09/19/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
September 19, 2023 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 326
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 10:37:46
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendments at
Approximately 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036
South Jefferson Street
~ 2:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of
properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson
Street from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-MU
(Residential Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Ballpark Station
Area Master Plan Future Land Use Designations from Medium-Density Residential to
High-Density Residential Mixed Use. The proposed amendments are intended to allow
the property owner to accommodate several multifamily developments. Future
development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may
be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: TAG SLC, LLC
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023
3.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 East 900 South ~ 2:35 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the
property located at 1018 East 900 South from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family
Residential) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential). The proposed
amendments are intended to allow the property owner greater flexibility in housing types
if the property were to be redeveloped. Future development plans were not submitted by
the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District
5. Petitioners: Tina and Evan Jenkins
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023
4.Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives ~ 2:55 p.m.
60 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections
of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and
adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and
reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative
design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned
development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the
RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other
sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes
would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related
sections of the code as part of this proposal.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
5.Tentative Break ~ 3:55 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Ordinance: Residential Parking Permit Program
Amendment ~ 4:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend Section 12.64.040
of the Salt Lake City Code to allow the transportation director to waive the minimum
requirement of eight standard block faces for establishing a parking permit area. The
waiver is proposed to be limited to areas where parking impacts are created by a hospital
or medical building, a university or college building, or a TRAX station. The proposed
text changes could allow for the creation of a residential parking permit program in the
Central Ninth neighborhood. The standard process for creating a residential parking
permit area would still need to be followed including petitions, a parking study, ballot,
public hearing, and multiple public notices
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023
7.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023-24
~ 4:35 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.2 for the Fiscal Year
2023-24. 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 $24.8 million from the first issuance of the Parks, Trails & Open
Space bond for several projects, creation of a new Planning & Design Division in the
Public Lands Department, $2 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rental
Assistance Program, and a new position to facilitate creation of Special Assessment Areas
or SAAs for business districts among other items. The proposed amendment also includes
an ordinance to amend the Annual Compensation Plan for Non-represented Employees.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023
8.Ordinance: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Local Nonprofit
Passthrough Assistance Grant Awards ~ 5:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve the
disbursement of local nonprofit passthrough assistance grant awards from the City’s
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fiscal recovery funds. The grant funds would be
passed through the nonprofits to the local small businesses and artists that are the
ultimate beneficiaries. Applicants must meet eligibility and compliance standards per
federal ARPA guidance.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023
9.Ordinance: Establishing The Justice Court as a Third Branch
of Government ~ 5:40 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would establish the Justice
Court as a third branch of government in Salt Lake City. In May 2023 a new law went
into effect which provides that a justice court must be independent from other branches
of municipal government and may not be treated as part of the executive or legislative
branches of government in a City.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - TBD
Hold hearing to accept public comment - TBD
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
10.Board Appointment: Arts Council Board – Caitlin Tursic ~ 6:00 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Caitlin Tursic prior to considering appointment to the Arts
Council Board for a term ending September 19, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
13.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 15, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay
service 711.
Administrative
Updates
September 19, 2023
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Regularly updated with highlighted
ways to engage with the City.
Community Engagement Highlights
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning slc.gov/planning
Thriving in PlacePublic Lands
•Glendale Regional Park
•Groundbreaking October 26th
•Taufer and Richmond Park
•Survey closed
•Liberty Park Playground
•Evaluating feedback
•Allen Park
•Concept plans in development
•September 20th – designs available and
open house
•Steenblik & Donnor Trail Park
•Evaluation of feedback phase
•Warm Springs and North Gateway
•Engagement beginning
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning slc.gov/planning
Thriving in PlacePublic Utilities
•City Creek Water Treatment Plant Upgrade
•City Creek Canyon Closed this Week
•Construction kick off November 1
•2100 South Project
•Small change to traffic pattern
Arts Council
•2023 Public Art Goals
•Engagement updates
•ADA Workshops
Mayor's Office of Equity and Inclusion
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning slc.gov/planning
Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office
Location Date Time
Sorenson Multi-Cultural Unity Center Sept. 21 4pm-6pm
Madsen Park – Madsen Fall Fest Sept. 23 12pm-2pm
September Community Office Hours
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canSeptember Events
These events are a collection of City sponsored, ACE, and publicly permitted events.
Event Date Event Location
5th Annual Utah LGBTQ+ Economic Summit 09/21/23 South Salt Lake Community Opportunity Center
Twilight Concert Series - Rina Sawayama w/ Empress of, Tom
Rasmussen, and Anais Chantal
09/22/23 Gallivan Center
Sabores de Mi Patria/Flavors of My Homeland Workshop Series 09/22/23 Wasatch Community Gardens' Campus
Downtown Farmers Market 09/23/23 Pioneer Park
URA Summer CHaRM 09/23/23 Hello!Bulk/The Neighborhood Hive
Range 2 River Relay 09/23/23 Gadsby Trailhead
Marmalade Jam Fest 09/23/23 500 N from 300 W to 200 W
Madsen Fall Fest 09/23/23 Madsen Park
Groove in the Grove 09/30/23 Pioneer Police Precinct
Afro Utah Festival 09/30/23 Gallivan center
Downtown Farmers Market 09/30/23 Pioneer Park
Homeless Resource Center Utilization
•Sept 11th-15th HRCs:99.1%
Rapid Intervention/ EIM
•No EIM Plans this week
•Next week - Industrial area location(s)
•43 HEART-tracked camps
•RIT locations:
o VOA Outreach Engagement: 2
o RIT Site Rehabilitations: 6 (+16)
Kayak Court
•Friday Sept 22nd
•@ North Temple-1000 North
(Rain location: Rio Grande St)
Homelessness
Update
Additional System Information:
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to
End Homelessness (SLVCEH)
endutahhomelessness.org/
salt-lake-valley
Utah Office of Homeless
Services (OHS)
jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/
index.html
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:September 19, 2023
RE: 135, 159, 163 West Goltz Avenue, and 1036 South Jefferson Street
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments
PLNPCM2021-01307/01308/01309, PLNPCM2022-00198/00199/00207
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 135, 159, and 163
West Goltz Avenue, and 1035 South Jefferson Street from their current RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multifamily Residential) zoning, with a maximum height of 35 feet, to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use)
which has a maximum residential building height of 75 feet (45 feet for non-residential buildings/uses). In
addition, the proposal calls for amending the 2022 Ballpark Station Area Plan future land use
designations from Medium-Density Residential to High-Density Residential Mixed Use. The proposed
amendments would allow the property owner to construct multifamily developments on the properties,
though no development plans have been submitted.
The petitioner initially submitted applications in 2021 to rezone the subject Goltz Avenue properties and
1061 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). Following
several community comments to Planning staff, most of which opposed FB-UN2 zoning, the petitioner
revised their rezone proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, removed 1061 South Jefferson Street and added 1036
South Jefferson Street to the request. This is summarized in the table below.
Address Current
Zoning
Original
Proposed
Zoning
Current
Proposed
Zoning
Future Land Use
Designation
Proposed Future
Land Use
Designation
135 West Goltz
Avenue
(Vacant property)
RMF-35 FB-UN2 R-MU Medium-Density
Residential
High-Density
Residential
Mixed-Use
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 19, 2023
Set Date: September 19, 2023
Public Hearing: October 3, 2023
Potential Action: October 17, 2023
Page | 2
159 West Goltz
Avenue
(Duplex)
RMF-35 FB-UN2 R-MU Medium-Density
Residential
High-Density
Residential
Mixed-Use
163 West Goltz
Avenue
(Duplex)
RMF-35 FB-UN2 R-MU Medium-Density
Residential
High-Density
Residential
Mixed-Use
1036 South
Jefferson Street
(Single-family)
RMF-35 N/A
(Not part of
original request)
R-MU Medium-Density
Residential
High-Density
Residential
Mixed-Use
1061 South
Jefferson Street
RMF-35 FB-UN2 N/A (Request
removed)
Medium-Density
Residential
N/A
(Request removed)
It is important to note that Mayor Mendenhall initiated a petition to implement Ballpark Station Area
Plan recommendations to rezone the Jefferson Park Mixed Use, Main Street, and Heart of the
Neighborhood areas. The subject parcels are within the Jefferson Park Mixed Use Area which the City
proposes rezoning to FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 1).
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its June 14, 2023 meeting and held a public
hearing at which seven people spoke, all in opposition to the proposal. Concerns cited include:
•Building scale and compatibility,
•Amending the recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan,
•Lack of parking, setbacks, required buffers, and R-MU design standards,
•Shadow and light impacts to adjacent properties,
•Loss of existing middle housing types, and opportunities for owner occupancy.
During their discussion, some Commissioners expressed support for high density development in the area
as there is existing public transit. Other Commissioners were opposed to the proposal stating that R-MU
zoning is too intense for the area. Commissioners opposing the proposal also noted the effort neighborhood
residents put into creation of the Ballpark Station Area Plan.
A motion was made to forward a positive recommendation to the Council for the proposed zoning map and
future land use map amendments. That motion failed due to a tie vote. A motion to forward a negative
recommendation to the Council also failed due to a tie vote. A third motion was made, again to
forward a negative recommendation to the Council. That vote passed with six
Commissioners in support, and four opposed. To provide context to the Council’s discussion,
Planning Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City
Council, noting several areas where the petition was either incompatible with the recently adopted master
plan or incompatible with adjacent properties.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if
the Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in
potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant
if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing
units?
Page | 3
2. The Council may wish to discuss how the forthcoming Affordable Housing incentives overlay
proposal could be utilized to guarantee affordability is included in future projects on this property
that may be more compatible with surrounding properties.
3. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration and petitioner if it would make sense to
request they consider a different zone if added housing units is desired, considering these are mid-
block properties adjacent to lower-scale development.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map.
No site plan has been submitted to the City, nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the
plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be
considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
Salt Lake City Planning provided the following Google Earth image showing the area development pattern
with subject properties outlined.
Existing Conditions
135 West Goltz Avenue
This property is vacant land that is approximately .18 acres. A single-family dwelling which used to be on
the property was demolished in 2022 in preparation for redevelopment. The home was demolished after
the rezone petition was filed but prior to review and approval of a housing loss mitigation plan.
Properties north and west of the property are a mix of low- and moderate-density residential uses.
Jefferson Park is located to the south and east of this property and is zoned Open Space.
