
the southern half of the alleyway for fair market value. Typically payment is only required
for vacated and closed alleyways acquired by non-residential abutting property owners. In
this case, the applicant will be deeded the northern half of the alleyway (as per the typical
residential alleyway disposition procedure) and will purchase the southern half. Property
Management has indicated that the reason it was determined that the petitioner would pay
for the southern half is because of the "extra" 7.5 feet that they are receiving because they
are the only abutting property owner within the subdivision, and the added value that this
7
will create for their property. The Administration's transmittal does not indicate how much
the City will receive for this half of the alleyway (approximately 1,000 square feet).
CHRONOLOGY:
Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating
to the proposed text amendment. '1 ·
• February 13, 2006 Petition submitted by property owner.
• June 28, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing.
• July 19, 2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney.
• July 20, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney.
• January 12, 2007 Transmittal received in City Council Office.
cc: Lyn Creswell, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Rick Graham, LeRoy Hooton, Tim Harpst, Max
Peterson, Louis Zunguze, George Shaw, Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie,
Barry Esham, Marge Harvey, Lehua Weaver, Sylvia Jones, Jan Aramaki, Cindy Lou
Rockwood, Janice Jardine
File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept., Planning Division, Street
Closures, Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 South Goshen (Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision)
8
This ad is also being e-mailed
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at
7:00 p.m. a public hearing will be held in Room 315, Council
Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State, Salt Lake City,
Utah, before the Salt Lake City Council to receive public comment
and consider adopting an ordinance vacating an alley generally
located at 740 South Goshen Street between Goshen Street and 1075
West pursuant to Petition No. 400-06-05. (M. Kiphibane)
All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity
to be heard in this matter.
Assisted listening devices or interpreting services are available
for all public meetings. Salt Lake City Corporation complies
with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). For further
information, contact the TDD Number 535-6021.
By order of the Salt Lake City Council, this 13th day of March,
2007.
(P 07-4)
KENDRICK COWLEY
CITY RECORDER
Publish: March 19, & 26 & April 2 & 9, 2007
C5357671L07
Sent to NAC 3-14-07
A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
DIRECTOR
BRENT B. WILDE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Office~
Louis Zunguze, Community Development Dir ctor
Petition 400-06-05 by Maylaykhone Ki phi bane, 7 40 Sou Goshen Street,
requesting that the City vacate and close the alley property ocated in Block 3
of Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of-way
STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, at 535-6182 or
doug.dansie@slcgov.com
MAYOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public
Hearing
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DISCUSSION:
Issue Origin: Maylaykhone Kiphibane, property owner at 740 South Goshen Street, is
requesting that the City vacate the alley located in Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision
as a public right-of-way. The alley to the rear (west) of the Kiphibane property (740
Goshen) has already been vacated. The subject alley runs along the southeast border of
the Seventh South Subdivision. Maylaykhone Kiphibane owns all of the lot adjacent to
the alley to the north and would like to combine the alleyway with that lot in order to
construct a single-family residential dwelling.
Analysis: Staff evaluated the application per Salt Lake City Code Section 14.52.020
"Method of Disposition" and determined that the alley meets Standard C, which states
that "the continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element."
Department/Division comments were solicited and no negative recommendations were
received.
Chapter 14.52 of the City Code establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in
an alley. Based on the analysis and findings discussed in the Staff Report (see pages 4-7
of Attachment 4b ), Staff recommends that the alley be vacated.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005
WWW.SLCGOV.CDM
City Council policy indicates that should a residentially zoned alley such as the subject
property be vacated, it is divided equally between the two adjacent landowners in
accordance with Utah State Code Section 72-5. Traditionally, ifthe two property owners
wish to further alter the resulting lot lines/alley division (to deed all of the alley to one
property owner or the other), they have done so through private transaction after the alley
has been vacated.
Master Plan Considerations: Two Master Plan documents are applicable to this area.
First, the land use policy document that guides development in this area is the West Salt
Lake Master Plan adopted in 1995. The Plan indicates that unused alleys in residential
neighborhoods are an undesirable element and invite burglary and vandalism. It also
states that a lack of maintenance of alleys is a problem. The Master Plan indicates that
unused alleys should be encouraged to be vacated through an initiation of a petition for
vacation by the abutting property owners (page 8, West Salt Lake Master Plan).
Second, the Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized transportation
corridors that would re-establish connections between urban and natural land forms of the
City. The subject alley property has not been designated for a future trail in the Open
Space Master Plan, nor does it provide access to the adjacent Jordan River Parkway,
which is identified as an Open Space corridor.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
This request was reviewed by the Poplar Grove Community Council on March 24, 2006.
They supported the vacation as long as adjacent land owners were amenable. Letters were
mailed to adjacent property owners outlining the alley vacation proposal on March 31,
2006.
In a letter to the Planning Commission (see Attachment 4B, Exhibit 5) and at the
Planning Commission Public Hearing held June 28, 2006, the owner of the property to
the south of the alley, Ms. Gudmundson, expressed an interested in obtaining half of the
alley to straighten out the property line and provide a second access from Goshen A venue
to her property. She stated that she does not want the alley vacated, but if the alley is
vacated, she would prefer to receive part of the vacated land to maintain secondary access
to her property.
The proposed alley closure was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Public
Hearing on June 28, 2006. The Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable
recommendation to the City Council to vacate the subject alley and to deed it to the
applicant with the following conditions:
1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with
the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition
and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code.
Petition 400-06-05 -Alley Vacation Request by Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street
Page 2 of3
2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels
owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley
property. (The combination of lots is not directly related to the alley vacation;
however, the consolidation will be necessary to eliminate lot lines in order to
create the desired lot configuration that will allow the property owners to receive
a building permit for the proposed home.)
RELEVANT ORDINANCES:
Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code outlines a procedure for the disposition of City-
owned alleys and establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley.
Chapter 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code defines a process for identification of surplus
real property and provides guidelines for disposal of same based on the highest and best
economic return to the city, stating that sales of city real property shall be based,
whenever possible, on competitive sealed bids.
Section 10-8-8 of Utah State Code indicates that a municipal legislative body may lay
out, establish, open, alter, widen, narrow, extend, grade, pave, or otherwise improve
streets, alleys, avenues, boulevards, sidewalks, parks, airports, parking lots, or other
facilities for the parking of vehicles off streets, public grounds, and pedestrian malls and
may vacate the same or parts thereof, as provided in this title.
Section 10-8-8.5 states that the action of the governing body vacating or narrowing a
street or alley which has been dedicated to public use by the proprietor shall operate to
the extent to which it is vacated or narrowed, upon the effective date of the vacating
ordinance, as a revocation of the acceptance thereof, and the relinquishment of the City's
fee therein by the governing body, but the right of way and easements therein, if any, of
any lot owner and the franchise rights of any public utility shall not be impaired.
Section 72-5 states that title to vacated or abandoned highways, streets, or roads shall vest
to the adjoining record owners, with 112 of the width of the highway, street, or road
assessed to each of the adjoining owners.
Petition 400-06-05 -Alley Vacation Request by Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street
Page 3 of3
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Petition 400-06-05; Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street, requesting that the
City close the alley property located in Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public
ri~t-of-wzand declare the alley as surplus property
Date: 2 :2£ ( O b
l
Contact Person: Doug Dansie
Initiated by
D City Council
X Property Owner
D Board I Commission
0Mayor
D Other
Completed Check List attached:
X Alley Vacation
D Planning I Zoning
D Federal Funding
D Condominium Conversion
D Plat Amendment
D Other
Public Process:
X Community Council ( s)
X Public Hearings
X Planning Commission
D Historic Landmark Commission
D HAAB review
D Board of Adjustment
D CityK.iosk
D OpenHouse
D Other
Compatible with ordinance: Section 14.52
Phone No. 535-6182
Contact Person
Maylaykhone Kiphibane
D City Web Site
D Flyers
X Formal Notice
D Newspaper Advertisement
D City Television Station
D On location Sign
D City Newsletter
D Administrative Hearing
Modifications to Ordinance: None
Approvals I Input from Other Departments I Divisions
Division
D Airport:
X Attorney:
D Business Licensing:
X Engineering:
X Fire:
D HAND:
D Management Services:
D Mayor:
D Parks:
X Permits I Zoning:
X Police:
X Property Management:
D Public Services:
X Public Utilities:
X Transportation:
D Zoning Enforcement:
DRDA:
Contact Person
Melanie Reif
Craig Smith
Brad Larson
Ken Brown
J.R. Smith
John Spencer
Brad Stewart
Barry Walsh
CONTENTS
1. Chronology
2. Proposed Ordinance
3. City Council Public Hearing
a. Notice
b. Mailing List
4. Planning Commission Hearing
a. Original Notice and Postmark
b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006
c. Agenda: June 28, 2006
d. Minutes: June 28, 2006
5. Original Petition
1. Chronology
Chronology
February 13, 2006 Petition 400-06-05 submitted by property owner.
March 20 -Apr. 4, 2006 Requested department input.
March 24, 2006
March 31, 2006
June 13, 2006
June 28, 2006
July 19, 2006
July 20, 2006
Input requested from the Poplar Grove Community Council.
Letters mailed to adjacent property owners.
Notices mailed.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to
transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
An ordinance was requested from the City Attorney.
An ordinance was received from the City Attorney.
2. Proposed Ordinance
3. City Council Public Hearing
a. Notice
b. Mailing List
a. Notice
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-06-05, an application by
Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street, requesting that the City close the
east/west alley property located in Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public
right-of-way and declare the alley as surplus property.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised Public Hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, the Planning staff may present
information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning
this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:
DATE: April 10, 2007
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: Room 315
City and County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Doug
Dansie at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. If you are the owner of a rental property, please inform your tenants of this
hearing.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than
48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include
alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For
questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the ADA Coordinator at
535-7971; TDD 535-6021.
b. Mailing List
Laser Mailing Labels Use template CEG03208
Jam-Proof
15111340050000
CORNEJO, JAVIER R &
717 s 1100 w
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
15111340100000
15111340130000
SALT LAKE CITY
451 S STATE ST# 225
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
15111340150000
LONG, RONALD D; ET AL
2719 w 9800 s
SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095
15111340180000
KIPHIBANE, MALAYKONE
2128 w 14400 s
BLUFFDALE UT 84065
15111340190000
GUDMUNDSON, KATHERINE R
752 S GOSHEN ST
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
15111340310000
ABBOTT, LAWRENCE L & HELEN N;
726 S GOSHEN ST
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
15111340330000
CHADWICK, JOHN L
743 s 1100 w
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
~ Corporate j s 1 G N A r u 11 e ~Exoress'"
1v1 Jt. ~ \011fY\C\v1_
j D~LI ll' L/OD 5
SLI ur 10/C'-l
1.888.CE TODAY (238.6329)
4. Planning Commission Hearing
a. Original Notice and Postmark
b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006
c. Agenda: June 28, 2006
d. Minutes: June 28, 2006
a. Original Notice and Postmark
fi~"' "'""'"~"" "'~ .. ;,,., '.,.,,.._... ,., ... ~"
' ,·. . ;;:~-' ' :
1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address.
Cl.ct l l l V8 JJl Al!:) ;;Dpq lJUS
90v wool! ' ig<uis giuis tnnos l ~v
UO!S!A!Q 'aU!UUUJd Al!'.) <})jU1 lJUS
2. After the staff and petitioner presentations, hearing swill be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the
beginning of the hearing.
3. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting, public comments are limited to three (3) minutes per person, per item. A spokesper-
son who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five (5) minutes to speak. Written comments are wel-
come and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the
day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to:
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
451 South State Street, Room 406
Salt Lake City UT 84111
4. Speakers will be called by the Chair.
5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments.
6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not
debate with other meeting attendees.
7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided.
8. After those registered have spoken, the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments
at this time.
9. After the hearing is closed, the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances, the Planning
Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information.
10. Salt Lake City Corporation complies will all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation-no later
than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids.
This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757; TDD 535-6021.
The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on July 12, 2006. For additional information, please visit www.slcgov.com/ced/planning
NOTE: 111e field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 5:45 p.m.
Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general
planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, June 14, 2006.
2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
a. Acknowledgement of Commissioner Seelig's service
4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters (Staff-Doug Wheelwright at 535-6171 or
doug.wheelwriqht@slcgov.com, Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.qreenleaf@slcgov.com, or John Spencer at 535-6398 or
john.spencer@slcqov.com)
a. One World Cafe and Sal! Lake City Property Management-Owners of the One World Cafe are requesting ihai Property Management
approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of 300 East Street right of way for outside dinning purposes. The property is located
at 41 South 300 East Street, between the building and the sidewalk. The abutting property is zoned R-MU. Property management staff
intends to approve the lease request.
b. Liberty Midtown Partners and Salt Lake City Property Management-Liberty Midtown Partners are requesting that Property Management
approve a lease agreement to allow overhead roof eave encroachments to extend over the street right of way of 300 East Street. The
abutting property located at 225 South 300 East Street is zoned R-MU. The Property Management staff intends to approve the lease
request.
c. Sugar House Coffee and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of Sugar House Coffee are requesting that Property
Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of the street right of way on 2100 South Street to be used for outside
dinning purposes. The abutting property located at 2106 South Highland Drive is zoned CSHBD-1. Property Management staff intends to
approve the lease agreement request.
d. Russell C. and Naoma D. Hansen and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-The Hansen's are requesting that Public Utilities
approve the release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the Hansen property, located at 3596 East Monza
Drive in un-incorporated Salt lake County. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of the easement request.
e. RAL, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-RAL, Inc. is requesting that Public Utilities approve a release of a right of way
easement which is no longer needed which effects the RAL, Inc. owned property located at 6255 Canyon Cove Court in Holladay City.
Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of easement request.
f. Scott D. Anderson and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-Mr. Anderson is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard use
permit to allow continued encroachment into a Public Utilities owned easement over property located at 3230 East Bengal Blvd., in Sandy
City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard use permit as requested.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
h.
Petition 410-06-13 -A request by Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, for Conditional Use Planned Development
approval to develop the Sorenson Unity Center located at approximately 1383 South 900 West in a PL (Public Lands)
Zoning District. This project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission because the development proposes more than
one principal building on a single parcel. (Staff -Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com)
Petition 400-06-10 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance to clarify processes and procedures relating to the review of projects subject to the City-wide Compatible
Residential Infill Development standards adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 and Ordinance 26 of 2006. (Staff -Joel
Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com)
Petition 400-04-22 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to
specialty housing facilities, including group homes, transitional victim homes, transitional treatment homes and residential
substance abuse homes. Specifically, the petition is to amend the definitions of these specialty housing types, and clarify
standards for spacing requirements, criteria approval, and potential revocation of conditional uses once approval is
granted. (Staff-Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128 or elizabeth.giraud@slcgov.com)
Revisions to Petition No. 410-06-09 (planned development) and 480-06-04 (preliminary condominium) -A request
by Howa Capital to consider revisions to the planned development site plan and preliminary condominium plans that were
approved by the Planning Commission on April 26, 2006, for property located generally on the east and west sides of 300
West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets. (Staff-Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com)
Petition 410-06-05 -A request by Bruce Manka for a planned development to modify minimum yard requirements to
allow encroachments for proposed second-story balcony structures and the roofs of lower-level patios at approximately
650 North 300 West Street. The property is located in a RMF-35 (Residential Multi-Family) and a MU (Mixed Use) Zoning
District. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew@slcgov.com)
Petition 410-06-15 -A request by Architectural Nexus, representing ARUP, for conditional use approval to allow
additional building height from 45 feet to 53 feet and 6 Y2 inches for a proposed mechanical building addition located in the
Research Park (RP) Zoning District at approximately 500 South Chipeta Way. (Staff-Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or
ray. mccandless@slcgov.com)
Petition 400-06-05 -A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining easVwest portion of an alley located at
approximately 7 40 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The property is in an R-1 /5000 Zoning
District. (Staff -Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com)
Petition 410-06-01 and 490-06-29 -A request by Nathan Anderson representing West Capitol Hill, LLC for Planned
Development and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the construction of an eight-unit residential development located at
701 North 300 West and 314 West 700 North in the MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff-Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or
wayne.mills@slcgov.com)
6. UNFINISHFn RI 1c:1t..ii::c:c:
b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006
DATE: June 22, 2006
TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner
RE: Staff Report for the June 28, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting
CASE#:
APPLICANT:
STATUS OF APPLICANT:
PROJECT LOCATION:
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05
by the Salt Lake City Planning Division
400-06-05
Maylaykhone Kiphibane
Adjacent land owner
740 S. Goshen Street
June 28, 2006
PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE:
COUNCIL DISTRICT:
PROPOSED USE(S):
SURROUNDING ZONING
DISTRICTS:
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Approximately 0.05 acres
District 2, Council Member Van Turner
Alley vacation
North R-1-5000 Single Family Residential
South R-1-5000 Single Family Residential
East R-1-5000 Single Family Residential
West R-1-5000 and OS Open Space
North Single Family Residential
South Single Family Residential
East Single Family Residential
West Single Family Residential
REQUESTED ACTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Maylaykhone Kiphibane is requesting that the City close the alley property located in
Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public right-of-way and declare the alley as
surplus property. (Exhibit 1 ).
The subject right-of-way runs along the southeast comer of the block. Maylaykhone
Kiphibane owns all of the lot adjacent to the alley, and should the alley closure request
receive approval, the alley property would become part of the adjacent lot to the north.
The property owner to the south is not part of the original platted subdivision and has no
legal claim on the alley. The alley to the rear of the property has already been vacated.
Consistent with City Council policy, residential alleys are divided between the two
adjacent landowners, however, since there is only one adjacent land owner in this
instance, half the alley would be deeded to the adjacent landowner to the north and the
other half would be sold to the petitioner at fair market value.
APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code outlines a procedure for the disposition of City
owned alleys and establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley.
Chapter 2.58 of the code regulates the disposition of surplus City-owned real property.
MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS:
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05
by the Salt Lake City Planning Division
2 June 28, 2006
There are two master plan documents that are applicable to this area. The land use policy
document that guides development in this area is the West Salt Lake Master Plan adopted
in 1995. The plan indicates that unused alleys in residential neighborhoods are an
undesirable element and invite burglary and vandalism. It also states that a lack of
maintenance of alleys is a problem. The master plan indicates that unused alleys should
be encouraged to be closed through an initiation of such action by the abutting property
owners. The Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized
transportation corridors that would re-establish connections between urban and natural
land forms of the City. The subject alley property has not been designated for a future
trail in the Open Space Master Plan, nor does it provide access to the adjacent Jordan
River Parkway which is identified as an Open Space corridor.
SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY:
The alley was part of the original plat of the Seventh South Subdivision. The majority of
the alley (north south portion) was vacated in 1962. The portion of the alley subject to
this petition, (east-west) is on the south side of the subdivision and there is only one lot
within the original subdivision that is adjacent to the alley.
ACCESS:
The alley as reflected on the plat runs west from Goshen Avenue. Access to the alley
property is accessed from Goshen A venue.
COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
1. COMMENTS
Summary of Comments from City Departments and Community Council(s):
a) Transportation: The Transportation Division has no objections pending
approval of property owners and relocation of an adjacent drive.
b) Building Services: No objection.
c) Police: No objection.
d) City Engineering: No objection.
e) Property Management: Property Management has no objection.
f) Fire: The Fire Department has no objection.
g) Public Utilities has no objection but notes that it is within the flood plain which
will ultimately affect the development of the property.
h) Airport has no objection to the alley closure but will require avigation easement
for new construction.
i) Poplar Grove Community Council supported the petition assuming property
owners were in support.
j) Parks Division: No objections were received.
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05
by the Salt Lake City Planning Division
3 June 28, 2006
In addition, all owners of property located in the block within which the subject alley
property is located were notified of the proposed closure in a letter dated March 28,
2006 (Exhibit 5). One comment in opposition to the proposal was received to date.
2. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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 or
not 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 Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the
disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that the alley property be
declared surplus, the property should be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City-
Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. If an alley is next to or abuts
properties which are zoned for multi-family (3 or more units) residential use or other non-
residential uses, the City typically retains title to the surplus property until the land is sold
at fair market value or other acceptable compensation is provided. All proceeds or
revenue from the sale of any real property sold by the city is deposited in a surplus
property account within the capital improvements fund of the general fund. City Council
has the authority to allocate disbursements of these funds.
The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations and closures.
A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission requires an analysis and
positive determination of the following factors:
Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code: Salt Lake City Council 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 ofrecord 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.
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05
by the Salt Lake City Planning Division
4 June 28, 2006
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.
Discussion: The requested alley closure satisfies policy considerations B and
C. The applicant notes in a letter (Exhibit 1, the alley has never been used or
maintained and it becomes a settlement for dangerous insects and rodents
which can become a public health issue. Furthermore, the applicant questions
the validity of the alley to serve a positive public purpose since the land
consists of undisturbed earth and low growing weeds. The neighboring
property owner to the south has been using the alley as a driveway, however,
they have no legal standing to use the alley since their parcel is outside the
original subdivision and they have other forms of access available to their
property. Planning Staff, therefore, is of the opinion that the alley property in
its current condition does not serve as a positive urban design element
(Exhibit 6).
Finding: The alley property is not usable as a public right-of-way nor does it
serve as a positive urban design element. The request satisfies at least one of
the policy considerations listed above, and as required by Section 14.52.02 of
the City Code.
Section 14.52.030 (B) of Salt Lake City Code: 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 objection to the
proposed disposition of the property;
Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City departments and/or
divisions. Comments were received from the Public Utilities, Fire Department,
Building Services, Engineering Division, Division of Transportation, Police
Department, Airport and Property Management. These comments are attached to
this staff report as Exhibit 3.
Finding: The appropriate City departments and divisions have reviewed this
request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property.
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05
by the Salt Lake City Planning Division
5 June 28, 2006
Finding: The petition meets policy consideration C as required in Section
14.52.020 of the Code and as outlined above.
3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any
adjacent property;
Discussion: It has been the City's policy not to close an alley if it would deny a
property owner required access to the rear of their lot. Since the applicant owns
all of the property abutting the alley and the property would become part of the
internal circulation system of the consolidated lot, this consideration would not be
an issue if the alley were vacated. The adjacent property owner to the south has
used the alley, but is not part of the original subdivision and technically has no
claim to use the alley for access to their property. The property owner to the south
has other options for accessing their property. The property to the south is two
separate parcels. A home is on the southern parcel and the northern parcel
(adjacent to the alley) is vacant. Access would be available to the northern parcel
with the creation of a new drive approach. Both parcels share the same street
address.
Finding: Closing the alley will not deny sole access to an owner of property
adjacent to the alley.
4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
Discussion: Should the alley be vacated, the applicant will combine all of their
property, including the alley property by deed.
Finding: The proposed alley closure would not create any landlocked parcels.
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;
Discussion: The alley does not provide access to the adjacent Jordan River
Parkway and may not otherwise be integrated to a city trail system.
Finding: The proposed disposition of the alley property will not result in a use
that is inconsistent with pertinent or applicable policies of the City.
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;
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05
by the Salt Lake City Planning Division
6 June 28, 2006
Discussion: The applicant owns the property abutting the subject alley and there
are no existing or proposed garages that require access from the alley. The
adjacent property owner to the south has no legal standing to use the alley because
their property is outside the original subdivision. The property owner to the south
has other opportunities for access available to their vacant and developed land.
Finding: No abutting property owner, with standing, intends to build a garage
requiring access from the alley property.
7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley,
rather than a small segment of it; and
Discussion: The larger alley (all other portions) has been vacated. This is the
only portion of the alley remaining that is not vacated.
Finding: The applicant's request is to vacate the entire alley consistent with City
preference.
8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or
for accessory uses.
Discussion: The subject alley property will be entirely encompassed by the
applicant's development on this block and integrated into the site plan for the
proposed residential use. The adjacent property owner to the south has been using
the alley but has no legal claim to the alley because they are outside the original
subdivision.