159 West Goltz Avenue
A single-story duplex is on this approximately .15-acre parcel. Properties to the east and west of this parcel
are zoned RMF-35 and include low- and moderate-density residential uses. A fourplex is directly east of
Page | 4
this parcel, and a duplex is located directly to the west at 163 West Goltz Avenue. The duplex to the west is
owned by the petitioner and included in the proposed rezone and master plan amendment.
163 West Goltz Avenue
As noted above, this parcel is directly west of 159 West Goltz Avenue. It is approximately .15 acres and
includes a single-story duplex. The previously mentioned duplex to the east, and a single-family residential
dwelling to the west are both zoned RMF-35. A six-story multifamily development zoned R-MU is across
Goltz Avenue to the north, and Jefferson Park is located to the south of this property.
1036 South Jefferson Street
This .17-acre RMF-35 parcel is located mid-block and includes a single-family residential dwelling.
Surrounding uses are a mixture of low-, medium, and high-density residential. Properties immediately to
the north, south, and east are zoned RMF-35 include single-family residential dwellings. Properties to the
west are zoned R-MU and RMF-35. A four-story multifamily residential development and single-family
homes are on those properties.
Because homes on the subject properties will be demolished as part of the proposal, City Code requires
housing loss mitigations plans. These plans were reviewed and approved by the Community and
Neighborhoods Department Director and are included in Attachment H (pages 69-84) of the Planning
Commission staff report. The petitioner proposes constructing replacement housing to satisfy the loss of
existing dwelling units.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 9-18 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1 – How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in
adopted plans.
Planning reviewed how the proposal aligns with Plan Salt Lake (2015), Growing SLC (2017), and the
Ballpark Station Area Plan (2022).
Plan Salt Lake (2015)
It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposal aims to increase residential density near transit and open
space called for in Plan Salt Lake. It would also allow for retail, service commercial, and small office use,
adding neighborhood amenities that could be accessed by walking, bicycling, or transit.
However, Planning also noted that the subject properties are scattered mid-block within an established
neighborhood of primarily single-family, two-family, and small multifamily dwellings. The proposed R-MU
zoning would allow high-density buildings up to 75 feet tall, which would significantly impact the
neighborhood. It would reduce the mix of middle housing in the immediate area. Current structures on the
subject parcels are duplexes and a single-family home. Planning staff believes the existing dwellings are
naturally occurring affordable housing, due to their character rather than being restricted by covenant.
Losing these units would be a loss of affordable housing stock, which is already limited.
Growing SLC (2017)
Planning staff found the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments would result in reduced
alignment with policies found in Growing SLC that “promote diversifying housing options, increasing
Page | 5
housing options, restoring “missing middle” housing types, and enabling moderate density increases while
minimizing neighborhood impacts.”
Planning noted large areas of the Ballpark Station area are designed for high-density mixed-use
development. The only area designated for medium density development for missing middle housing is
where the subject properties are located. Approval of the proposal would eliminate the medium density
residential designation for the four properties and reduce housing options for the neighborhood and an
ability to restore missing middle housing.
Ballpark Station Area Plan (2022)
The recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan future land use map and descriptions calls for larger 5-7
story buildings to be located along corridors where large building forms are, along the TRAX line, or on
West Temple. The plan recommends smaller 2-3 story medium-density buildings in the Jefferson Park
area.
It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments do not align
with the Ballpark Station Area Plan goals and strategies to provide a variety of housing types and balanced
mix of uses.
Consideration 2 – Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
Planning staff noted the proposed R-MU zoning designation would allow buildings up to 75 feet tall
adjacent to low- to medium-density residential structures with a current maximum height of 35 feet. R-MU
zoning does not include architectural or site design requirements such as building scale transitions or
required buffer yards. The Planning Commission staff report stated, “If the proposal is approved, new high-
density development on the subject properties would fragment the small-scale single family and middle
housing development pattern and character found within the interior of the block.” (Planning Commission
staff report page 18.)
It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning map amendment from RMF-35 to R-MU, and the
associated future land use amendment from medium density residential to high density mixed use is not
compatible with adjacent properties, the block’s development pattern, or the neighborhood’s development
intent.
ZONING COMPARISON
Attachment D (pages 24-26) of the Planning Commission staff report includes the following table
comparing current and proposed zoning districts. It is replicated here for convenience.
Regulation Existing Zoning (RMF-35)Proposed Zoning (R-MU)
Lot Area/Width Multi-Family Dwellings 3-11 units:
9,000 SF/80 FT
Multi-Family Dwellings 12 or more
units: 26,000 SF/80 FT
Single-Family attached dwellings (3 or
more): 3,000 SF per unit/22 FT for
interior lot & 32 FT for corner lot
Single-Family detached dwellings:
5,000 SF
Twin home dwellings: 4,000 SF
Two-Family dwellings: 8,000 SF
Multi-Family Dwellings: No minimum
lot area required/50 FT
Single-Family Attached (3 or more):
3,000 SF per 1 unit/22 FT for interior
lot & 32 FT corner lot
Single-Family Detached: 5,000 SF/50
FT
Twin Home Dwelling: 4,000 SF/25 FT
Two-Family Dwelling: 8,000 SF/50FT
Non-Residential Uses: No
Minimum/No Minimum
Page | 6
Other permitted or conditional uses in
21A.33.020: 5,000 SF/50 FT
Other permitted or conditional uses in
21A.33.020 - 5,000 SF/50 FT
Minimum Front/Corner Side yard
Setback
All Uses: Min. 20 FT Front yard/ Min.
10 FT corner side yard
*All required front and corner side
yards shall be maintained as
landscape yards in conformance with
the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of
this title
Single-Family Detached, Single-
Family Attached, Two-Family, & Twin
Home: Min. 15 FT Front yard/ Min.
10 FT corner side yard
Multifamily Dwellings & Other
Residential Uses:
No front or corner side yard setback
required.
Nonresidential Development: No front
or corner side yard setback required
Maximum Front and Corner Side Yard
Setback
No specific maximum setback
requirements
Single-Family Detached, Single-
Family Attached, Two-Family, & Twin
Home: At least 25% of the building
façade must be located with 25 FT of
the front lot line.
All other uses: At least 25% of the
building façade must be located within
15 FT of the front lot line.
*Exceptions to this requirement may
be authorized through the Design
Review Process.
Interior Side Yard Setback Single-Family detached & two-family
dwellings: Corner Lot: Min. 4 FT,
Interior Lot: Min 4 FT on one side and
Min 10 FT on the other
Single-Family Attached: No interior
side yard required, if a yard is
provided it shall not be less than 4 FT
Two-Family: Corner Lot: Min. 4 FT,
Interior Lot: Min 4 FT on one side and
10 FT on the other
Twin Home: No interior side yard
required along one side, a Min. 10 FT
is required on the other side.
Multifamily Dwellings: Minimum 10
FT on each side
All other permitted and conditional
uses: Min. 10 FT on each side
Single-Family Detached, Corner Lot:
Min. 4 FT,
Interior Lot: Min 4 FT on one side and
Min 10 FT on the other
Single-Family Attached: No interior
side yard required, if a yard is
provided it shall not be less than 4 FT
Two-Family: Corner Lot: Min. 4 FT,
Interior Lot: Min 4 FT on one side and
10 FT on the other
Twin Home: No interior side yard
required along one side, a Min. 10 FT
is required on the other side.
Multifamily Dwellings & Other
Residential Uses:
No interior side yard setback required
Nonresidential Development: No
interior side yard setback required
Rear Yard Setback All Uses: Minimum of 25% of the lot
depth, up to 25 FT, but not less than
20 FT
Single-Family Detached, Min. 25% of
the lot depth, up to 20 FT
Single-Family Attached, Two-Family,
& Twin Home: Min. 25% of lot depth
or 25 FT, whichever is less
Multifamily Dwellings & Other
Residential Uses: Min. 25% of the lot
depth, up to 30 FT
Nonresidential Development: Min.
25% of the lot depth, up to 30 FT
Page | 7
Parking Setback Front and corner side lot lines:
Parking prohibited between front lot
line and corner side lot line.
Interior Side Lot Line: 0 FT or 10 FT
when abutting any 1-2 family
residential district.
Rear Lot Line: 0 FT
Front and Corner Side Lot Lines:
Surface Parking Lots: 30 FT minimum
landscape setback from the front
property or corner side property line.
Parking Structures – 45 FT minimum
landscape setback from a front or
corner side yard property line or be
located behind the primary structure.
Interior Side Lot Line: 0 FT or 10 FT
when abutting any 1-2 Family
Residential District.
Rear Lot Line: 0 FT or 10 FT when
abutting any 1-2 Family Residential
District
Building Height Maximum Building Height – 35 FT Residential Building Height –
Max. 75 FT
Non-Residential Buildings/Uses –
45 FT
(Maximum floor area coverage of
nonresidential uses in mixed use
buildings is limited to the first 3
floors)
Maximum Building Coverage of All
Principal and Accessory Buildings
Single-Family Detached: Max. 45%
Single-Family Attached: Max. 60%
Two-Family & Twin Home Dwellings:
Max. 50%
Multifamily Dwellings: Max 60%
Non-Residential Land Uses: Max 60%
No specific building coverage
regulations.
Open Space No specific open space regulations Residential uses and mixed uses
containing residential use a min. of
20% of the lot area shall be
maintained as an open space area.
Landscape Buffers When a lot abuts a lot in a Single
Family or Two Family residential
district, a 10-foot landscape buffer
shall be provided.
Analysis of Factors
Attachment E (pages 31-33) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map
amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning
Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
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.
Does not comply.
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Does not comply.
Page | 8
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Does not comply.
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Not applicable.
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
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the
proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the property is developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• January 18, 2022 – Applications to rezone properties from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 submitted and
assigned to staff.
• February 10, 2022 – Planning staff determines the proposed FB-UN2 zone does not align with the
Central Community Master Plan future land use map. For consistency between the proposed
zoning district and the master plan, a master plan amendment would be necessary.
• April 4, 2022 – Master plan amendment petitions submitted and assigned to staff.
• April 12, 2022 – Public notice sent to chairs of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils,
and surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Open
house page posted to the Planning Division website.
• May 5, 2022 – Applicant presents proposal to a joint Ballpark and Central 9th Community Council
meeting. Community members expressed concerns with density, parking, and building height.
• May 17, 2022 – Applicant requested the applications be put on hold to evaluate an alternative
zoning amendment proposal.
• October 2022 – Ballpark Station Area Plan adopted by the City Council.
• December 5, 2022 – Applicant informed Planning staff they would like to revise the rezone
proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, remove 1061 South Jefferson Street and add 1036 South
Jefferson Street to the application.
• January 2023 - February 2023 – Applicant worked with Planning staff to submit revised
applications to rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 to R-MU and amend the Ballpark
Station Area Plan future land use map land use designations for the subject properties from
medium-density residential to high-density residential mixed-use.
• March 6, 2023 – Public notice regarding the updated zoning map and master plan amendment
requests sent to Ballpark and Central 9th Community Council chairs, and to surrounding property
owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Updated open house page posted
on the Planning Division website.
• May 11, 2023 – Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing sent to property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission public
Page | 9
hearing property signs posted at the subject properties.
• May 17, 2023 – Applicant requests to postpone the public hearing to the next Planning
Commission agenda.
• June 1, 2023 - Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is sent to property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission public
hearing property signs posted at the subject properties.
• June 14, 2023 – Petitions reviewed by Planning Commission and a public hearing is held. The
Commission votes 6-4 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.
• June 23, 2023 – Draft ordinance requested of and received from the City Attorney’s Office.
• August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: 08/08/2023
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 08/08/2023
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: TAG SLC Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at approximately 135, 159, and
163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street – Petitions PLNPCM2021-01307,
PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-
00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207
STAFF CONTACT: Brooke Olson, Principal Planner
brooke.olson@slcgov.com or (801)-535-7118
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation from the Planning
Commission and deny the requested zoning map and master plan amendments.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: TAG SLC, LLC is requesting the following Master Plan and
Zoning Map Amendments for the properties located at approximately 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz
Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street:
1. Ballpark Station Area Plan Amendments: To amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan,
Future Land Use Designations of the subject properties from Medium Density
Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use.
2. Zoning Map Amendments: To rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multifamily Residential Zoning District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use).
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
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:36 MDT)
The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to accommodate several
multifamily developments. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this
time. The proposed Zoning Map and Master plan amendment request includes four properties.
Three of the four are located along the south side of Goltz Avenue. The other is located on the
west side of Jefferson Street. It should be noted that the applicant submitted the applications in
2021 with a request to rezone the properties at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1061 S
Jefferson Street from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). Staff received
several comments from the community regarding the request to rezone the properties to FB-UN2
(see Attachment F in the staff report), the majority of which voiced opposition to the proposal. In
late 2022 the applicant revised their rezone proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, removed 1061 S
Jefferson Street and added 1036 S Jefferson Street to the request.
Vicinity Map
HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION:
The applicant was required to submit a housing loss mitigation plan as part of this request, per
Chapter 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a housing loss mitigation plan is
approved by the city before any petition is approved for a zoning change that would permit a
nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units. A
housing loss mitigation plan is required for this petition because the R-MU zone allows
nonresidential uses.
Options for mitigating residential housing loss include providing replacement housing, paying a
fee to the City’s housing trust fund based on the difference between the housing value and
replacement cost of building new units, and, where deteriorated housing exists and is not caused
by deliberate indifference of the landowner, the petitioner may pay a flat fee to the City’s
housing trust fund. The applicant intends to provide replacement housing.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Previous rezone request – FB-UN2
• March 3, 2022 – The Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils were sent the 45 day
required notice for recognized community organizations. Property owners and residents
within 300 ft of the development were provided early notification of the proposal.
• May 5, 2022 – The Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils discussed the petitions
at a joint Community Council meeting. Several community members voiced concerns
regarding the density, height, and parking regulations of the FB-UN2 zoning district. In
general, the community voiced opposition to the proposal.
• March 2022 – March 2023 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage.
Current rezone request – R-MU
• March 6, 2023 - An early notification was sent to the Ballpark and Central 9th
Community Councils and all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject
property.
• April 20, 2023 - Staff met with the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils to
present the project and gather feedback from the community. The Community Councils
provided letters of opposition for the project.
• June 14, 2023 - The Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a
negative recommendation to amend the zoning map and Ballpark Station Area Plan for
the subject properties to the City Council for their review and decision.
Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation
On June 14, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing.
The following are some of the key topics that were discussed. This is a summary only. The full
public hearing can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IdalcOM0dg
• 7 members of the public spoke in opposition of the petitions including a representative of the
Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils. Members of the public voiced concerns
regarding:
o Building scale and neighborhood compatibility
o Changing the recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan, which has not been implemented.
o Lack of parking, setbacks, buffer requirements and design standards of the R-MU zone.
o Shadow and light impacts on adjacent properties.
o Loss of existing housing, middle housing types, and opportunities for owner occupancy.
• A petition was submitted by neighbors within the vicinity of the project site (see attachments)
which includes 19 signatures in opposition of the proposal.
• During the Commission’s discussion, several commissioners voiced support for the proposal
with the determination that the area should support high density development due to the
existing public transit infrastructure in the area.
• Several commission members also voiced opposition to the proposal with the determinations
the development regulations of the R-MU zone are too intense for the subject properties and
surrounding area. The Commission members in opposition also acknowledged the time and
effort members of the neighborhood contributed to creating the Ballpark Station Area Plan,
and emphasized that the community’s recently established vision for the neighborhood
should be respected.
• The Commission voted threes times before a motion was passed. The first two motions failed
due to tied votes with 5 yes votes and 5 no votes. The third motion passed and the
Commission voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council, with 6 yes
votes and 4 no votes.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access)
b) PC Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Comments received after the publication of the Planning Commission Staff Report
4) Ordinance
5) Original Petition
6) Mailing List
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. COMMENTS NOT INCLUDED WITH PC STAFF REPORT
4. ORDINANCE
5. ORIGINAL PETITIONS
6. MAILING LIST
1. Project Chronology
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309,
PLNPCM2022- 00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207
Nov. 2021 Salt Lake City initiated the creation of a small area plan within the Ballpark
Neighborhood, The Ballpark Station Area Plan.
Jan. 18, 2021 Zoning Map Amendment petitions (PLNPCM2021-01307, -01308, & -01309) to
rezone the properties at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1061 South Jefferson
Street from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 are assigned to Brooke Olson, Principal Planner.
Feb. 10, 2022 Planning Staff determines that the proposed rezones to FB-UN2 do not align with the
applicable adopted Master Plan, the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land
Use Map. For consistency between the proposed zoning district and the master plan, a
Master Plan Amendment petition would be necessary.
Feb. 22, 2022 Planning Staff Requests Housing Loss Mitigation Plan
Apr. 4, 2022 Master Plan Amendment petitions (PLNPCM2022- 00198, -00199, & -00207) are
assigned to Brooke Olson, Principal Planner
Apr. 5, 2022 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment petitions are deemed complete after the
applicant submits Master Plan Amendment and Housing Loss Mitigation Plans for the
proposal.
Apr. 12, 2022 Public notice regarding this request is sent to the chairs of the Ballpark and Central 9th
Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’
of the subject properties. An Open House page is also posted on the Division’s website.
May 5, 2022 The applicant presents the proposal at a joint Ballpark and Central 9th Community
Council meeting. Several community members voiced concerns regarding the density,
height, and parking regulations of the FB-UN2 zoning district. In general, the
community voiced opposition to the proposal.
May 17, 2022 The applicant contacted staff and requested to place the applications on hold to evaluate
an alternative zoning amendment proposal.
Oct. 2022 The Ballpark Station Area Plan was adopted by Salt Lake City Council.
Dec. 5, 2022 The applicant informed staff they were ready to move forward and revise their rezone
proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use, remove 1061 South Jefferson
Street and add 1036 S Jefferson Street to the application.
Jan. 2022 –
Feb. 2023
The applicant worked with staff to submit their revised applications to rezone the
subject properties from RMF-35 to R-MU and to amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan,
future land use designations of the subject properties from medium density residential
to high density residential mixed use.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
Mar. 6, 2023 Public notice regarding the updated zoning map and master plan amendment requests
are sent to the chairs of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils, and to
surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. An
updated Open House page is also posted on the Division’s website.
May 11, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is sent to property owners and
occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission
public hearing property signs are also posted at the subject properties.
May 17, 2023 Applicant requests to postpone the public hearing for the petitions to the next Planning
Commission agenda.
June 1, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is sent to property owners and
occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission
public hearing property signs are also posted at the subject properties.
June 14, 2023 The petitions are heard by the Planning Commission, and they vote 6 to 4 to forward a
recommendation of denial to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning map and
master plan amendments.
June 23, 2023 Draft ordinance requested and received from the City Attorney’s Office.
June 28, 2023 The Planning Commission ratifies the minutes for their meeting on June 14, 2023.
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308,
PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207–
TAG SLC, LLC is requesting the following Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments for the properties
located at approximately 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street:
1. Ballpark Station Area Plan Amendments: To amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan, Future Land Use
Designations of the subject properties from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential
Mixed Use. (Petitions PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207)
2. Zoning Map Amendments: To rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multifamily Residential Zoning District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). (Petitions
PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, & PLNPCM2021-01309)
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments
regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue
will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of
the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including
WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments
may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an
email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared
with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Brooke
Olson at 801-535-7118 or via e-mail at brooke.olson@slcgov.com. The application details can be
accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the
petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309,
PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, or PLNPCM2022-00207
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. Comments Received After Publication of
PC Staff Report
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Olson, Brooke
(EXTERNAL) 135, 159, 163 W Goltz Avenue, & 1036 S Jefferson Street Rezones and Ballpark Station Area Master
Plan Amendment
Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:53:33 PM
Hello Brooke,
This letter is from an informal group of neighbors called Friends of Jefferson Park that live around and use the park. We are not in favor
of the Rezone and Master Plan Amendments that TAG SLC Is requesting on their lots on Goltz Ave and Jefferson Street. We do not feel
that the proposed rezones would have a positive impact on Jefferson Park or the greater neighborhood. The requested rezones increase
the density and height allowed on these lots dramatically over the surrounding lots. It would also allow much higher buildings abuting
Jefferson Park with little to no setbacks that would help preserve this unique and needed green space in the neighborhood. Jefferson
Park and the surrounding neighborhoods are quiet residential streets. The zoning road map laid out in the Ballpark Station Area Master
Plan should be adopted and followed. This ensures that future growth in these areas happens in a way that meshes with the current built
environment and allows for additional density and missing middle housing.
We are in favor of investment in the area and additional density and neighbors to use and love Jefferson Park. We don't think these
zoning changes should be made to individual lots that could impact neighbors and the Park so drastically. The zoning in the Ballpark
Station Area Master Plan seems to be the right fit for these lots and would encourage development that will someday enhance and be a
positive on Jefferson Park.