Finding: The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to
residences or for accessory uses other than the petitioner's property.
Section 14.52.040 (B) of Salt Lake City Code: High Density Residential Properties
and Other Nonresidential Properties.
If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other non-
residential 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.
Discussion: The property is not zoned commercial or high density residential; the
adjacent properties are zoned for single family homes.
Finding: The applicant is entitled by Council policy to half the alley. It is
proposed that the petitioner be required to pay fair market value for the other half
of the alley property.
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05
by the Salt Lake City Planning Division
7 June 28, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the analysis and findings identified in this report, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate
and close the subject alley and deed it to the applicant with the following conditions:
1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with
the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition
and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt lake City Ordinance.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels
owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley
property.
Doug Dansie
Principal Planner
Attachments: Exhibit 1 -Petition to Vacate Alley
Exhibit 2 -Description of Alley
Exhibit 3 -Departmental/Division Comments
Exhibit 4 -Community Council
Exhibit 5 -Letter to Property Owners and responses
Exhibit 6 -Photographs
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05
by the Salt Lake City Planning Division
8 June 28, 2006
Exhibit 1
Petition to Vacate Alley
Jul 2005
Petition No. --l--LL~--'-""'-"'~-"""~-----1
Alley Vacation or Closure 75""' Receipt No._____ ~~--j r.
Date Received: --'"'4----'-''+-'~::...,-----l
Reviewed By: _.....__._....__."""--'===-=-~---l
Pro · ect Planner:
VT
Name of Applicant: !'Vi L 1,,. -· ~ \ / • r} · I Phone: --
-------.. V ''-~ ell" ~~<ik~· ~Y.::..~1-+'r~-' ~' r_:r-~-l_kl~R~-· _____ _.x ...... -"""O-'IL-·--__.,.<.3_4.._7_.__--')"-0.:....'•_, ~7.:....7..L--__ _
Address of Applicant: b 5 (f) i{ Ed·j-Son <Z>--f -MA SLG.
E-mail Address of Applicant: D ~ 0 , ,,,, .-it' :1-~.,'Ii. h Cell/Fax:
, (.1 VJ q IV <ZJ (jJ I tl; C\ (Ji) ( {'L<'J
Name of Property Owner:
Address of Property Owner:
Email Address of Property Owner: 'n o•r. l!_ "' ,-;, ,...l\ll\ '"A e \.l h . Cell/Fax: ) i ,,..., '" r 0 77
I ' r 'll "-' ""~v v ~ ~ {l)\ _Qa , (t<h:'\1 ""'T I
Are there any multi-family residential uses (three or more dwelling units) or non residential uses that abut the alley?
YesD Norn"
If yes, have the property owners been notified about the City's "close and sell" method of disposition (As defined in the at-
tached process information sheet)? Yes D No D
Please include with the application:
1. A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own property adjacent to the al-
ley, please include the applicant's interest in the request.
2. The name, address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on
gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in
the amount to cover first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application.
3. The name, address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition.
You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the
property owners must sign (not occupants who rent) and the petition must include the signatures of no
less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners.
4. A property ownership map (known as a Sidwell map) showing the area of the subject alley. On the map, please:
a. Highlight the subject alley.
b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition.
5. A legal description of the subject alley may be required.
6. If applicable, a signed, notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act
as an agent.
7. Filing fee of$200.00, due at time of application.
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt
Lake City Planning staff (535-7757) prior to submitting the petition
Sidwell maps & names of property owners are
available at:
Salt Lake County Recorder
200 I South State Street, Room N 1600
Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051
Telephone: (801) 468-3391
File the complete application at:
Salt Lake City Planning
451 South State Street, Room 406
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 535-7757
Signature of Property~~ner ~--~-~----~~---------~~-~----
Or authorized agent
February 08, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Malaykhone Tair Ki phi bane, am the owner of a property located on 740 South Goshen
Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111. I would like to request to vacate or close the South side
of the property.
I believe that fifteen feet of the alley belongs to the Seventh South subdivision.
Therefore, I submit an application along with the city plat map which shows that the alley
was taken out from property of the 740 South Goshen Street.
My intention is to close the alley for the purpose of making it a private right of way for
continued use. Also, the alley has never been used or maintained. It becomes a
settlement for dangerous insects and rodents, which can become a public health issue.
Therefore, I would like to take care of it in order to maintain a clean neighborhood.
I would like to claim the entire fifteen feet of the alley. Please consider my request and
feel free to contact my husband at 801-347-5077. Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
}-{ °'-t c~ILUtAY~ l,( I -pl1 \' ~cvv'\JL
Malaykhone Kiphibane
REMARKS Petition No. f!00-06-05
By Maylaykhone Kiphihane
Is requesting an Alley Vacation or
Closure located at 740 South Goshen
Street.
Date Filed. ___________ _
Addre.r.r._·-------------
Exhibit 2
Description of Alley
VTDI 15-11-134-018-0000 DIST 13
KIPHIBANE, MALAYKONE TAX CLASS
2128 w 14400 s
UPDATE
LEGAL
PRINT P
TOTAL ACRES
REAL ESTATE
BUILDINGS
TOTAL VALUE
BLUFFDALE UT 84065492128 EDIT 1 FACTOR BYPASS
0.22
27700
0
27700
LOC: 732 S GOSHEN ST EDIT 1 BOOK 9192 PAGE 8517 DATE 09/27/2005
SUB: 7TH SOUTH SUB TYPE UNKN PLAT
02/08/2006 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY
LOT 1 S 1/2 OF LOT 27 & ALL LOT 28 BLK 3 SEVENTH SO SUB
TOGETHER WITH 1/2 OF VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON W
9192-8515
PFKEYS: l=VTNH 2=VTOP 4=VTAU 6=NEXT 7=RTRN VTAS 8=RXMU lO=RXBK ll=RXPN 12=PREV
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
GIS Map l lication
Printed on: 6/14/2006
I
I I ,, 12 ,, I
I
05
,.___--~--1-------< lf)
' ' )001 '-...... 47
95 __.~ 53 .,,..., __ T"
I g1
1300031 I
->s-, l 30004: 6', -~3 __
7 25
I
7 6 : 5
15 130007 1
130006 : 30008
I
ST
1. 01 119 7
aJ
4
4 3
130 09
33 25
11 12
1341 l29
Lfl
[\;
~
lD 10 ru
ITT 9 r---
8
7
0
rv
" -rl 5
4 s 3
3.76
132009
133 100 58
25 33
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1~ 40 29 13, "004
134 034 134 tJ34 lfl
("\j
-·
134005 22
23
134005 134031
[[)
r---
OJ
-?.7-----------
-rl
28 LO LO ru . r---
134018 lD
"
r
<\
z w
I
if.)
0
(_)
0 3 386015
ill
il\0.0'3
-rl 2 ~~L_,
if 133011 0 \'>
148.Cl'9
(j1 ,"0 I::>-,, 1
0 '.\ 0/· ·~ ~ <{ 133012
138.09
31 30 29
33
33 25
ST
33 25
11
ID ru
'1
,,.)
-~)
.. -i."'111<5;
2~ ~
~ «{3 _oc
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
25
13
7
145.57
" lg; r---6 135035
(T) (T)
lD 145.56 If)
" 7 13503~" lf) r---r---
(T) 01 lf) 145.55 ' lf)
ITT 4 135007 Lt ru
r---I-
""1" lfl 3 I, . ru _::~o~~-'"OQJl ITT
OJ 2
I"'-
(')
145 5 I L
r---~' I
CD 135008 "'' I
[\j "/ I
lD (}}, I
I I 130
lfl 12 135029 lfl I--lD lD I (') 130 [T)
;:)
l[J ~'0 '\, II1 ,..._ '\, ,..._
7 135031 ,'? () " "' c:J°"J \. ITT
»~ s I m ~ a"' 2 ITT
,..._ ~ 'V ,..._ I-
i;\ ,;f 135032 " I
\f) I 130
8 ~
lD 135033
01
"' 0 9\ 3 .
lO \ 7
66' 33' 25' zs' Z5' 25' 25' 25' ;?S' 25' 25' 33' 66'
Wt7st 1087f.'
.3.3' 25'
' t
t _-.;-<:;·
' ,·.
~ 11 ·1z 12' ·J-4 15 1G f't 15 19 zo Z1 ~ " "
10
.33' 25' . . • // ,, ,, ,, zs' 3.3' -33' ;u'
~ ~ ~ ~
138 1.5' 138' ' Iii 10 tlJ zz '<i ~
'I)
(It
~ 9 Z2' ~ ~
t\I
Iii g \\\ 2.lt 1.i
(It Ci)
Cit
~ -z '
~5 "i
'II
II)
Cl(
' ~ G
~ 5
ZG ~
Z'Z "l
\\l
'<)
t\l
~ 1--~'~: --------<
' ,, 11 (It ZS ~-
138' 66'
.....
t.:
(') .____ ___________ ---
"' ~ 3
Cl
Cl
66' ~ 2
I c . 1og8 5B N. 83°10 >:-· -r· .
'138'
£ ast .J 09.4-0 '
~
~i-'.,,_,{9, ~,ill~~. ~ ..J{.¥-v~~. fl~ <?. 'W~ ,o.~ ~"'"A1'f~ CUo~, ,0 ;(i,c#nb~ ~ 1'~,C/C,vG~ ~
, \i&~e-~ 'W~»1os~j;t., 1:-f,~\',c,c S.1i".1io'W.1zs.1ft., tf~,4;Vi«-S.i"!is'q\,'. 90.SJt .• tf.,~s.o•oz''W. 5o~
~:.'>.cMU 91'.S-'"io'S. ~~s.s&f,t., \f.,;CM«-&~x s,05~-t., tf.,~ S. o"oz''iv. 21si.tiJ~., tf.,.~&A-~-t rnsfx., tf,~~
x'4e ~ ~aX\! ~.o..fw eA.t\j SM'l;V~ ' ~ t-f~ J ,.f;,-0\IV~ ~~ ~'),()~~ '°J tf~e-.Ot1V~ lf:u.1ucf ;0Mf,,h,.w;US~ tl~,
~J-0,\1\1 ~: ,(M,J, \f0D.k \f:.">~ !.)~ ,f,~ ~'\< ,«J~ .oW~ ~ .<'JW ~fo,(, ~!LO~ ~ ~~ f,~M, ~
~"~ t.vt-0;t>,0M'1<V=>. ,of A).;W ,o~~ 1:'.a,,~,o,c,b ,(;16 ~~ B-itlj e,OMN\,Vi.-C 91''6~ 12' ~ 159,i,a.wS /~ tf:lc.-tit~ 1v,a
~;\-0~ ;0f ~ ,-0J-~ b~~ .J',all.1:J~f,k;\I\/.)~, ~ .wNb:
~, ~ Vli.oMf:J k S-eM-tf., ~ ,€.\o4f:.'>~ eiv~, GGJ*· ,,,v,,tb~ .-~ 3'16J'*'· k~, ~ 91'.c/Vtf., & d)~,
' ,,,.,.,. .. " "" _,,, .( C\"f_ l<l'-'1.
·l 1',,
1'
I
I I
I I
I
I
'I
I
'I
I I
I
I
11
I
I
':
\
\
\
\
•
I lJ ...
~
..
"' ..
~
I z "-~ w 1.. n 1~ rf '1) "
' ~ o,, /
\? t I ~ ~
ar·
:J""
"' .;r· ,... .... ~ ..,
I I
I
I ..
. . I
Ly.,·i+i'B ·1
----,,._ ~
I
., I
.. I
I :1-r ,~ -~ T-1*'··1ii' .. :
: I {J ~
' .. I
ll, !I
10 J H
' !.E c
d
,.
~
I
.j
~:
1 ~
l ~ I
15
WHALOtiS
__ _______!j__
17
" • . •
, .. .w ...... ,
r ~.J~~
20
·~
'::;uu
17
16
15
IA
IJ
12
Exhibit 3
Departmental/Division Comments
Not one bit
From: Dansie, Doug
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:56 PM
To: Smith, Craig
Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen
Street.