Please consider these comments from our neighborhood group and many other neighbors, and hopefully recommend against this rezone
to the Planning Commission.
Thank you for your time and hard work on this matter,
Friends of Jefferson Park
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
O so B ooke
(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Commun ty Council Letter on the TAG-SLC Rezones on Jefferson and Goltz Ave
Wednesday June 14 2023 12:55:40 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission,
We, the Ballpark Community Council, wish to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezone and master plan amendments for the three properties mentioned: 135 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01308), 159 & 163 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01307), and 1036 S Jefferson Street (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01309). After careful consideration and consultation with our community members, we have concluded that these changes are not in the best interest of our neighborhood.
Our concerns primarily revolve around the potential negative impacts of high-density residential mixed-use developments in this area. We believe that such developments would result in increased traffic congestion, decreased parking availability, and a strain
on existing infrastructure and resources. Also the proposed changes would allow for development that would no be consistent with properties already in the area, as you can see in the image attached to this email.
We urge the Commission to consider the views and concerns of the Ballpark Community Council and its residents before making any decisions regarding these zoning and master plan amendments. We believe that sustainable and responsible development should be prioritized, taking into account the well-being and livability of the existing community.
Sincerely,
Ballpark Community Council
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Olson, Brooke
(EXTERNAL) Letter for the TAG-SLC Rezones & Master Plan Amendments on Goltz and Jefferson St
Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:40:09 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
To the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,
We, the Central 9th Community Council, wish to express our opposition
to the proposed master plan amendments for the three properties
mentioned: 135 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01308), 159 &
163 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01307), and 1036 S
Jefferson Street (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01309). After careful
consideration and consultation with our community members, we have
concluded that these amendments are not in the best interest of our
neighborhood.
Our concerns primarily revolve around the fact that the master plan
for the area has not been finalized, and the proposed amendments would
prematurely dictate the future development of the neighborhood. We
believe it is essential to engage in a comprehensive and inclusive
planning process that involves meaningful community input before
making any significant amendments to the master plan. Rushing into
changes without a thorough understanding of the long-term implications
could have detrimental effects on the neighborhood's character,
livability, and sustainability.
Sincerely,
Central 9th Community Council
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Planning Public Comments
(EXTERNAL) TAG SLC Master Plan and Zoning Map
Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:15:54 AM
Dear Planning Commission
I am writing you in reference to an item on the agenda for tonights meeting. The item is
PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022- 00198,
PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments
I am writing in support of the staff recommendation to not permit the up-zone of the parcels in
question. As the Ballpark Station Area Plan notes this area is zoned for medium density
development, which I think is appropriate.
A salient point is that these proposed re-zone is adjacent to the only existing public park in the
neighborhood. A potential 7 or 8 story building allowed in the proposed RMU zoning,
looming over this park will adversely impact the park users experience very negatively in my
opinion. I believe a three story building would be much more appropriate for this location.
Thanks for considering my comments.
Best regards
Bill Davis - ex-officio Chair
Ballpark Community Council
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Olson, Brooke
Re: (EXTERNAL) Request to meet
Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:38:53 PM
image001.png
Hi Brooke
I am traveling on business but should be able to call from the airport Thursday around 2 — would that
work?
Fraser
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:43 PM Olson, Brooke <Brooke.Olson@slcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Fraser,
Thank you for reaching out. I would be happy to set up a call with you tomorrow or Thursday to discuss
the City’s process. I have availability tomorrow or Thursday afternoon. Please let me know what
timeframes will work for you.
Thank you,
BROOKE OLSON | (She/Her/Hers)
Principal Planner
PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Office: (801) 535-7118
Email: Brooke.olson@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV
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: Fraser Nelson <
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 5:53 PM
To: Olson, Brooke <brooke.olson@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Request to meet
Hi Brooke,
First I'd like to thank you for your presentation on Wednesday 6/17/2023 to the city council regarding
the TAG SLC, LLC rezones and that is the cause of my concern, the tiny section of the
Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area that is contradictory worded and the entire basis of TAG SLC's
argument. Here is the text in full with what I believe the alterations should be:
Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area
The area encompassing approximately east of the 200 West TRAX line to the West
Temple corridor and Paxton Avenue to Mead Avenue to the north is characterized by a
mix of housing types and commercial uses. Redevelopment of the area should support
a live/work/play community by providing a mix of uses and building scales. Larger
building forms are appropriate along corridors where large building forms are already
present or where it is abutting of the TRAX line on 200 West or along the West Temple
corridor. These larger building forms should consist of approximately 5-7 stories
and provide some commercial spaces/residential amenities. Smaller building scales
should be focused on areas adjoining Jefferson Street and avenue streets; smaller
building scales should generally consist of 2-3 stories and almost entirely comprised of
medium-density residential uses.
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
The map above is the entire area used with the rezoning proposals later on, all 1.5 square blocks of it.
With these two things combined it is evident that the "spirit" of this description is that 5-7 story mixed
use type structures belong on West Temple and 200 W and 2-3 story residential structures on Jefferson
St (specifically mentioned above) and surrounding avenues: Fremont Ave, Goltz Ave, Mead Ave, and
Paxton Ave being the only 4 avenues in this area. Those 8 little words destroy this design/vision because
of C9 Flats existence and location, it currently gives developers the opening and justification to put 5-7
story mixed use type structures on ANY lot north of the park and in the future when a single R-MU
structure is built anywhere south of the park.
In conclusion, I would appreciate any information you could give me as to what I can do or can be done
in general to get this section amended before it is finalized.
Thank you for your time.
-Lee Anderson
m ub c RN P e W M
Caut on Th s s an xte na ma P e se be caut us wh n c ck g n s o open ng at achmen s
Good mo n ng B ooke
I went o can t ose pet t on pa es tod y ut I fo got my ew compu e w not wo k w th s sca ne I se d a co p e pho os but I an p obab y sc n t un h t me I w a so b ng Pe e on ocumen s o the meet ng oday
Tha k yo ! -Cha es But on
Th s s a pet t on a ga n t e on ng f om med um d ns ty to h gh ens ty s ent a m ed use Th se s gna u es a e f om ne ghbo s d ect y su ou d ng he ezon ng a eas th y a e not f e s gn tu es
4. Ordinance
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2023
(Amending the zoning of properties located at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036
South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to
R-MU Residential Mixed Use District, and amending the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan
Future Land Use Descriptions)
An ordinance pertaining to properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue
and 1036 South Jefferson Street (the “Properties”) as legally described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto, amending the zoning map from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential
District to R-MU Residential Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2021-
01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, and PLNPCM2021-01309 and amending the Ballpark Station
Area Master Plan Future Land Use Descriptions from Medium Density Residential to High
Density Residential Mixed Use pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-
00199, and PLNPCM2022-00207.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on June 14, 2023 on an application submitted by TAG SLC, LLC (“Applicant”) to
rezone Properties from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU
Residential Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-
01308, and PLNPCM2021-01309, and to amend the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future
Land Use Descriptions with respect to the Properties from Medium Density Residential to High
Density Residential Mixed Use pursuant to Petition Nos PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-
00199, and PLNPCM2022-00207; and
WHEREAS, at its June 14, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend
that the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) deny 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 RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-
MU Residential Mixed Use District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Descriptions of the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change
the future land use designation of the Propertes identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from
Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use.
SECTION 3. Condition. Approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the Applicant
entering into a development agreement requiring Applicant to replace any dwellings demolished
on the Property with at least as many dwelling units as will be demolished.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has
been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with
Utah Code Section 10-3-713. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record
this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 3 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake
City Planning Director or his designee.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on .
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2023.
Published: .
Ordinance amending zoning and MP 135 159 163 W Goltz Ave
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: June 23, 2023
By:
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
EXHIBIT “A”
Affects properties located at
135 West Goltz Avenue
Tax ID No. 15-12-428-016-0000
LOTS 16 17 & E 1/2 LOT 18 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB
CONTAINS 8,276 SQUARE FEET OR 0.19 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
159 West Goltz Avenue
Tax ID No. 15-12-428-012-0000
LOTS 24 & 25 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB
CONTAINS 6,534 SQUARE FEET OR 0.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
163 West Goltz Avenue
Tax ID No. 15-12-428-011-0000
LOTS 26 & 27 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB
CONTAINS 6,534 SQUARE FEET OR 0.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
1036 South Jefferson Street
Tax ID No. 15-12-408-015-0000
LOTS 1 & 21, BLK 3, WEST DRIVE SUB
CONTAINS 7,405 SQUARE FEET OR 0.17 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
5. Original Petitions
8FTU (PMU[ "WFOVF
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
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): 135 W Goltz Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152
E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax:
Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:
✔ Owner Contractor Architect
Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner: Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ, plus fees for newspaper notice.
Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is
submitted.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Updated ϴ/2ϭ/2ϬϮϭ
Zoning Amendment
SA
L
T
LA
K
E
CI
T
Y
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
Name of Applicant:
TAG SLC, LLC
Phone:
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the
Amendments ordinance.)
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.
Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online.