There are no other adjoining property owners in the subdivision (besides the petitioner) -do you
have any objection to all of the alley going to the one property owner (through both vacation and
sale of the property)?
Doug
From: Smith, Craig
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:51 PM
To: Dansie, Doug
Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen
Street.
Doug, I have reviewed the petition 400-06-05 a petition to vacate an alley located approximately
740 South Goshen Street. Engineering has no interest in this alley and recommends it be split
among the adjoining property owners.
Doug --
I have no concerns
(Larry Wiley)
Doug,
I do not have any concerns with this alley vacation request.
J.R. Smith
SLCPD
Community Action Team
Doug,
Thank you for sending the review request for the above referenced alley vacation at 7 40
South and approximately 1080 West. This location is just inside the Salt Lake City airport
influence zone "H", an area with height restrictions. An avigation easement is required in this
zone only for new construction. There are no known impacts on operations at the Salt Lake City
International Airport.
--Allen McCandless, Planning Manager
Doug,
While SLC Public Utilities has no objections to the vacation of the alley it is important that the Mr.
Kiphibane be aware that this property or the vacant lot adjacent to it may not be developable. It is
solidly in a FEMA flood zone A 1 (100 year frequency). The abbreviated r-_ile is that nothing
habitable or mechanical can be built at or below the flood elevation.
Interestingly, while I was writing you this note Mr. Kiphibane's house plans came to my desk. He
seems to be aware of a flood issue, but it will require a certified survey by a licensed land
surveyor to establish the true property elevation. The FEMA zones are in USGS coordinates, the
house and property will be required to be shown in the same coordinate system.
In addition to the flood zone issue Mr. Kiphibane's plans show a basement. This is an area of
known high groundwater. Basements are only allowed if a professional geotechnical study
demonstrates that the highest expected annual groundwater elevation is a couple of feet below
the lowest finished floor. It is unlikely that this property will have a basement even if the flood
zone elevation issue can be satisfied.
My intent is not to be harsh with proposed house, but to protect this and future owner's of the
property from heavy financial losses associated with wet basements or flooding. Also, SLC has
adopted the FEMA flood management rules as ordinance. Approvals have to meet the guidelines
or it puts all city properties at risk of loosing their subsidized FEMA flood insurance.
I will discuss these issues with Mr. Kiphibane, but will you also mention that these are very large
issues that threaten the viability of this project.
Thanks,
Brad
This is a copy of our GIS map showing the flood zone (the hashed area):
Dear Mr. Dansie and Mr. Stewart,
Salt Lake County's nearest flood control facility is south of the proposed easement vacation.
We also do not show any storm drain mains in this area. The County would not oppose vacating
the easement. I am copying several other people with this reply that may want a better
understanding of these issues.
As stated in Mr. Stewart's response, FEMA requires "the lowest livable space" of residential
structures to be above the 100 year flood elevation. This definition extends to basements or even
garages that could be finished or remodeled into living space. Failure to comply with this, and
other NFIP development requirements could result in suspension of national flood insurance
policies for City residents.
The City should also be made aware of a discrepancy between the currently effective FEMA
Flood Maps and recently produced surveys throughout the county. There is a vertical shift of
approximately 3 feet between the current effective maps and the preliminary revised flood maps
for SL County. This is due to a change in the datum reference. The FEMA Flood Maps issued
through May 15, 2002 use the NAO 1927 -NGVD 1929 datum which is about 3 feet lower than
the preliminary maps (or recent surveys) which use the NAO 1983 -NAVO 1988 datum. The
lowest living space of any residential structure must be above the adjusted flood elevation.
In general, State law requires County Government to mitigate flood hazards and County
Ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 08) lists sixty different creeks, canals and piped systems identified
as "County Wide" flood control facilities. Any activity of any kind that has the potential to interfere
with, damage or destroy these facilities is required to obtain a County Flood Control Permit.
County standards also require a twenty foot setback from the top of the bank (or outside edges of
piped or culvert systems) so that Crews can use heavy equipment to maintain these facilities. To
learn more about the County's Flood Control Permit Program, please visit
http://www.pweng.slco.org/flood/html/permits.html.
sincerely,
Donald "Chris" Springer, Permit Specialist
Salt Lake County Public Works Engineering
2001 South State Street, Suite N3100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-4600
(801) 468-2779 (Office)
(801) 468-2586 (FAX)
Doug,
The Fire Department has no objection to the above named petition.
Thank you.
Brad Larson
Deputy Fire Marshal
Salt Lake City Fire Deptartment
801-799-4162 office
801-550-0147
bradley.larson@slcgov.com
----Original Message-----
March 21, 2006
Doug Dansie, Planning
Re: Petition 400-06-05 to vacate an alley at 740 South Goshen Street for Maylaykhone
Kiphibane.
The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows:
We have reviewed this alley closure under another Name and petition. See letter attached.
Sincerely,
Barry Walsh
Cc Kevin Young, P.E.
Craig Smith, Engineering
Scott Weiler, P.E.
John Spencer, Property Management
Lex Traughber, Planning
File
September 21, 2005
Lex Traughber
Planning Division
451 South State St, Rm. 406
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Re: Petition# 400-05-28 Alley Closure and Vacation by Helen N. Abbott at 726 So.
Goshen Street.
Dear Lex:
The City Transportation Division has completed its review of Petition# 400-05-28 Alley
Closure and Vacation. Review comments are as follows:
The Transportation Division recommends approval of the proposed alley vacation and
closure subject to the following:
1. The applicant must have approval from all abutting property owner for the alley
vacation and closure. The two properties on the north side 726 and 732 South (Abbott
properties) and the south side of the alley 750 and 752 So.
2. There is an existing drive approach that needs to be removed and relocated in
coordination with future development of this vacant lot.
3. All utilities and utility easements shall remain as required and approved by the
entity concerned.
Please feel free to call me at 535-6630 if you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Barry D. Walsh
Transportation Engineer Assoc.
cc: Kevin J. Young, P.E.
Scott Weiler, P.E.
Lynn Curt, Surveyor
Craig Smith, Engineering
Brad Larson, Fire
Peggy Garcia, Utilities
File
Exhibit 4
Community Council
Alley Vacation I Closure
Community Council I Citizen Group Input
TO: Mike Harman, Chair Poplar Grove Community Council,
1044 West 300 South SLC, UT 84104
FROM: Doug Dansie, Planning Division Staff
DATE: March 24, 2006
RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen
Street.
Maylaykhone Kiphibane is requesting the Salt Lake City approve an Alley Vacation I Closure
for the alley located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street between Goshen and
approximately 1075 West. As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments
from the Poplar Grove Community Council. The purpose of the Community Council review is to
inform the community of the project and solicit comments I concerns they have with the project.
The Community Council may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the
project, but this is not required. (Please note that the vote in favor or against is not as important
to the City Council as relevant issues that are raised by the Community Council.) I have enclosed
information submitted by the applicant relating to the project to facilitate your review. The
applicant will also present information at the meeting.
If the Community Council
chooses to have a project
presented to them, the applicant
will only be required to meet
with the Community Council
once before the Planning Staff
will begin processing the
application. The Community
Council should submit its
comments to me, as soon as
possible, after the Community
Council meeting to ensure there
is time to incorporate the
comments into the staff report
to the City Council. Comments
submitted too late to be
incorporated into the staff
report, can be submitted directly to the City Council, via the Planning Division, for their review
prior to the City Council Public Hearing .. I will attend the meeting to answer any questions and
listen to the comments made by the Community Council members if so desired.
Following are City adopted criteria that the City Council will use to make their decision. The
City's technical staff will review the project to ensure it complies with adopted policies and
regulations. Input from the Community Council I citizen groups can be more general in nature
and focus on issues of impacts to abutting properties and compatibility with the neighborhood.
Staff is not looking for you to make comments on each of the below listed criteria, but general
comments should pertain to the criteria listed below.
1. The request is made due to one of the following concerns: Lack of Use; Public Safety;
Urban Design; Community Purpose;
2. Vacating the alley will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent
property;
3. Vacating the alley will not result in any property being landlocked;
4. Vacating the alley 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;
5. No opposing abutting property owner (if any) 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;
6. Vacating the Alley furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather
than a small segment of it;
7. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory
uses.
Please submit your written comments to the Planning Division by mail at Salt Lake City Planning
Division, 451 South State Street, Room 406, SLC, UT 84111, by Fax at (801) 535-6174 or via e-
mail to me at doug.dansie@slcgov.com.
If you have any questions, please call me at 535-6182 or via e-mail.
COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMENTS:
The above referenced applicant, met with the
___________________ Community I Neighborhood Council on
___________________ . Approximately people
attended the meeting. Those in attendance made the following comments relating to the project.
In general, was the group supportive of the project?
Signature of the Chair or Group Representative
Doug,
I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. The Poplar Grove
Community Council did discuss this petition as voted to support the
vacation of the alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street.
Some of the issues discussed included how alleys are used for criminal
activity, and not maintained properly by the city. Members of the
council were concerned that all property owners that were effected were
in agreement with this petition, and the assumption was that this
petition would not have even been considered if there were property
owners that were not in favor of this action. If that assumption is
incorrect, then the Community Council would want to reconsider their
support.
If you need any additional information, please let me know.
Mike Harman
(801) 521-6908
Exhibit 5
Letter to Property Owners and responses
March 28, 2006
Dear Property Owner:
The Salt Lake City Planning
Commission has received petition
400-06-05 from Maylaykhone
Kiphibane requesting an alley to be
vacated at 740 South Goshen
Street.
The City's formal process for
relinquishing its interest in an alley
next to or abutting single-family
residential property is called an
Alley Vacation. If the City
determines that it should vacate an
alley, the land is typically
distributed to the owners of
property, within the original
subdivision, abutting the alley. In
this instance, there is only one
property owner within the
subdivision adjacent to the alley (the other adjacent property owner is outside the originally platted
subdivision.)
When evaluating requests to vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the
property as an 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 the proposed closure.
The applicant and other interested parties will have an opportunity to address the members of the boards
and present any additional information and/or concerns they may have regarding the request. Once the
Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation will then be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration.
The intent of this letter is to notify you of the proposed disposition of a City owned alley and request initial
comments concerning this issue. Please send any comments you may have in writing to the Planning
Division before April 14, 2004. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 535-7625.
Thank you,
Doug Dansie
Principal Planner
451 S. State Street, Room 406
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
doug.dansie@slcgov.com
REDDY, KRIS KIPHIBANE, MALA YKONE CORNEJO, JAVIER R &
900 CAROLAN A VE 2128 w 14400 s MARIAA;JT
BURLINGAME, CA BLUFFDALE, UT 717 s 1100 w
94010-2633 84065-4921 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
84104-1441
MONTOYA, GUY PERSEVERE LLC CHADWICK, JOHN L
720 s 1100 w 730 s 1100 w 743S llOOW
SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT
8410-1440 84104-1440 84104-1441
CASIAS, FRANCES; TR WHARFF, DA YID R MILLER, LINDA L
1055 w 700 s 1105 w 700 s 726 S GLENDALE ST
SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT
84104-1414 84104-2409 84104-2412
ABBOTT, LAWRENCE L & JT GUDMUNDSON, KATHERIN HOBBS, CHARLES J & N
726 S GOSHEN ST 752 S GOSHEN ST 756 S GOSHEN ST
SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT
84104 84104 84104
MOSES, JOHN W & ROCIO; JT SALT LAKE CITY PROPERTY SALT LAKE CITY
764 S GOSHEN ST MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
SALT LAKE CITY UT 451 S STATE ST225 451 S STATE ST225
84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT
84111-3102 84111-3102
SALT LAKE CITY LONG, RONALD D; ET A
CO RPO PROPERTY 2719 w 9800 s
MANAGEMENT SOUTH JORDAN UT
451 S STATE ST225 84095-3346
SALT LAKE CITY UT
84111-3102
8013250144 Avalon Health Care 02 ~2 pm 04-12-2006
April 06, 2006
To: Salt Lake City Corporation:
Regarding the petition 400-06-05 requesting the vacating of the alley at 740 South
Goshen St., I would like to voice my opposition.