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.
hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϮϭͬϮϬϮϭ
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
✔
St
a
f
f
Re
v
i
e
w
!" # $ %&' Ÿ ( $ #
) *+,-./-)012
3 4 56 789 : 3 4 56 9 &%!; 4 <9
= !"# $ %&' 9
>1-?/->@)A+B-CD-*)1)E+0F+0*)@G?C+)0
% $!"HIJ; 4 &%! % 8K!% % L9
yz{| }~€
= !" '54 9 ‚ƒ}„}…~†‡ˆ ‰„ & ! 9 Š‹yŒŽŠŒ‹
% $!" '54 9 ¡œ~¢{‹£Žˆ¤’€‰’“”„€¥ˆ¦‚Šy{
MN 5'!" '54 9 O 'PQ 9 ‘’“”•€’–—˜™˜~š zyŒ{‹ŒzŠy
'54 R$S % $ 5 HIJ; 4 &%! % 89
Ÿ TU % O! % 4 !% %4 5 4 T %9
= !"&%! % 8TU %K5" 5" % "%! '54 L9
>VWXYWZ[\W 5 5! '5 "!% 5! 8J % ]I5% J8 %!; 4 ' % ! $I% ]I
5 "!% 5! 5$ %!65 "!%$ " '8$5$^ '5 "!% 5! % ]I5% "!%$ " '8$5$U5'J 4! 5
IJ'54_5 4'I 5 ` %!" $5! ' %4 5 4 I% '!% `5 %5 ` % U5 `$_"!% I% !$ $!" IJ'54
% 65 U J8 85 % $ % 8^
?A?+1?a1-,)0/.1C?C+)0
&' %$ % 6 5' J' "!%4! $I' 5! %5!% !$IJ 5 5 ` 5$ '54 5! ^&' $ 5'
b! 5 `c$'4`!6^4! 5"8!I 6 8]I $ 5! $% ` % 5 ` % ]I5% $!" 5$ '54 5! ^
@-d.+@-B*-
Q5'5 `" !"efgh 'I$eiji % 4% 5 4 $!"! 4% ^
eik"!% U$ % ! 54 ^
&'I$_ 5 5! '" "!% 5' IJ'54 ! 54 $^# 5'5 `" $U5'J $ $ " % '54 5! 5$IJ 5 ^
/+F0?C.@-
l S" '54 J' _ ! %5b $ !"4! $ I !%5b5 ` '54 ! 4 $ ` U5'J % ]I5% ^
mn
o
p
o
n
q
r
s
t
p
u
v
o
n
w
w
t
wx
#$ %&'()*+,)-*&./+.'0123 4 56 7 89 346 4 3 5 :89 5 3;<=
>?@ABCD?EF?GBHGH@?IJK@E?BGLKMKJ?MIJ?MEN
O@EKE?J?MEI?ALKBCMPEF?GQBGH@?RHBEF?KJ?MIJ?MEN
S 53 : 6; 6 2: 4 9 T 4 :23 9: UV : 4 T 97 9W<
X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 Y 97Z4 [ 2\
X 48]23 4 3 4 6 2 :5 39VT^ :4 8^ 56 9W 7<
X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 _ 8 6 T 4 :23 9\
X 48]23 4 953V7 _ 5 3 9WV W 8^ 56 9W 7<
e 23;893 9 6:8VW6 6 d.+.f)0 *)-%'&+gh
+:+; +, -. /0 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 / 7 4 8 - - 8 - /
, / / 9 0 - 8 4 8 - 7 7 0 - / /
8 -. 0
<
<
<
<
801-478-0662
801-478-0662
Jake@tagslc.com
" @/7; C4 ED;71/BJ
DD;71/BJ I
)GCDCI32 )GCD3GJQ -I3
TAG SLC, LLC
Jacob Billitteri 03/08/2022
)G3 23@C;7J7CB *3137N32 Q !/J3 *3137N32
)GC931J '/@3
.CB7B5
22G3II C4 +K0931J )GCD3GJQ
'/@3 C4 DD;71/BJ
22G3II C4 DE;71/BJ
)6CB3
PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152
7B +K0931J )GCD3GJQ
% 3;; #/P
✔ (OB3G CBJG/1JCG G167J31J (J63G
'/@3 C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G 74 27443G3BJ 4GC@ /DD<71/BJ
" @/7< C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G )6CB3
Single-Family Residence (RMF-35)
Multi-Family Residence (FBUN-2)
7
B
4
C
G
@
/
J7
C
B
7
J
I
6
D
/
G
J
C
/
N
2
72
2
3
7J
2
7C
4
B
C
/
G
<
IJ
7B
/
4
4
C
4
G
/
@
B/
/
;
J
Q
7C
I7
B
I
@
/
<
Q
< 7
0
B
3
4C
G
G
3
@
F
/
K
J
7G
7C
3
B
2
G
0
3
Q
F
J
K
6
7G
3
3
D
2
G
4
C
C
9
G
31
I
J
J/
D
4
;
4
/
/
B
B
B
/
3
<
G
QI
J
7
C
I O
3B
7<
I
;
K
0
G
3
3
1
/
C
2
D
3
7
F
3
K
2 /
/
J
B
3
2
G
@
3
/
N
2
73
3
O
D
0
K0
Q
?
/
71
B
Q
7 B
7 B
1 ;
J
K
3
2
G
7
3
B
I
5
J 3
D
2
G C
D
4
/
3
G
I
J
I
Q
7
CB/< /G167J31JKG/< CG 3B57B33G7B5 2G/O7B5I 4CG J63 DKGDCI3I C4 EL0=71
T $4 /DD;71/0;3 / BCJ/G7R32 IJ/J3@3BJ C4 1CBI3BJ /KJ6CG7S7B5 /DD;71/BJ JC /1J /I /B /53BJ O7;< 03 G3FM7G32
+75B/JKG3 C4 (OB3G CG 53BJ
135 W Goltz Ave
"P7IJ7B5 )GCD3HJQ -I3
8FTU (PMU[ "WFOVF
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
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): 159-163 W Goltz Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152
E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax:
Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:
✔ Owner Contractor Architect
Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner: Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ, plus fees for newspaper notice.
Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is
submitted.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Updated ϴ/2ϭ/2ϬϮϭ
Zoning Amendment
SA
L
T
LA
K
E
CI
T
Y
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
Name of Applicant: Somewhere OTR, LLC
Phone:
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the
Amendments ordinance.)
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.
Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online.
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.
hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϮϭͬϮϬϮϭ
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
✔
St
a
f
f
Re
v
i
e
w
!" # $ %&' ¡ ( $ #
) *+,-./-)012
3 4 56 789 : 3 4 56 9 &%!; 4 <9
= !"# $ %&' 9
>1-?/->@)A+B-CD-*)1)E+0F+0*)@G?C+)0
% $!"HIJ; 4 &%! % 8K!% % L9
yz{|y}y~y}€ ‚ƒ„…
% $!" '54 9 ¢Œ ž‚£z”‘}{“†–ƒ„Ž–—ˆŸ„¤¥¦’yz” MN 5'!" '54 9 O 'PQ 9 y”|z‘|}y •–—ˆ˜„–™šƒ›œ›‚‡
'54 R$S % $ 5 HIJ; 4 &%! % 89
¡ TU % O! % 4 !% %4 5 4 T %9
= !"&%! % 8TU %K5" 5" % "%! '54 L9
>VWXYWZ[\W 5 5! '5 "!% 5! 8J % ]I5% J8 %!; 4 ' % ! $I% ]I
5 "!% 5! 5$ %!65 "!%$ " '8$5$^ '5 "!% 5! % ]I5% "!%$ " '8$5$U5'J 4! 5
IJ'54_5 4'I 5 ` %!" $5! ' %4 5 4 I% '!% `5 %5 ` % U5 `$_"!% I% !$ $!" IJ'54
% 65 U J8 85 % $ % 8^
?A?+1?a1-,)0/.1C?C+)0
&' %$ % 6 5' J' "!%4! $I' 5! %5!% !$IJ 5 5 ` 5$ '54 5! ^&' $ 5'
b! 5 `c$'4`!6^4! 5"8!I 6 8]I $ 5! $% ` % 5 ` % ]I5% $!" 5$ '54 5! ^
@-d.+@-B*-
Q5'5 `" !"efgh 'I$eiji % 4% 5 4 $!"! 4% ^
eik"!% U$ % ! 54 ^
&'I$_ 5 5! '" "!% 5' IJ'54 ! 54 $^# 5'5 `" $U5'J $ $ " % '54 5! 5$IJ 5 ^
/+F0?C.@-
l S" '54 J' _ ! %5b $ !"4! $ I !%5b5 ` '54 ! 4 $ ` U5'J % ]I5% ^
mn
o
p
o
n
q
r
s
t
p
u
v
o
n
w
w
t
wx
#$ %&'()*+,)-*&./+.'0123 4 56 7 89 346 4 3 5 :89 5 3;<=
>?@ABCD?EF?GBHGH@?IJK@E?BGLKMKJ?MIJ?MEN
O@EKE?J?MEI?ALKBCMPEF?GQBGH@?RHBEF?KJ?MIJ?MEN
S 53 : 6; 6 2: 4 9 T 4 :23 9: UV : 4 T 97 9W<
X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 Y 97Z4 [ 2\
X 48]23 4 3 4 6 2 :5 39VT^ :4 8^ 56 9W 7<
X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 _ 8 6 T 4 :23 9\
X 48]23 4 953V7 _ 5 3 9WV W 8^ 56 9W 7<
e 23;893 9 6:8VW6 6 d.+.f)0 *)-%'&+gh
+:+; +, -. /0 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 / 7 4 8 - - 8 - /
, / / 9 0 - 8 4 8 - 7 7 0 - / /
8 -. 0
<
<
<
<
4PVUI +FGGFSTPO 4USFFU
E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax:
E-mail of Property Owner: Phone:
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): 1036 S Jefferson St W, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Name of Applicant:
TAG HOLDINGS, LLC
Phone:
Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:
X Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
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 zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
0DS $PHQGPHQW ILOLQJ IHH SOXV SHU DFUH H[FHVV RI RQH DFUH SOXV DGGLWLRQDO SXEOLF QRWLFH IHH
7H[W $PHQGPHQW ILOLQJ IHH SOXV DGGLWLRQDO SXEOLF QRWLFH IHH
3XEOLF QRWLFLQJ IHHV ZLOO EH DVVHVVHG DIWHU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ LV VXEPLWWHG
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
Jordan Atkin
83'$7('
SA
L
T
LA
K
E
CI
T
Y
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for
complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name
provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions
provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and
may be made available to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is
deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application
includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for
the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must
be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or
corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this
application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public
meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has
been finalized.
APPLICANT SIGNATURE
Name of Applicant:
TAG HOLDINGS, LLC
Application Type:
Mailing Address: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Email: Phone:
Signature: Date:
AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST
I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from
the owner to pursue the described action.
Legal Description of Subject Property:
LOTS 1 & 21, BLK 3, WEST DRIVE SUB. 8628-5902 8821-3856 8996-3014 9089-4504 9320-1902 9712-38
1N0a2m6e4-o9f 8O7w6ner: TAG HOLDINGS, LLC
Mailing Address
PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Street Address:
Signature: Date:
The following shall be provided if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner:
1. If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner.
2. If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action.
3. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of
the joint venture or partnership
4. If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant than the representative/president must attach a notarized letter
stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal
and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the
requirements set forth in the CC&Rs.
Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code
Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to
the applicant’s interest in the property that is the subject of this application.
Updated 9/14/22
_
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the
Amendments ordinance.)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
X 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.
Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online.
_ 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.
83'$7('
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
X
St
a
f
f
Re
v
i
e
w
E-mail of Property Owner: Phone:
Signature of Owner or Agent:
Jacob Billitteri
Date:
02/25/22
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):
1061 S Jefferson St. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 ***Application Updated to 1036 S Jefferson Street Per applicant request on March 3, 2023
Name of Applicant:
TAG Holdings, LLC
Phone:
Address of Applicant:
PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152
E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax:
Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:
✔ Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
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 email
zoning@slcgov.com if you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application.