This alley is used to gain access to my back yard. This alley has been used many times
over the past years and is still in continuous use.
I would like to be informed of any public hearings involving this matter so that I can
attend and have my issues heard.
Thank you,
Kathy Gudmundson
Property Owner at 752 Goshen St.
2 /2
/
/
Exhibit 6
Photographs
740 Goshen 740 Goshen
Entry to alley alley entry behind truck
752 Goshen (vacant portion) 752 Goshen (vacant)
752 Goshen (home and vacant) 752 Goshen home
c. Agenda
THIRD AMENDED
AGENDA FOR THE
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 5:45 p.m.
Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in the Third Floor Break Room. During the
dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to
the public for observation.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, June 14, 2006.
2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
a. Acknowledgement of Commissioner Seelig's service
4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters (Staff -Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or
doug.wheelwright@slcgov.com, Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karrvn.greenleaf@slcgov.com, or John Spencer at
535-6398 or john.spencer@slcgov.com)
a. One World Cafe and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of the One World Cafe are requesting that Property
Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of 300 East Street right of way for outside dinning
purposes. The property is located at 41 South 300 East Street, between the building and the sidewalk. The abutting
property is zoned R-MU. Property management staff intends to approve the lease request.
b. Liberty Midtown Partners and Salt Lake City Property Management-Liberty Midtown Partners are requesting that
Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow overhead roof eave encroachments to extend over the street
right of way of 300 East Street. The abutting property located at 225 South 300 East Street is zoned R-MU. The Property
Management staff intends to approve the lease request.
c. Sugar House Coffee and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of Sugar House Coffee are requesting that
Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of the street right of way on 2100 South Street
to be used for outside dinning purposes. The abutting property located at 2106 South Highland Drive is zoned CSHBD-1.
Property Management staff intends to approve the lease agreement request.
d. Russell C. and Naoma D. Hansen and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-The Hansen's are requesting that
Public Utilities approve the release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the Hansen
property, located at 3596 East Monza Drive in un-incorporated Salt lake County. Public Utilities staff intends to approve
the release of the easement request.
e. RAL, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-RAL, Inc. is requesting that Public Utilities approve a release of
a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the RAL, Inc. owned property located at 6255 Canyon
Cove Court in Holladay City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of easement request.
f. Scott D. Anderson and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-Mr. Anderson is requesting that Public Utilities approve
a standard use permit to allow continued encroachment into a Public Utilities owned easement over property located at
3230 East Bengal Blvd., in Sandy City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard use permit as requested.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Petition 410-06-13 -A request by Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, for Conditional Use Planned
Development approval to develop the Sorenson Unity Center located at approximately 1383 South 900 West in a
PL (Public Lands) Zoning District. This project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission because the
development proposes more than one principal building on a single parcel. (Staff -Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or
marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com)
b. Petition 400-06-10 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City
Zoning Ordinance to clarify processes and procedures relating to the review of projects subject to the City-wide
Compatible Residential Infill Development standards adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 and Ordinance 26 of 2006.
(Staff -Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com)
c. Petition 400-04-22 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance
relating to specialty housing facilities, including group homes, transitional victim homes, transitional treatment
homes and residential substance abuse homes. Specifically, the petition is to amend the definitions of these
specialty housing types, and clarify standards for spacing requirements, criteria approval, and potential revocation
of conditional uses once approval is granted. (Staff -Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128 or
elizabeth.giraud@slcgov.com)
d. Revisions to Petition No. 410-06-09 (planned development) and 480-06-04 {preliminary condominium) -A
request by Howa Capital to consider revisions to th~QBJOP~f;liHi~ plan and preliminary condominium
plans that were approved by the Planning Commiss'tci~rt-Arfrir'2&,1601f.r'o+-Property located generally on the
east and west sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets. (Staff -Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or
sarah.carroll@slcgov.com)
e. Petition 410-06-05-/SSUES ONLY HEARING A request by Bruce Manka for a planned development to modify
minimum yard requirements to allow encroachment1:iQSI5:fflNEtJry balcony structures and the roofs
of lower-level patios at approximately 650 North 300 West Street. The property is located in a RMF-35 (Residential
Multi-Family) and a MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew@slcgov.com)
f. Petition 410-06-15 -A request by Architectural Nexus, representing ARUP, for conditional use approval to allow
additional building height from 45 feet to 53 feet and 6 Y, inches for a proposed mechanical building addition
located in the Research Park (RP) Zoning District at approximately 500 South Chipeta Way. (Staff -Ray
McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandless@slcgov.com)
g. Petition 400·06·05-A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining east/west portion of an alley
located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The property is in an R-
1/5000 Zoning District. (Staff-Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com)
h. Petition 410·06-01 and 490-06-29 -A request by Nathan Anderson representing West Capitol Hill, LLC for
Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the construction of an eight-unit residential
development located at 701 North 300 West and 314 West 700 North in the MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff
-Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com)
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
d. Minutes
SALT LAKE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De
Lay, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig and Matthew Wirthlin.
Peggy McDonough was excused from the meeting.
Present from the Planning Division were Alexander lkefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy
Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator;
Doug Dansie, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner; Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner;
Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; Wayne Mills, Senior Planner and Cindy Rockwood, Planning
Commission Secretary.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the
meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were
heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in
the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Prescott
Muir, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Marilynn
Lewis, Ray McCandless, Doug Dansie, and Wayne Mills.
DINNER
A quorum was present at dinner, but no significant discussion was held.
MEETING
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-06-05 -A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining east/west portion of
an alley located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The
property is in an R-1 /5000 Zoning District.
{This item was heard at 8:47 p.m.)
Chairperson Noda recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative. Mr. Dansie presented a brief
background to the petition. He displayed the original Seventh South Subdivision which was platted in
1893 with the alley included in the subdivision. Mr. Dansie stated that no department had issues with the
vacation of the alley although some raised concern regarding the existing flood plane. He included that
because the parcel on the south of the subject alley was not originally included in the subdivision, full
rights to the alley belong to the parcel to the north. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and close the subject alley and to deed
it to the applicant with the following conditions:
1 . The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of
disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned
Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the
applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property.
Commissioner Diamond requested clarification regarding the position of the land owner to the south of
the subject alley.
Mr. Dansie stated that the land owner to the south is in opposition. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that another
public hearing will be held at the City Council meeting to determine who receives the property, as the
Planning Commission is responsible only to whether or not the alley is needed for public use.
Chairperson Noda recognized the applicant, Maylaykhone Kiphibane. Ms. Kiphibane stated her desire to
vacate the property to eventually build a home with the adjacent lot. She stated that the alley should
belong to the subdivision in order to be efficiently maintained.
Commissioner Forbis requested additional information from the applicant regarding the potential flood
plane on the property.
Ms. Kiphibane stated her awareness of the flood plane.
Chairperson Noda requested comments from community council chairs and the public.
Kathy Gudmundson, property owner of the south lot, stated that she uses the alleyway at times to access
the rear of her property. She stated that when she signed the petition requesting a vacation of the
alleyway, she had the understanding that the alley would be split to straighten out the property line. Ms.
Gudmundson also stated that she would be interested in purchased the property if possible.
Ms. Kiphibane stated that her first option, if they alleyway is divided, would be to buy the alley; as it is part
of the subdivision.
Hearing no further comment, Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing.
Based on the analysis, findings identified in the Staff Report, and the Staff recommendation,
Commissioner Scott made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to vacate and close
the subject alley and to deed it to the applicant with the following conditions:
1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the
method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter
2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned
by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chambless. All voted "Aye". The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary
5. Original Petition
Jul 2005
Alley Vacation or Closure
Petition No. ~~~~~2..._~~-~
Receipt No. 7-.J
Date Received: 'Y ->=t'--'"41--..::;_o~---~
Reviewed By: -'-"lvf-'--"'--'L_,· :...::~=""-"-j-"'~L._ __ 1
Pro· ect Planner:
Address of Subject Property: VT (,fy
Name of Applicant: M L ' k' · I Phone: ________ _ ''Y t'\.Y ~,_,'#<-· "--'--·__,,1·-tf""";f_,'""'1_r __ r_._·1_v1,,_1 y.._' ______ ~c ..... ~ .... D"""''_,_1_··_...,-'?_'±-L-17'---· _,'5~c::..·_~..:..1_.7.__ __ _
Address of Applicant: 3' e (!°' ,Cf. r: --1 ,.,-~_> I .LI! CJ-!::'., f::<--JJ--c·v1 :J__,,_Jt:'.I \YT z L-t I ' I
Applicant's Interest in Subject Property:
Name of Property Owner: ··, L . · J Phone:
Jv11I < t ph1 ~iU(;
Address of Property Owner:
I
·;. .-' ~ .. ':>
Email Address of Property Owner: n ,.,... ,.,., n ~ (fi _ h Cell/Fax: :) i "t. ) 0 -7 7 ~on~ ._,.,,. 00 v :A .g Y"' -.Zr· , (...U•11 ..,-
Are there any multi-family residential uses (three or more dwelling units) or non residential uses that abut the alley?
Yes 0 No (;"'
If yes, have the property owners been notified about the City's "close and sell" method of disposition (As defined in the at-
tached process information sheet)? Yes 0 No 0
Please include with the application:
1. A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own property adjacent to the al-
ley, please include the applicant's interest in the request.
2. The name, address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on
gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in
the amount to cover first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application.
3. The name, address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition.
You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the
property owners must sign (not occupants who rent) and the petition must include the signatures of no
less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners.
4. A property ownership map (known as a Sidwell map) showing the area of the subject alley. On the map, please:
a. Highlight the subject alley.
b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition.
5. A legal description of the subject alley may be required.
6. If applicable, a signed, notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act
as an agent.
7. Filing fee of $200.00, due at time of application.
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt
Lake City Planning staff (535-7757) prior to submitting the petition
Sidwell maps & names of property owners are
available at:
Salt Lake County Recorder
2001 South State Street, Room N 1600
Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051
Telephone: (801) 468-3391
File the complete application at:
Salt Lake City Planning
451 South State Street, Room 406
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 535-7757
Signature of Property Owner -------------------------------
Or authorized agent
Please answer the following questions. Use an additional sheet if necessary.
Please explain why you are requesting this alley vacation or closure and include the expected end
result of the action, such as the alley becoming a private right-of-way for continued use or being
closed off. If the applicant is not a property owner adjacent to the alley, please include the
applicant's interest in the petition.
Please explain how the proposed petition satisfies at least one of the following City policy
considerations:
A Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat,
but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not exist or is 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.
REMARKS Petition No. aoo-06-05
By Maylaykhane Kiphihane
Is requesting an Alley Vacation or
Closure located at 740 South Goshen
Street.
Date Filed ___________ _
Addreu_· ____________ _
'I
' ' '
~ Initials
~ /Jiii
·~ ~
&bf_" ~ feffi ~ 7ftsp,· 1iJ
7f14-P"' 7J?
~ ,ti
1/z</Y ~
7f!d, _ff!2
7~ .J;{J
-~ 7h
7µ¢ m
PETITION N0./4~ -~~ -~S-
PETITION CHECKLIST
Action R~uired
Petition delivered to Planning
Pet;tlon assigned to: i),gj Awsltr
Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date
Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover
Chronology
Property Description (marked with a post it note)
Affected Sidwell Numbers Included
Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate
Community Councils
Mailing Postmark Date Verification
Planning Commission Minutes •
Planning Staff Report
Cover l~tter outlining what the request is and a brief
description of what action the Planning Commission or
Staff is reootnillMlding.
Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office
Ordinance property description is checked, dated and
initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by
Attorney.
~
Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition
Date Set for City Council Action -------
Petition filed with City Recorder's Office
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
council.slcgov.com/budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Council Budget Staff
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE:Budget Amendment #1 for Fiscal Year 2022
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The City Administration has received guidance that American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds from the federal
government can be used by cities to pay salaries of personnel such as police officers. Other city funds are being
requested as part of the first budget amendment as well, including rental assistance dollars from grant sources
and funds for other non-represented city employee pay increases.
-The Administration has requested that the Council “straw poll” (take an informal signal
vote) to indicate its position on the ARPA-related compensation elements of this
proposal.
-A straw poll has also been requested for the proposed 4.5% pay increase for non-
represented employees citywide to facilitate more streamlined processing in the City’s
payroll system.
KEY ITEMS
Grant dollars totaling $10,427,551 would be transferred to the City’s grant fund, and made available for the
following uses:
Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP)$1,920,233
Police Department salary changes for represented employees $6,684,665
Police Department salary changes for non-represented employees (e.g.
Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains)
$1,642,653
As noted in the last row above, grant funds would be used to bring non-represented Police Department
employees up to the same percentage increase as is being proposed for “top out” salary for represented officers.
Item Schedule:
Set Date: July 13, 2021
1st Briefing: July 13, 2021
Public Hearing: July 20, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
Page | 2
Furthermore, non-represented employees Citywide would receive a 4.5% pay increase to help address
compression issues related to compensation changes for represented employees. The proposed increase would
total an estimated $1,726,430. The budget amendment would leave the city’s general fund up an estimated
$5,138,235 relative to the adopted FY22 budget.
OTHER BACKGROUND
The City was involved in union negotiations for represented City employees such as police officers and fire
fighters late into June 2021. As part of those negotiations, the City Council approved a budget increase for police
officer salaries. Pay increases for fire union members and American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) were also advanced as part of this negotiation process.
With recent guidance from the United States Treasury that ARPA dollars can be made available for pay increases
such as the ones adopted for police officers this year, the proposal before the Council involves identifying those
federal grant funds as the source of the police department salary increases. The Administration has requested
informal signal votes to streamline the inclusion of these changes in the City’s payroll system. If the changes are
made after July 20th, the process is essentially manual for roughly 1,000 employees to receive that pay effective
from the start of the fiscal year.
Impact Fees Update
The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and
lists of unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of June 23, 2021. $10,107 of
police impact fees are scheduled to expire in July. The Administration reports work is nearing completion to
update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being
identified.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,076,784 More than a year away -
Parks $9,145,705 More than a year away -
Police $450,551 July 2021 $10,107
Transportation $5,573,359 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Council Members might wish to request a dedicated briefing or series of briefings on the topic of
remaining anticipated ARPA disbursements, and the highest and best use of those funds in the context
of city budget priorities.
2.Council Members might request more information from the Administration about planning and best
practices related to the pay difference between represented and non-represented employees in the Police
Department. The Administration has indicated open availability to discuss this with Council Members in
smaller meetings.
Attachments:
1. Administration transmittal
Page | 3
Appendix 1, projected impact of revenues and expenditures requests in Budget Amendment #1
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 30, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #1 for Fiscal Year 2022
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021 – 22 adopted budget.
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 1, 2021 15:58 MDT)
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 0.00 ($ 5,138,235.00)
MISC GRANT FUND 10,427,551.76 10,427,551.76
FLEET FUND 18,999.00 18,999.00
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND 24,843.00 24,843.00
IMS FUND 219,193.00 219,193.00
RISK FUND 19,705.00 19,705.00
AIRPORT FUND 0.00 1,350,949.00
STREET LIGHTING FUND 0.00 7,098.00
WATER FUND 0.00 460,716.00
SEWER FUND 0.00 221,826.00
STORM WATER FUND 0.00 19,705.00
REFUSE FUND 36,538.00 36,538.00
GOLF FUND 19,649.00 19,649.00
TOTAL $ 10,766,478.76 $ 7,688,537.76
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022.
The Fiscal Year has just started. The projections are as found in the adopted budget.
FY21-22 Variance
Annual Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 112,726,044 112,726,044 -
Sales and Use Tax 73,956,475 73,956,475 -
Franchise Tax 27,702,126 27,702,126 -
PILOT Taxes 1,562,041 1,562,041 -
TOTAL TAXES 215,946,686 215,946,686 -
License and Permits 29,904,360 29,904,360 -
Intergovernmental 4,644,018 4,644,018 -
Interest Income 1,271,153 1,271,153 -
Fines & Forfeiture 3,474,455 3,474,455 -
Parking Meter Collection 2,693,555 2,693,555 -
Charges and Services 3,934,570 3,934,570 -
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,372,272 3,372,272 -
Interfund Reimbursement 22,032,892 22,032,892 -
Transfers 19,181,103 19,181,103 -
TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 306,455,064 306,455,064 -
Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 35,600,001 35,600,001 -
Sales and Use Tax - County Option - - -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 342,055,065 342,055,065 -
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
Fund Balance projections are adjusted based on the proposed budget amendment and increase to 13.48% for the General Fund.
TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 79,814,009 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 7,018,483 50,124,619 57,143,102
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (1,510,094) 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (4,759,137) (19,471,917) (24,231,054)
Prior Year Encumbrances (9,671,834) (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) - - -
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 68,632,081 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 2,259,346 30,652,702 32,912,048
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 20.35%16.62%23.32%22.61%5.60%9.64%9.18%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (4,127,838) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) 4,759,137 5,477,037 10,236,174
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 64,504,243 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 7,018,483 36,129,739 43,148,222
Final Fund Balance Percent 19.13%16.62%21.39%20.88%17.39%11.36%12.04%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (15,370,734)
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - 5,138,235 5,138,235
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488) - - -
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940) - - -
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788) - - -
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685) - - -
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744 - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824) - - -
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - - -
BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809 - - -
BA#9 Expense Adjustment - 362,532 1,555,532 - - -
Change in Revenue 6,827,370 2,202,494 3,018,144 5,220,638 - - -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase 900,000 - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 56,860,879 7,018,483 50,124,619 58,336,102 7,018,483 41,267,974 48,286,457
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 16.86%20.05%17.03%17.71%17.39%12.98%13.48%
Projected Revenue 337,251,407 35,000,000 294,345,168 329,345,168 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736
2021 Projection2020
Fund Balance Projections
2022 Projection
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $10,766,478.76 of revenue and
expense of $7,688,537.76. The amendment proposes changes in the 13 funds increases General
Fund fund balance by $5,138,235.00. The proposal includes four initiatives for Council review.
No positions are being requested.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-22)
In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City
Corporation, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118
of the Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt
Lake City Corporation, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and
finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance are hereby adopted and
incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City Corporation, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2
2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the
Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the
office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
Amy Fowler, Council Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Jaysen Oldroyd
Senior City Attorney
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
1 Police Department Salary Changes (See
item E-2)
GF - (6,864,665.00)
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (GF)GF - 1,387,503.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (GF Txr
Out)
GF - 338,927.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (Fleet)Fleet 18,999.00 18,999.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (Govt
Immunity)
Govt Immunity 24,843.00 24,843.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (IMS)IMS 219,193.00 219,193.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (Risk)Risk 19,705.00 19,705.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (Airport)Airport - 1,350,949.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (PU:
Street Lighting)
Street Lighting - 7,098.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (PU:
Water)
Water - 460,716.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (PU:
Sewer)
Sewer - 221,826.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (PU:
Storm Water)
Storm Water - 19,705.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (Refuse)Refuse 36,538.00 36,538.00
2 Non-Represented Salary Changes (Golf)Golf 19,649.00 19,649.00
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
1 US Department of the Treasury; Emergency
Rental Assistance 2
Misc Grants 1,920,233.76 1,920,233.76
2 Police Department Salary Changes (See
item E-2)
Misc Grants 6,864,665.00 6,864,665.00
2 Police Department Salary Changes (See
item E-2)
Misc Grants 1,642,653.00 1,642,653.00
-
Council Approved
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Administration Proposed
2
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
Consent Agenda #5
Total of Budget Amendment Items 10,766,478.76 7,688,537.76 - - -
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #9:
General Fund GF - (5,138,235.00) - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 10,427,551.76 10,427,551.76 - - -
Fleet Fund Fleet 18,999.00 18,999.00 - - -
Governmental Immunity Fund Govt Immunity 24,843.00 24,843.00 - - -
IMS Fund IMS 219,193.00 219,193.00 - - -
Risk Fund Risk 19,705.00 19,705.00 - - -
Airport Airport - 1,350,949.00 - - -
Street Lighting Fund Street Lighting - 7,098.00 - - -
Water Fund Water - 460,716.00 - - -
Sewer Fund Sewer - 221,826.00 - - -
Storm Water Fund Storm Water - 19,705.00 - - -
Refuse Fund Refuse 36,538.00 36,538.00 - - -
Golf Fund Golf 19,649.00 19,649.00 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 10,766,478.76 7,688,537.76 - - -
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
3
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 362,443,835.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 127,826,271.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 268,435,622.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 19,220,718.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 708,143,449.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 24,750,043.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 9,717,066.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 28,109,575.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 24,521,680.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
5,307,142 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 29,112,168.76
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 16,121,000.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 31,850,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 29,503,216.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 52,959,194.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 - - - - 1,762,698,042.76
4
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
^^ FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget
through BA#5 ^^ BA #6 Total BA #7 Total BA #8 Total BA #9 Total Total To-Date
General Fund (FC 10)362,443,835 362,443,835
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,706,761 5,706,761
Water Fund (FC 51)127,826,271 127,826,271
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,435,622 268,435,622
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,220,718 19,220,718
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)708,143,449 708,143,449
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,750,043 24,750,043
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,717,066 9,717,066
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,109,575 28,109,575
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,521,680 24,521,680
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
5,307,142 5,307,142
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)29,112,169 29,112,169
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 16,121,000
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 31,850,423
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 29,503,216
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,958,756 2,958,756
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,959,194 52,959,194
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,762,698,043 - - - - - 1,762,698,043
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
5
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
6
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Police Department Salary Changes (See item E-2 ) GF -$6,684,665.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
US Department of the Treasury issued the further guidance for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which allows Cities
to use funding to pay for recruitment and retention of police officers. The Administration is proposing shifting funding
already in the budget for police officers to the grant funds and using additional grant dollars to address compression issues
within the Police Department between Officers and Administrative personnel.
The administration is requesting the increased salaries for the Police Officers of $6,864,665 be transferred from the
General Fund to the Grant Fund, funded through ARPA. The Administration is also proposing a salary increase that would
match the top-level police officer for all Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains within the police department. The total of this
proposed salary increase is $1,642,653. The total salary increases of $8,507,318 would be funded through the ARPA.
The General Fund would see a decrease for the $6,864,665 originally budgeted for the Police Officer increases. The
Administration is seeking a straw poll to allow for payroll processing of these proposed changes.
A-2: Non-Represented Salary Changes GF $1,387,503.00
GF $338,927.00
Fleet $18,999.00
Govt Immunity $24,843.00
IMS $219,193.00
Risk $19,705.00
Airport $1,350,949.00
Street Lighting $7,098.00
Water $460,716.00
Sewer $221,826.00
Storm Water $19,705.00
Refuse $36,538.00
Golf $19,649.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
US Department of the Treasury issued the further guidance for the American Rescue Plan Act, which allows Cities to use
funding to pay for recruitment and retention of police officers. The Administration is proposing shifting funding already in
the budget for police officers to the grant funds which will free up dollars within the General Fund. The Administration is
proposing to use some of those funds to increase the salary adjustment for non -represented employees to 4.5%.
Negotiations with the unions created compression issues between union employees a nd non-represented employees. This
proposal reduces those compression issues. The proposal includes all departments across the City. The Airport and Public
Utilities will fund the salary increases within their Departments through their respective funds. The General Fund, Internal
Services Funds, and smaller Enterprise Funds will be funded by the General Fund. This will use $1,726,430 of General
Fund fund balance.
The Administration requests a straw poll to allow for processing of these pay increases moving forward.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: US Department of the Treasury; Emergency Rental
Assistance 2
Grant $1,920,233.76
Department: Community and Neighborhoods Prepared By: Tony Milner / Brent Beck
US Department of the Treasury deposited $1,920,233.76 into the City's bank account on June 3, 2021. These Emergency
Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) 2 funds were made available in the American Rescue Pla n Act.