REQUIRED FEE
Filing fee of $ϭϬϬϴ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre.
$100 for newspaper notice.
Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Mailing fees will be assessed after application is submitted.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Updated ϴ�ϭϲͬ20Ϯϭ
SA
L
T
LA
K
E
CI
T
Y
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets electronically.)
ĞƐĐƌŝďĞ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ŵĂƐƚĞƌ ƉůĂŶ ĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ͘
ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ĚĞĐůĂƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ͘
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.
Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online.
JB 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.
hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϭϲͬϮϬϮϭ
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
✔
✔
✔
✔
St
a
f
f
Re
v
i
e
w
22G3II C4 DE;71/BJ
)GCDCI32 )GCD3GJQ -I3
1061 S Jefferson St. **Application address updated to 1036 South Jefferson Street per applicant request on 03/03/2023
TAG Holdings, LLC
Jacob Billitteri 03/08/2022
)G3 23@C;7J7CB *3137N32 Q !/J3 *3137N32
)GC931J '/@3
.CB7B5
'/@3 C4 DD;71/BJ
PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152
)6CB3
" @/7; C4 ED;71/BJ % 3;; #/P
DD;71/BJ I $BJ3G3IJ 7B +K0931J )GCD3GJQ ✔ (OB3G CBJG/1JCG G167J31J (J63G
'/@3 C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G 74 27443G3BJ 4GC@ /DD<71/BJ
" @/7< C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G )6CB3
Single-Family Residence (RMF-35)
Multi-Family Residence (FBUN-2)
7
B
4
C
G
@
/
J7
C
B
7
J
I
6
D
/
G
J
C
/
N
2
72
2
3
7J
2
7C
4
B
C
/
G
<
IJ
7B
/
4
4
C
4
G
/
@
B/
/
;
J
Q
7C
I7
B
I
@
/
<
Q
< 7
0
B
3
4C
G
G
3
@
F
/
K
J
7G
7C
3
B
2
G
0
3
Q
F
J
K
6
7G
3
3
D
2
G
4
C
C
9
G
31
I
J
J/
D
4
;
4
/
/
B
B
B
/
3
<
G
QI
J
7
C
I O
3B
7 <
I
;
K
0
G
3
3
1
/
C
2
D
3
7
F
3
K
2 /
/
J
B
3
2
G
@
3
/
N
2
73
3
O
D
0
K0
Q
?
/
71
B
Q
7 B
7 B
1 ;
J
K
3
2
G
7
3
B
I
5
J 3
D
2
G C
D
4
/
3
G
I
J
I
Q
7
CB/< /G167J31JKG/< CG 3B57B33G7B5 2G/O7B5I 4CG J63 DKGDCI3I C4 EL0=71
T $4 /DD;71/0;3 / BCJ/G7R32 IJ/J3@3BJ C4 1CBI3BJ /KJ6CG7S7B5 /DD;71/BJ JC /1J /I /B /53BJ O7;< 03 G3FM7G32
+75B/JKG3 C4 (OB3G CG 53BJ
22G3II C4 +K0931J )GCD3GJQ
"P7IJ7B5 )GCD3HJQ -I3
*(# , + *!),!(' jZK>pK >tt>ER >HHStTeb>Z pRKKt
<mTttKb HKpEmTjtTeb eO tRK HKtKm_Tb>tTeb em _eHSOTE>tSeb eO K{TptTbP xpK tR>t Tp CKTbP
mKkxKptKH
(-+!' &) , , , & ', (-+"' !&) , +, , & ', + $%
0HKbtTO| tRK KppKbtT>Z >HyKmpK T_j>Etp eb tRK mKpTHKbtT>Z ER>m>EtKm eO tRK >mK> pxCVKEt eO tRK jKtTtTeb%
1HKbtSO| C| >HHmKpp >b| HzKZZTbP xbStp t>mPKtKH Oem HK_e[TtSeb OeZZezTbP tRK Pm>btTbP eO tRK jKtTtSeb&
8Kj>m>tKZ| Oem K>ER HzKZ[TbP xbTt t>mPKtKH Oem HK_e[StTeb pt>tK Ttp ExmmKbt O>Tm _>mXKt y>[xK TO tR>t
xbTt zKmK Sb > mK>peb>CZK pt>tK eO mKj>Tm >bH _Kt >ZZ >jj[TE>CZK CxT[HTbP OSmK >bH RK>\tR EeHKp&
8t>tK tRK bx_CKm eO pkx>mK OKKt eO [>bH ~ebKH Oem mKpTHKbtT>[ xpK uR>t zexZH CK mK~ebKH em
EebHStTeb>ZZ| jKm_SttKH te CK xpKH Oem jxmjepKp pexPRt Tb tRK jKtTtSeb etRKm tR>b mKpTHKbtS>Z RexpTbP
>bH >jjxmtKb>bt xpKp& >bH
8jKESO| > _TtTP>tTeb j[>b te >HHmKpp tRK Zepp eO mKpSHKbtS>Z ~ebKH [>bH mKpTHKbtT>[ xbTtp em mKpTHKbtS>[
ER>m>EtKm 5mH
6KtStTebKmp pxCVKEt te tRK mKkxTmK_Kbtp eO tRTp ER>jtKm _>| p>tSpO| tRK bKKH Oem _TtTP>tTeb eO >b|
mKpSHKbtT>[ RexpTbP xbSt [eppKp C| >b| ebK eO tRK OeZZezTbP _KtReHp!
) 7Kj[>EK_Kbt /expSbP" 9RK jKtTtTebKm _>| >PmKK Sb > ZKP>] Oem_ p>tSpO>Etem| te tRK ESt| >ttembK| te
EebptmxEt tRK p>_K bx_CKm eO mKpSHKbtS>Z HzK[[TbP xbTtp jmejepKH Oem HK_e[TtTeb zTtRTb#
9RK ETt| EexbET[ HTptmSEt Tb zRSER tRK [>bH pxCVKEt eO tRK jKtTtTeb Sp [eE>tKH' em
)b >HWeTbTbP EexbETZ HTptmTEt SO tRK `TtSP>tTeb pTtK Tp zTtRTb > ebK _TZK m>HTxp eO tRK HK_e[StTeb
pStK
)b| pxER >PmKK_Kbt pR>Z[ TbEZxHK >HKkx>tK pKExmTt| te Px>m>btKK Ee_jZKtTeb zTtRTb tze
|K>mp eO tRK Pm>btTbP eO > HK_e[StTeb jKm_Tt
* .KK *>pKH 5b ,SOOKmKbEK *KtzKKb /expSbP ;>[xK )bH 7KjZ>EK_Kbt +ept# 9RK jKtStTebKm _>| j>| te
tRK ESt| RexpTbP tmxpt OxbH tRK HSOOKmKbEK CKtzKKb tRK O>Tm _>mXKt y>[xK eO tRK RexpTbP xbTtp j[>bbKH te
CK K[T_Tb>tKH em HK_e[TpRKH >bH tRK mKjZ>EK_Kbt Eept eO CxT[HTbP bKz xbTtp eO pT_T[>m pkx>mK Oeet>PK
>bH _KKtSbP >ZZ K{TptTbP CxT[HSbP OTmK >bH etRKm >jjZTE>C]K [>z K{E[xHTbP [>bH y>ZxKp
+ .KK <RKmK ,KtKmTem>tKH /expTbP -{Tptp 4et +>xpKH *| ,K[TCKm>tK 0bHSOOKmKbEK 5O 2>bHezbKm#
7KkxKpt *| 6KtStTebKm .em .Z>t .KK +ebpSHKm>tTeb$ 1b tRK KyKbt tR>t > mKpTHKbtS>Z HzK[ZTbP xbSt
Tp t>mPKtKH em jmejepKH Oem HK_e[TtSeb >bH Tp Tb > HKtKmTem>tKH pt>tK Ome_ b>txm>Z E>xpKp pxER >p
( =lx>YK en >QKH eCpe^KpEKcEK vR?t Tq bft gFG@rThbLI D} vRMJK[TCKmAwN BEus ho haUppSidp
te >Et eb tRK j>mt eO tRK jKtTtSebKm em RTp jmKHKEKppemp Sb TbtKmKpt zRTER HKtmS_Kbt>Z EebHTtSeb
mKHxEKp > HzK[[TbP xbTt p O>Sm _>mXKt y>[xK em R>CTt>CS[Tt| >p > mKpTHKbtS>[ HzK[[TbP xbTt uRK
jKtStSebKm _>| mKkxKpt >b K{K_jtTeb Ome_ tRK >CeyK tze _KtReHp eO _TtTP>tSeb Ome_ tRK
HSmKEtem eO tRK ESt| p HKj>mt_Kbt eO Ee__xbSt| >bH KEebe_TE HKyKZej_Kbt >p jmeySHKH CK[ez
) VxHP_Kbt >p te zRKtRKm HKtKmSem>tTeb R>p eEExmmKH >p tRK mKpx[t eO HK[SCKm>tK TbHSOOKmKbEK
pR>Z[ CK C>pKH eb > jmKjebHKm>bEK eO KyTHKbEK
7KkxTmKH .>Etp 5O 4>txm>[ ,KtKmSem>tTeb 1bEmK>pK .>Sm 3>mXKt ;>ZxK 5O :bStp 9e *K
,K_eZSpRKH! 9RK jKtStSebKm _>| pxC_St te tRK HTmKEtem eO tRK ETt| p HKj>mt_Kbt eO Ee__xbSt|
>bH KEebe_TE HKyKZej_Kbt KyKm| O>Et Xbezb te pxjjemt tRK jmejepTtTeb tR>t tRK mKpTHKbtS>Z
HzKZ[SbP xbStp zKmK bet jxmjepK[| >Z[ezKH te HKtKmTem>tK C| Z>EX eO mK>peb>C[K _>TbtKb>bEK
6. Mailing List
WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TWO HUNDRED WEST, LLC 720 N REXFORD DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210
EZE FAM REV TRUST 1102 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
MARATHON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC 3731 W SOUTHJORDAN PKWY #102Ͳ505 SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009
JIMMIE E LONG 1049 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
DANIELLE HILDEBRAND; MARCUS A LONARDO (JT) 160 E FORT UNION BLVD MIDVALE UT 84047
KATHLEEN M ROBERTS 175 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
DAN E MYLECRAINE 171 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
SS CAPITAL, LLC 35 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
ELK RIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC 376 800 S AMERICAN FORK UT 84003
KRISTIE GILES 1022 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
AMRA PASIC 1032 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
TAG HOLDINGS, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152
TAG HOLDINGS, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152
CHARLES EDWIN BUTTON 1052 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
LERNICE CABRERA 1056 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
JAMIE L THORPE 1058 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
TENFIFTEEN PARTNERS, LLC 3045 E LOUISE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
DE ANZAͲC9 LP 960 N SAN ANTONIO RD #114 LOS ALTOS CA 94022
KATHRYN A CAUSEY 923 LONGLEAF DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054
BRYCE K JOHNSON 126 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
AKBAR MATINKHAH 2618 E SKYLINE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
CARNEGIE HOLDINGS LLC 4019 S OLYMPIC WY HOLLADAY UT 84124
R AND J PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107
INTERMOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107
GREGORY C KETCH 655 E 100 N ALPINE UT 84004
R AND J PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107
GONZALEZ B, RUBEN A & LOPEZ V, TIMOTEO S; JT
(JT)
1035 S JEFFERSON ST
SALT LAKE CITY
UT
84101
JKBRT; GRBRT 639 MOUNTAIN VIEW CIR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054
DAVID P MIDGLEY 1051 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
DOUGLAS FLAGER; MARCUS WRIGHT (JT) 134 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
CARLETON J ALLEN 128 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
CARL CONNELLY 2263 E HIGH MOUNTAIN DR SANDY UT 84092
VADIM DMITRIYEVICH KOMAROV; CHRISTOPHER 1002Ͳ1006 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
RACHELLE LAM 1008 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
RICHARD ERIC BROWN 1010 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
400 EAST/WT APARTMENTS, LLC 11589 S SUMMERFIELD CIR SANDY UT 84092
STEVEN CHASE ADAMS 1042 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
DAVID M BEMIS 8479 S 1380 E SANDY UT 84093
JOSEPH L HERNANDEZ 1047 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
TAG HOLDINGS, LLC 2223 S HIGHLAND DR #E6Ͳ375 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ANDREW BURT; CYNTHIA BURT (JT) 133 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
ISMAEL G SIERRA; JESUS J OJEDA (JT) 1001 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
DARIN MASAO MANO 1058 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
DARIN MANO; KEVIN RANDALL (JT) 1064 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
KRISTEN MORTENSEN FAMILY TRUST 05/16/2013 13818 S VESTRY RD DRAPER UT 84020
RALPH S GATHERUM & DONETA MCGONIGLE
GATHERUM FAMILY TRUST DATED 1
1697 N FORT LN
LAYTON
UT
84041
SKI BUM LLC 440 W 900 S #12 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
GUADALUPE FLORES 1091 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
GUADALUPE FLORES 1091 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
TERESA PEREZ; PASCUAL CARDENAS (JT) 1121 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
LARISSA M HUNT 167 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
SOMEWHERE OTR, LLC PO BOX 9874 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
SOMEWHERE OTR, LLC PO BOX 9874 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
JAMES C TAYLOR; JESSICA M TAYLOR (JT) 3556 S 5600 W # 1Ͳ533 WEST VALLEY UT 84120
JOB G GOWON 145Ͳ147 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
LEE ANDERSON 137 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
TAG SLC, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
TAG SLC, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152
DOHENYͲVIDOVICH PARTNERS 960 N SAN ANTONIO RD #114 LOS ALTOS CA 94022
ALLEN L CARLSON; ELAINE R CARLSON (JT) 1089 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
PASCUAL CARDENAS; MARIA T PEREZ (JT) 1121 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
PEDRO CARDENAS PEREZ 1127 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
JESSICA LARSON 1131 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
BRETT MATESEN 169 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
ESTEBAN R. TINOCO; SOPHIE R. TINOCO 4628 W 4695 S WEST VALLEY UT 84120
KATHLEEN LOIS COCHRAN REVOCABLE TRUST 09Ͳ03Ͳ
2008
347 N CENTER ST
SALT LAKE CITY
UT
84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 347 N CENTER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAN O GARZARELLI 950 HARBOR AVE HENDERSON NV 89002
JUAN R BUSTAMANTE; GRISELDA A RAMIREZ (JT) 139 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
LAKE LIMITED 8350 S VIA RIVIERA WY COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
N C CARRIDO INC 1085 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
PATRICK QUINN; ERIN HAMILTON (JT) 1124 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
MORTENSENͲMAHYERA LIVING TRUST 01/05/2017 1122 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
CAITLIN ARNWINE; MATTHEW ARNWINE (JT) 1120 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
LEAH THOMAS 353 E 1500 N OREM UT 84057
ROWHAUS CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107
SCOTT SORENSON 121 W FREMONT AVE # 17 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
KRISHEILA OCAMPO 123 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