These funds represent 40% of the City's total allocation ($4,800,599.40), with the remaining 60% to be deposited in
December 2021.
The Department of Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) 2 makes funds available to assist households
who are unable to pay rent and utilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding is targeted to households that are at or
below 80% of the Area Median Income, demonstrates a risk of experiencing homelessness or housing instability, and has
experienced a reduction in household income and/or incurred significant costs and/or experienced financial hardship due
to COVID-19.
The Department of Treasury regulations set forth that 85% of the funds ($1,632,198.70) must be used for direct financial
assistance, including rent, rental arrears, utilities and home energy costs, utilities and home energy costs arrears, and other
expenses related to housing. The remaining 15% ($288,035.06) may be used for housing stability services, including case
management and other services intended to keep households stably housed, and administrative costs. See Accounting &
Fund Detail tab for more financial information.
This budget amendment will create the ability for the City to accept the allocation from the Department of Trea sury and
create appropriate expense and revenue budgets for the direct financial assistance and housing stability/administration
budgets.
It is the intent of the administration to deploy these funds in conjunction with the State (DWS) and County via the Rent
Relief program being administered via the State. This is the same deployment strategy that was used with the first traunche
of emergency rent assistance funding.
HAND will not be requesting any staff positions as the required administrative work can be covered with existing
resources.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
E-2: Police Department Salary Changes (See item A-1) Grant $6,684,665.00
Grant $1,642,653.00
Department: Prepared By: John Vuyk
US Department of the Treasury issued the furhter guidance for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which allows Cities
to use funding to pay for recruitment and retention of police officers. The Administration is propo sing shifting funding
already in the budget for police officers to the grant funds and using additional grant dollars to address compression issues
within the Police Department between Officers and Administrative personnel.
The administration is requesting the increased salaries for the Police Officers of $6,864,665 be transferred from the
General Fund to the Grant Fund, funded through ARPA. The Administration is also proposing a salary increase that would
match the top-level police officer for all Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains within the police department. The total of this
proposed salary increase is $1,642,653. The total salary increases of $8,507,318 would be funded through the ARPA.
The General Fund would see a decrease for the $6,864,665 originally budgeted for the Police Officer increases. The
Administration is seeking a straw poll to allow for payroll processing of these proposed changes.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 6/23/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 450,551$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,076,784$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 9,145,705$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,573,359$ D
16,246,399$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ -$ -$ -$ 16,105$
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,836$ -$ -$ -$ 1,836$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ -$ -$ -$ 14,542$ Current Month
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,774$ -$ -$ -$ 78,774$
Notes
^1
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
6/23/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $56k in the next 5 months without offsetting expenditures
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 6/23/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$
Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$ A
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,512,316$ 289,381$ 71,246$ 2,151,690$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$ B
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 4,883$ 6,024$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$
Fire Station #14 Debt Service 8421201 339,172$ -$ 339,172$ -$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 11,063$ 951,846$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 42,546$ 83,059$ -$
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ -$ 173,017$ -$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 303,578$ 211,667$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 4,815$ 2,786$ 42$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 470$ 296$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 270$ 786$ C
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 19,702$ 64,364$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ 15,811$ 6,589$ 4,600$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
FY Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ 21,375$ 272,516$ 56,109$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ 875$ 101,381$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 22,524$ 64,916$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 574,709$ 4,080$ 148,211$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 10,285$ 57,026$ 282,939$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ 7,790$ 11,523$ 380,688$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ 1,883$ 1,556$ 537,293$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 38,922$ 41,121$ 1,065,351$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 239,284$ 81,934$ 3,120,981$
Grand Total 11,415,591$ 1,374,148$ 1,124,909$ 8,916,534$
Streets Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
AppropriationValues
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 152,500$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 29,197$ 118,715$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 141,623$ 69,130$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 32,718$ 8,309$ -$ D
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,821$ 1,539$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ -$ 87,005$ 37,995$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 121,917$ 90,000$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 1,216,451$ 607,870$ 1,033,769$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 21,448$ 229,868$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 2,210,747$ 3,556,149$ 3,525,351$
Total 24,384,332$ 3,885,339$ 5,704,150$ 14,794,843$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
9,145,705$
5,573,359$
16,246,399$
8484002
8484003
8484005
450,551$
$1,076,784
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
Salt Lake City Mosquito
Abatement District
Neil Vickers, PhD
Salt Lake City Council Work Session
13 July 2021
$3.8 million dollar budget
10 full time staff, ~30 seasonal staff
Salt Lake City Mosquito
Abatement District
Service Area
Integrated Mosquito Management
(IMM)
Comprehensive preventive/control strategy
Knowledge based (bio/ecology of pests)
Surveillance (SCIENCE) driven
Resource ($) & environmentally dictated
Adult Mosquito Surveillance
Carbon Dioxide Traps (37)
Gravid Traps (18)
Rural
Industrial
Urban
Surveillance Zones
U-SURV Utah
Tax Increase Justification
1. Personnel Growth
2. Environmental Accountability and Research
3. Precision Aerial Control
4. Certified Tax Rate and Inflation
Executive Director
Chief
Financial Officer
Assistant Director
IT-GIS
Specialist
Operations
Supervisor
Maintenance
Supervisor
Education
Specialist
Laboratory
Director
Maintenance
Assistant
Seasonal
Mechanics
Assistant
Urban Field
Supervisor
Rural Field
Supervisor
Biologist
Seasonal
Bike Crew
Seasonal
Tree Hole Crew
Seasonal
Fish Crew
Seasonal
ATV Crew
Seasonal
Inspection
Crew
Vector
Control
Technician
Seasonal
Surveillance
Trap Crew
Seasonal
Biology
Interns
Vector
Control
Technician
VACANT
Existing full time positions
Seasonal positions
1 –Personnel: Table of Organization
2 –Environmental Accountability &
Research
Dr. Daniel Mendoza (Univ Utah)
Atmospheric Modeling
Dr. Jay Gan (UCR)
Environmental Monitoring
Audubon Gillmor
Sanctuary
Midge Monitoring
Various Projects
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
ENGINEERING
MECHANICAL
TIKI Torch Studies Non-target Studies Malaria Control
3D Printers and Traps
Various Projects Continued
Spartan Mosquito Eradicator Sugar Alcohols Automated Traps
Unmanned Aerial Systems
Mosquito Dispersal Studies
Aedes aegypti
(Yellow Fever Mosquito)
3 –Precision Aerial Control
4 -Certified Tax Rates
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Tax Rate 0.00016 0.000141 0.000133 0.000122 0.000115
Budget $3,027,463 $3,363,270 $3,621,250 $3,684,128 $3,736,002
% Increase from
Previous Year 2.60%3.10%1.4%*1.60%1.40%
CPI 3.20%5.10%3.10%2.90%2.5%**
Annual Cost per
$100k Home Value $7.20 $6.35 $7.32 $5.49 $5.18
* Annexations w/ SSLVMAD/Magna MAD
** as of March 2021
Projected Annual Property Taxes
75%Tax Increase
Current
Rate
(0.000115)
~Proposed
Rate
(0.00020)
Price
Increase
$437,200
House
$1,000,000
Business
$22.63 year
($1.89 month)
$39.35 year
($3.28 month) $16.72
$115.00 year
($9.58 month)
$200.00 year
($16.67 month)
$85.00
Average home value in SLC $437,200 (25 May 2021)
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 5/18/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/18/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/18/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Patrick Casey as a member of
the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
May 18, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee:
Patrick Casey– to be appointed for a term ending in exactly three years starting the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 5/21/2021 Date
Sent to Council: 5/21/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/21/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Samantha Janse as a member of
the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
May 21, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee:
Samantha Janse– to be appointed for a term ending in exactly three years starting the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
Public Comments 07.06.2021-07.13.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Mayor Mendenall,Representative Valdemoros,and City Staff,Thank you for the city's ongoing
support of our foothill trail networks.As our population continues to swell,and more and more
people are finding joy in outdoor recreation,I wanted to take time to express my appreciation for
your vision and support.It is such a privilege to have a dozen trailheads within 20 minutes of our
home.We've spent countless hours together as a family hiking and mountain biking all over the
foothills.This wouldn't be possible without your support of the trails.In addition to enjoying the
trails with my family,I am fortunate enough to be an assistant coach with the East High
Mountain Bike Team.I wish you could see the joy in a rider's face the first time they clear the
rock garden in Dry Creek.Or hearing them encourage each other up steep sections of BST using
lines from Shakespeare's Henry V.One particularly fond memory is when a smaller,slower,and
very determined,team member made it to the radio towers at the top of BST(City Creek).When
he crested the final climb,and the team members already at the top began clapping and cheering
him on...well,the sunset paled in comparison to the determination and comroderly I saw in his
eyes.And the sunsets are pretty amazing from up there.Please keep up the great work!Best,
Marcus Cazier PS:If you are not familiar with the Utah High School Cycling Association,I would
strongly encourage checking them out.Utah has the largest high school mountain bike league in
the nation,and has more kids participating in mountain biking than all other high school sports
combined.The future of mountain biking is bright,and keeping up with trail needs will remain a
7/7/2021 16:35 Marcus Cazier priority for years to come! Foothills Trail System Master Plan
12:37 PM 7/13/2021 Page 1
Public Comments 07.06.2021-07.13.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Hello Everyone,I'm writing this email because of the cancelled trail project in the foothills.First
of all I would like to let you know how much I appreciate the trails we have and I have a few
favorites including the new downhill only bike trail°i think it's called 19 ave trail).I'm 16 and this
is my first year mountain biking and I'm just finding my love for the sport.I ride for the East high
mountain bike team and the sport has made me stronger and helped me make more friends.I
enjoy hiking and biking on the amazing trails in this area and I enjoy the beauty of the scenery.
would love to see more trails being built for the enjoyment of all.Sincerely,Justus Otterstrom I
have attached a picture of me and my brother mountain biking earlier this year.*See
7/7/2021 16:38 Justus Otterstrom Corresponding Attachment* Foothills Trail System Master Plan
The tent city west of the Gateway Mall along 600 W and the railroad tracks is growing again.SLC
homeless population needs to be addressed.These concentrations are ripe for disease,drugs,
and exploitation.Not having the money to house all the homeless is not an excuse.Other
7/7/2021 16:43 Tina Straley creative solutions need to be found.Tina Straley Homelessness
12:37 PM 7/13/2021 Page 2
Public Comments 07.06.2021-07.13.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Dear Council,I am a nearly five-decade(and current)resident of Salt Lake City,a hiker,a trail
runner,a mountain biker and a father of four.I grew up in these foothills,and they very
important to me.I don't own a dog,but I am happy to share the trails with well-behaved 4-
legged hikers.I would like to take a brief moment to endorse the plan that has been in execution
for the last several years.I care about all of the activities that are being accommodated in the
plan.There is no question that conflict can naturally occur between a slow moving hiker and a
fast,downhill bike.Likewise,it makes sense that anytime an activity is being discontinued where
it was previously permitted(e.g.hiking in Dry Creek,or biking along Avenues Ridge),that the
groups of people being shutout will recoil.Nonetheless,both the city's stated high-level goals,
and the master plan's steps to accomplish those goals are clearly headed in the right direction.I
have throughly enjoyed the new 19th-Ave downhill on my mountain bike(that is a world-class
decent),and trail running the avenues ridge from the saddle.I love that the downhill mountain
bikes are largely offloaded from the trails with foot traffic.I also recognize that there are growing
pains.Clearly,there could be drainage improvements,and it will take time for some of the
construction scars to heal.Please hold strong to the excellent plan that was in motion,staying
open to the modifications that should be made from lessons-learned along the way.Salt Lake
City is not the same place it was when I was a little kid,for better and for worse.Clearly,we as a
citizenry,also have a learning-curve to take on,to become more skilled at sharing the incredible
open space we have so close by.If I had any criticism to lend,I would simply ask for increased
enforcement of dog-leashing rules that are already in place.No trail user is better able to
completely disrupt the beautiful rhythm of a run or a ride than an unleashed dog blocking the
whole trail in opposition to a weakly-pronounced command from its owner.I sincerely appreciate
7/7/202116:49 Paul Boyden your leadership on the matter.-Paul Boyden Foothills Trail System Master Plan
12:37 PM 7/13/2021 Page 3
Public Comments 07.06.2021-07.13.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
At the very least,can the busiest crosswalks of the city that's not on a stoplight intersection be
improved(maybe more visibility with flashing lights,newer crosswalk paints,etc.)?Perhaps
someday,SLC can be more pedestrian-friendly.Can the sidewalks that need to be repaired as
tree roots have uprooted them be addressed?I noticed other cities have repaired their sidewalks
by buffing the parts that anyone may trip and painting it yellow.If the budget allows for parks to
7/7/2021 23:44 Anonymous Constituent be improved,can the city have cooler parks for the kids as they have in Daybreak? FY22 Budget
City Leaders,As our city continues to grow and support citizens now and into the future,our trail
systems are important to provide recreational opportunities.Running and biking on trails are
part of what I enjoy and have been since I moved to SLC in 2000 as a student at the U of U.I have
seen the trails shared and used by so many over the years and now take my kids as part of hte
East High bike team.The trails provide a safe and healthy outlet for my family as we recreate
close to home.I hope as city leaders you can find solutions to accommodate and keep our trail
7/9/2021 19:15 Anne Cazier systems open for all.Thanks for all your service!Best,Anne Cazier Foothills Trail System Master Plan
SLC Council Members,and Dan Dugan,My wife and I moved to SLC two years ago from the Bay
Area,we bought a home in the Bonneville Hills District 6 neighborhood.We have a 15 year son at
East High School,and a 9 year old daughter in 3rd Grade at Bonneville.One of the things that
drew us to SLC was the access to trails for mountain biking and hiking.We hike and ride multiple
times throughout the week and have fallen in love with the trail system.The Shoreline Trail,
especially the new 19th trail is amazing!Please continue to support trail maintenance,building
new trails,and preserving the nature that is so close to our homes.Thank you for all your good
work,please let us know how we can help!I've attached a few photos of our family and friends,
7/9/2021 19:19 Beau Oyler all of which were taking on SLC trails.See Corresponding Attachment Foothills Trail System Master Plan
12:37 PM 7/13/2021 Page 4
III,
I,
I. -
it ,
/I,
• •
- - - - - _ a _ .- _ -- _ - ..
' _ ,. �`I► '�.i . _ter / JI . ,w '� " s _ _
•
•• r rat ♦�• •` �� : r �,1� ••.•�•- • ` T �� � •
r ' •.
•
.._ .N..i
Niv
r . ` im, -
r ��rI:ALL •�.
•
---....1,41pw ... 4iig - ..
, s Irr.....
'1114 . ,... .., .. ........„ - ...„.... _ . • .
a Elmo
I 1•.
. , di ag6 - glib . *' )L
•
tillit" * ory." -- ,
V
4 - ��\ Illil filit4131.111.'
611111Mili\
f ii• ' „
�4 , 411, •• I , _� . ter.. 1 9 ••
._•
• . f
0',.. IIIIII14t4ml .
• I , 11110
144\•-''''''''‘/ ."/"- .
\11111111\4111‘11111111111.11116111.1r
y /
4 W . .. , . -ow!
`.,
1
1.
Ill/ WO
IT
'fir_ -.
. me.•
lliri
•
•
.� �� ,� Y
•_ _•
+ s .ter
1-. • .0 Lein' .. • ''-.--7..... . .
•
•
fb :u
�t •
* #
y.
•
`k'
•
• . 11.
fir.=` � " - "` r4 �`.5 ' 4 aJ
:
•
�'q :(it-, - '+i ' �ev-e -ram,t __.•
_r_ r � - '_
•
•
•
_ ti - ,
T'K 't' it J4 •',. .' '.: . ,.1.:6i}r'_• , ' '`i7; . 1' -. Y•
•
•
i
i; �. L�.� �~. �}� r�i . ?. -7• /.'{ i�l r r.w: }:r �}.{� ��11 ',�. .r .� .
,� � +. �0'�-'�` ArF}W..'- - 4 *�4.�1.,11 ). r .x-y, •f al...,...
}Yd .}t�y 4::, ,` } 1� 4.� •
• }_.7.= J �,i4• ti' .1+ �1* •}ie .f•�w _ � Y,: "r,Kr •,4{'.� Y 7 -�J'"� • *' ~k'12
"" • J•L:, �h•' k • `ar_ icy _ f ` 4 I }Itch.
-
•
•
— r i i k if +ifY ' ,l l f 4 .- +'1.. V 5tJ'' ,•
2
.111111110. .
.,
. •
1 . .
Ilifr 41)
-..i.' •:#:',0r... ._
•
• . ..ypititi,,......... -
•
.....; ...,...4•....r: : -.:.- . .-. : . •
... .. ... . .• .
.. ,:r-,.,v,.i. ••
t.
. . . ., •,._ .
,- .. • .. .: .:. io.ii:...•
.441511111. -
...• •
.. 11.! . :• .•
-.-• - •
- -'- .Afiffit'a; . . ' -':.'•'.1 . -.._A . i
. 1
•_ .. . .
• %..... ., ,... .,. ,..,..„., .. ,-.
• .- .
. t ......,„,,,...„. ,
.,• : -8 . .
• .• 5. ... AiL.T i • • • . . .
_. .•
.01. . .
. _
it -..• a IA,
, iiiihigi.
- ''• - :
• .-
•
• • • _ - ire
.. AIIIINT.4.T-!..'•''''-:''''''. 4. — ..
. -
.141. -• -1
t . r • -I, .!r..
...„...:..i...1.t.1 3.6 .... . e
.? .--• ••-•
•
-•
• . . . —.- - .
•
• : •. . • .""i:- Jilt"
• •.- e•-r. • __-_47,-1.-...7.•1
1 • -V.••••• - .. •- •• - • • ...
I r •
i Pik!' :' .. 1•:4'. -'-.• • -
•
.- .....•• • .•• • • • .- 1 .
. .. . '-.. . .
• •-.1.•••-7.--'_L-...,7 .. •
1 • .-..
‘ -.• • • .
' ‘ '•
. •-. • • . . .
-% • - ' . . .
• •
. ...-
.. ... •_ .._ .. ._ .
-..
. _.
•
. _.
_ . .• .
. • '---.1-.::11.. -...SA.::..• - '9•:•.•.;-::. ..% . •......!. ...!. . . _.-.•• ..
..,7Ae.....1:....V1.[.. 1..... _ ,.: . . ....•••'r...-- .7 E., ::_:..11".:v24.2i!::F....- -.,.. _. •:7_,. •---•- :•-''......i•.••-- .:
, .. : epei t.7
. . .
Ho
!:...I -' I. kc,-F.-4--;71.: - • ' -' ' -•''I ‘•-•I'••'. ':Hr.'''I: ':.;7..'e:0':'-IT.;O.-.-1-i•'''.-7;4%,.;4:--V.I•WeT,I,'' 9 ....'' . . 1. . ..'•Ng:
.. • . ..,1.... • Ire... ...;I.%a. N'. i?":'lir..... i P.4. r . :
. %. '.• ..•• .% ..3.49tk:r 4..:•- ..T1*.4L, .
.. , ' '; • . .
L •.:.• . ... '4..:-7:% 1?7 "1-4e.-.-_'.....F.,
'!-- 2- •
. ._.- _...
. - .. • --.•
•-..:. • - r .- - ..-- . ----_-•;-..,-„,:• -
-..
•,:. • - .... .
•
.._r.•.
. . . _
' .- .-- .....!•:•if••:::-1-41',N,'--
-r.---.'71 ...1.-., r.r. - . •. .. . . ..
• -
.
•
.
- .
. .
. _
. .
....... ....
,.. •
_. ._.
_ .. ,
......
- . ..
•• ..•
i 1 .•• I --- .. •
... •
...5:'
3
Ir
•
•
-1,-; '
•...
: ._ / , 1.
_ . ...r ....
•
._. :- • -.—.9'...!..:Z-..... ' •- -
.441610,ZIRIN
y _ ._y y -� ' E-- ti '�y,.. ' •Ufa .�
J.
}_ • . { fir rf� i t ; ^V } I.: ,L" j _ 4 . Y+ +:.
1.
f -� -' } ins }, ' �+ 'l�f'� *Y •
�' } ` ' • }} �l
4
•
••• kv.i., •
.. ..kit 'i''' '. .1. `,..." ,. •
.11111111111411111%.. . "1 .
_.
..
.
1,....- : . ... ,. ••• . t• 1.. i- r lir , •."47.. .
• n
Il• ? :. '. . 11 141)% " . .' Vill,
, 4. :.. . . 4 • . .10 • . I• V. .N, . . .. vle,.....ii,
°0- 1 v ir '6pprr- . •
i••Jtj•.n. Elk •.04,'...AI If 1.1
•"" r- -.._ , •i,:•:L ,' . _ -4,..
• •4t. 4
ir' . i ' '.... ' - . --. --• • • 4 .. '.
lOgiii'llt:111"1.:;j4k
011
0-i-4 < . . '' . -.'i. ...• _ ..
itu. i
• , 1 -..
- ., . 7-7 •i. •,._,,...„. ..,
....-
ir. .- ... ••n 14:.k.. ....
I .
• .e%
4'
•. • ' 411 ei- -..&7.
4 . * .... •. ..: . . . . ....v. \pi' _ ,
, • .....
.1.. .
.-
. ... er
,
.-1
. -•
r:=7 ;. 11117—.:/777111.11. . -..-.-
IV ,_
...- __.,- _•
....
. •.: .-.
N
• ....,..
• .
..:...........''''''..i•OP .•' .e.: ;••.-.- • _AlarAil..3:'. .y.i... "d 11 •
.6..
••1 '-'..,X
.... -6..Y431.il. •• .• .•
. -P....,
i
" •r •••,.
• . ir . ..„ ..- -..... •
••.!‘ A i I like,". '..7.1-.4 • .• OP.''''.er .i. '-ai
I.- .. Z_..4 .. 4 • i
- .t... .-;".• .; •- .
.. • .1
... - I
1 .
, .••• ,..."11111 *.. . .., ' 64.:....
- .• . . l
'. -::; J.4.4..6 ...0.' •-•
..r I
••• u,---• •wr. dafr
. IIIP . . .. •
d
•::: =a....., , .;....;..
,.. .• L.- k. ' -: •••.....„_._..., .
- . r .1 M.• •I .I.' '
,
Aer
.. .,.
. r
. . .
-..../..t .0.15 . .
_ . .:...:_• i...... .rtr..,. . .:.. ) .•'.7..:..' 4 u 4.,..t.
4% . .. .
.. ...
.
5
•
..:
•
•
•
, • ! ..."' 60(141‘
i .. - -
4.
..Vi--.4.,..,..-.:-.1,,- • • , ,Q.41.i.••!, E' .." Niii: -
rr`•f ''t ter+ y r 1. .+tom II {
F
•
•
11
:?ti Ir 1
zy':- { r ' #ISM t -1 . - 131. p 1:1 1 l: i'* �r •{ 'x
•
~ M1 J Y
. ,.us _i - - •
, _ ' •
., .. :
LL . ,``.4.? , '. ;, . r ,
#� '-; rd--„1 . +{ . .: , .. . -i:. 1 I • I •
•.
/ F f 1 5,. ,ram - Xi .......4.... y,,�
•... .I'/.Y •.." ._L Y .Y. x "lal..= 5 + I•y. .f- rt ,- _ . a '.y Q '
•
•
. ' r v ylti•.rw. - LN j °S.sa._; ; � ' • . . . _ �+, _ a , ;+ +'
} ; . Wit" '�r_ ±. I .L
•
'• .k4�. f 5 "•- _ y .er „ M1' • — - .
• t I' t. z., ` it _ i ..................... _
.'ti . -+'. •1. i •-. :+1. .I •. .*•:z _,•_ '. • '• :' • .-. 1 . xir. is ` s1ss� . r .-t` . . ;'
6