DARREN GONZOL; TARA MLEYNEK (JT) 125 W FREMONT AVE # 119 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
JESSE C WALKER; MARK HOFELING (JT) 127 W FREMONT AVE # 120 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
NATHAN THOMAS PASKETT; ADAM TROY WHITE
(JT)
129 W FREMONT AVE
SALT LAKE CITY
UT
84101
HENRY S MASTAIN 131 W FREMONT AVE # 122 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
MARCUS MCBRIDE 133 W FREEMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84701
WHITNEY MARIE FINLINSON 135 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
ROWHAUS CONDOMINIUMS HOWMEOWNERS 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS,LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092
PARKSIDE CONDOMINIUM HOMEWONERS 7931 BLAZE TRAIL CT ORANGEVALE CA 95662
Current Occupant 230 W BROOKLYN AVE NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 230 W BROOKLYN AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1018 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1024 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1050 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1098 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1039 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1055 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 165 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 151 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1036 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1046 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1015 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1075 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1062 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 120 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 130 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 129 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 127 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 111 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1025 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1043 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 124 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1002 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1008 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1010 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1012 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1042 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1068 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1061 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1058 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1064 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1095 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1101 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1103 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 175 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 163 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 159 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 149 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 147 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 135 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 125 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 121 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 168 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 158 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 154 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 148 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 142 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 136 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 130 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 126 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 122 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 110 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1089 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1085 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 185 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 163 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 157 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 151 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 145 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1099 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 995 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1011 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1117 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1124 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1122 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1120 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1118 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1118 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 121 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 125 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 127 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 131 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 133 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 125 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 1 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 2 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 3 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 4 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 5 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 6 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 7 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 8 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 9 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 10 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 11 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 12 Salt Lake City UT 84101
Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101
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:September 19, 2023
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 South 900 South
PLNPCM2022-01120
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the parcel at 1018 East 900
South in City Council District Five from its current RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)
zoning designation to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). Recent changes to the RMF-30
zone would allow more flexibility to redevelop the property.
The petitioner expressed a desire to redevelop the property at some point, but no plans have been
submitted. Under current RMF-35 zoning only a single-family home could be developed on the lot because
its 45-foot width and 4,500 square foot area do not meet the minimum lot width and area requirements for
other housing types.
Recently amended RMF-30 zoning with smaller minimum lot sizes could accommodate a variety of
housing types and provide small scale infill development potential. The 0.11-acre lot is approximately 45
feet wide and 100 feet deep. Based on the lot size there is potential for two to three dwelling units to be
developed if the parcel is rezoned to RMF-30. It should be noted building type, setbacks and required yards
may affect the number of units that could be built.
Planning staff noted the proposed RMF-30 zone includes design standards for all new development not
called for under the current RMF-35 zoning. These standards include entryways, building materials,
ground floor glass, and screening of service areas and mechanical equipment.
A two-story single-family home is on the property. A multi-family apartment is adjacent to the west, and a
duplex is directly to the east. Small businesses and a fire station are on the north side of 900 South.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 19, 2023
Set Date: October 3, 2023
Public Hearing: October 17, 2023
Potential Action: November 7, 2023
Page | 2
Adjacent zoning is RMF-35, with a mix of R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential), SR-1 (Special
Development Pattern Residential), R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential), RB (Residential/Business),
CB (Community Business) and PL (public lands (fire station)) in the broader area as shown in the zoning
map below. Rowland Hall School (zoned I (Institutional)) is to the northwest.
Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its May 24, 2023
meeting and held a public hearing at which two people spoke. The commenters were not opposed to the
proposed zoning map amendment, but expressed concern about potential parking issues, and would like
additional housing on the site to be affordable. The Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in
potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant
if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing
units?
Page | 3
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the recently-transmitted Affordable Housing
Incentives proposal may impact this petition or development potential on the property. Note: The
Affordable Housing Incentives proposal is also on the Council’s September 19th agenda.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted
to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a
property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of
changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
Housing Loss Mitigation
Petitions requesting a zoning change that would permit non-residential use of land on which a residential
dwelling unit exists must include a housing loss mitigation plan approved by the Community and
Neighborhoods Department Director. This is included as Attachment F (pages 35-51) of the Planning
Commission staff report. The petitioner proposed providing replacement housing to mitigate the loss of
housing units if the property is redeveloped.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-7 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1 - How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in
adopted plans.
Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment generally aligns with Plan Salt Lake, the
Central Community Master Plan, and East Central Community Small Area Plan goals and initiatives. It
would provide redevelopment potential for additional medium-density housing in an area with existing
infrastructure and amenities and not negative impact the neighborhood.
Consideration 2 - Development Potential
As noted above, with updated RMF-30 development standards, the subject property could potentially
include two to three housing units as a duplex, twin home, single-family home with an accessory dwelling
unit, cottage homes, or tiny homes. The current RMF-35 zoning would allow a single-family detached
home.
Consideration 3 – Compatibility with surrounding properties
The subject property is in a multi-family zone and currently zoned RMF-35. Planning staff found that
redeveloping the property within RMF-30 design standards would be compatible with surrounding
properties.
Consideration 4 – The Issue of Spot Zoning
The zoning ordinance defines spot zoning as “The process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use
classification materially different and inconsistent with the surrounding area and the adopted city master
plan, for the sole benefit of the owner of that property and to the detriment of the rights of other property
owners.” (Chapter 21A.62.040, Salt Lake City Code)
It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning map amendment is not spot zoning as it is consistent
with current master plan policies and the Central Community Master Plan’s future land use map. Both the
current and proposed zoning are multi-family residential, and the proposed zoning is not significantly
Page | 4
different.
ZONING COMPARISON
The following table compares building height and setback requirements for the current RMF-35 and
proposed RMF-30 zoning districts.
RMF-35 (Current)RMF-30 (Proposed)
Maximum Building Height 35 feet 30 feet (single-/two family/multi-
family residential, row house,
sideways row house)
23 feet (cottage development pitched
roof (16 feet for flat roof))
16 feet (tiny house)
30 feet (non-residential)
Front Setback 20 feet 20 feet or average of block face
Side Setback Corner side yard: 4 feet (single-family
detached/two-family).
Interior side yard: 4 feet on one side,
10 feet on the other (single-family
detached/two-family).
For single-family attached no side
yard required, however, if one is
provided, not less than 4 feet.
For twin homes no yard required
along one side lot line, 10-foot yard
required on the other side.
Multi-family requires minimum
10-foot interior side yard.
Other permitted and conditional uses
require minimum 10-foot side yard on
each side.
Corner side yard: 10 feet
Interior side yard: 4 feet on one side,
10 feet on the other.
Rear Setback 25% of lot depth, but not less than 20
feet and need not exceed 25 feet.
20% of lot depth but need not exceed
25 feet (single-/two family/multi-
family residential, row house,
sideways row house, non-residential)
10 feet (cottage development/tiny
house)
The following table compares minimum lot standards for the current RMF-35 and proposed RMF-30
zoning districts.
Land Use RMF-35 (Current)
Minimum Lot Area/Width
RMF-30 (Proposed)
Minimum Lot Area/Width
Twin home
(townhome, separate lots)
4,000 square feet per unit/25 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A
Two-family (duplex)8,000 square feet/50 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A
Single-family Attached (3+ units)3,000 square feet per unit/50 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A
Single-family Detached 5,000 square feet/50 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A
Page | 5
Multi-family (3-11 Units)9,000 square feet/80 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A
Analysis of Factors
Attachment D (pages 16-17) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards
that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized
below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
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.
Generally consistent
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Generally complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Generally complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Not applicable
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.
Will require public
facility upgrades.
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• November 21, 2022-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division.
• December 21, 2022-Petition assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner.
• January 25, 2023-Petitioner changed the rezone request to RMF-30 rather than the original RMU
zoning considered.
• January 26, 2023-Information about petition sent to East Liberty Park and East Central
Community Council Chairs, and surrounding neighbors and property owners.
• February 6, 2023-Project posted to City website for an online open house.
Page | 6
• March 6, 2023-Petitioner presented to East Liberty Park Community Council meeting.
• May 12, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notices sent to interested parties, and
residents/property owners.
o Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State Public Notice webpage.
o Public hearing notice posted on the property.
• May 24, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning
map amendment.
• May 31, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
• June 20, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
RMF-35 TO RMF-30
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT1018 E 900 S
PLNPCM2022-01120
VICINITY MAP & CURRENT ZONING
1018 E 900 S
Current Zoning: RMF-35, Moderate Density
Multi-Family
Proposed Zoning : RMF-30, Low Density Muti-
Family
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Subject property Property directly west Adjacent properties to the east
Across 900 S to the north
Current Allowance ( RMF-35 )Under RMF 30
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: COMPARISON
Land Use Min Lot Area Min Lot Width
Twin home
(townhome,
separate lots)
4,000 SF per
unit
25
Two-family
(duplex)
8,000 SF 50
Single Fam
Attached (3)
3,000 SF per
unit
50
Single Fam
detached
5,000 SF 50
Multi Family (3-
11 units)
9,000 SF 80
Min Lot Area Min Lot Width
2,000 Per unit NA
2,000 Per unit NA
2,000 Per unit NA
2,000 Per unit NA
2,000 Per unit NA
New Maximum Lot width = 110’
Applicant’s Lot
45’
100’
Applicant’s lot is not eligible for any of these
housing types due to minimum lot width
4,500 SF
•Allows greater flexibility for Multi-Family configurations without strict limitations
on lot size and dimensions
•Includes design standards for all new construction: including but not limited to
building materials, blank walls, and screening of mechanical equipment
•Design standards do not exist in current RMF-35
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
RMF-30 ZONE
“Loss of residential dwelling units is a
serious concern of the neighborhood.
Beyond what is contemplated in this
Plan [ …] no additional dwelling units
should be lost.”
-East Central Community Small Area
Master Plan
MASTER PLANS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Subject property located within red circle
Central Community Future Land
Use Map calls for Medium Density
(15-20 units per area) in this area
On May 24, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (8-0) to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:34 MDT)
Date Received: _0_8 /_0_8 /_2_02_3__________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _0_8/_0_8 /_2_02_3__________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 S 900 S
PLNPCM2022-01120
STAFF CONTACT: Cassie Younger, Senior Planner
Cassie.younger@slcgov.com, 801-535-6211
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning map for the property at approximately 1018 E 900 S from RMF-
35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential to RMF-30, Low Density Multi-Family
Residential.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposal includes a zoning map amendment to change the
zoning of the property at approximately 1018 E 900 S from RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential to RMF-30, Low Density Multi-Family Residential. The applicant has
requested the rezone to allow more flexibility in housing types if the property were to redevelop.
Planning Commission discussed the petition at the May 24, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing
on the issue. The Commission voted unanimously (8:0) to recommend approval of the zoning map
amendment to the City Council. Then full public meeting can be viewed using this link at minute
2:09:00
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
For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff
Report.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the associated
community councils for the property: East Central and East Liberty Park Community
Council. A formal letter was sent to these groups on January 26, 2023. The applicant
presented their project at the March 3rd East Liberty Park Community Council meeting.
• Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property
owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and
information on how to give public input on the project on January 26, 2023.
• An online open house has been posted to the Planning Division’s webpage since February
6th, 2023.
• Public noticing of the Planning Commission hearing was completed on May 12, 2023.
• No public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission (PC) Records (Click to Access)
PC Agenda for May 24, 2023
PC Minutes of May 24, 2023
PC Staff Report for May 24, 2023
EXHIBITS
1. Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Petition Application
4. Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending the zoning of property located at approximately 1018 E 900 S from
RMF-35 to RMF-30)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately
1018 East 900 South from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family to RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01120 (the “Petition”).
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on May 24, 2023 to consider the Petition submitted by Evan and Tina Jenkins,
property owners, to rezone the parcel located at 1018 East 900 South (Tax ID No. 16-08-254-
013-0000) (the “Property”) from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family to RMF-30 Low
Density Multi-Family;
WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
Petition; 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 Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be
and hereby is rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential to RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential.
1
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
June 20, 2023
Date:___________________________Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.By: ______
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
Ordinance rezoning 1018 E 900 S to RMF-30
2
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned:
Parcel Tax ID No
PARCEL 16-08-254-013-0000:
BEG 16 FT W & 65 FT N FR SW COR LOT 13, GILMER PLACE SUB; E 46 FT; N 100 FT;
W 46 FT; S 100 FT TO BEG 4631-0105 6481-1567 6772-2135 8931-2599 9093-4238
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Project Chronology
2.
3.
4.
Notice of City Council Public Hearing
Original Petition
Mailing List
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2022-01120
November 21, 2022
December 21, 2022
Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was received.
Petition PLNPCM2022-01120 was assigned to Cassie
Younger, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
January 25, 2023
January 26, 2023
Applicant changed the request on their original petition to
rezone to RMF-30 instead of RMU.
Notice was sent to Recognized Community Organizations
informing them of the petition. The RCO’s notified
included the East Liberty Park and East Central
Community Council.
Early notification of the project was also sent to property
owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal.
February 6, 2023
March 6, 2023
March 13th, 2023
May 12, 2023
The proposal was posted for an online open house through
May 24, 2023.
The applicant presented their petition at East Liberty Park
Community Council.
The 45-day public comment period for Recognized
Organizations ended.
Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to
interested parties and residents/property owners who
requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning
Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice
webpage.
Public hearing notice sign with project information and
notice of the Planning Commission public hearing
physically posted on the property.
May 19, 2023
May 24, 2023
Planning Commission Staff Report was posted.
Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the
proposed map amendment.
May 31, 2023
June 20, 2023
Ordinance request sent to Attorney’s Office.
Signed ordinance received from Attorney’s Office.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-01120 Zoning Map
Amendment for the property at approximately 1018 E 900 S. Tina and Evan Jenkins, the
property owners, initiated a petition for a zoning map from the current zone of RMF-35,
Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential, to RMF-30, Low Density Multi-Family
Residential, to allow for greater flexibility in housing types if the property redevelops.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may
consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be
held:
DATE:
TIME:7:00 pm
PLACE:451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the
City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake
City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. 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 relatingto this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Cassie Younger at 801-535-6211 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, or via e-mail at cassie.younger@slcgov.com
The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting
the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01120.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may
include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make
requests at least two make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711.
3) ORIGINAL PETITION
4) MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME
LITTLEBIRD LLC
OWN_ADDR
2425 E MICHIGAN AVE
910 S 1500 E
OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
HEBER
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84108
84105
84105
84105
84105
84101
84105
84102
84032
84171
84105
84105
84105
84111
84105
84115
84105
84105
84088
84105
84105
85255
84105
85255
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84103
84105
84092
71903
84068
84101
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84106
84105
84105
84105
84105
PROJECT HARVEY, LLC
ANTHONY MICHAEL LAGGON; CAYLIN MICH912 S 1000 E
GARY JENKINS 916 S 1000 E
QUALITY NINE REALTY, LLC
THOMAS HILL; DEBORAH J HILL
TANYA T DE ANGELIS; JOSH D LEVEY
LYDIA OJUKA; BEN RILEY
LARRY L HUNTINGTON
RS ST GEORGE LLC
SID GREEN LLC
L&MP TRUST
DAVID L SANTIVASI
922 S 1000 E
170 S MAIN ST
932 S 1000 E
863 S 1000 E
1550 E. LITTLE SWEDEN RD.
PO BOX 71899
1005 E 900 S
1635 E YALECREST AVE
1011 E 900 S
451 S STATE ST # 425
1043 E 900 S
165 W 2950 S
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
EATON & LARSEN, LLC
SUGI LLC SOUTH SALT LAKE UT
SHERYL J PHILLIPS
LISA D MARLEY
Current Property Owner
BLB15 LLC
JESSICA M EVANS
CARRIAGE PARK PROPERTIES LLC
EVAN C JENKINS; TINA M JENKINS
CARRIGE PARK PROPERTIES LLC
DAVID BLAIS
MICHAEL NOBLE WERTHEIMER; RACHEL LAS928 S MCCLELLAND ST
WEBER LIVING TRUST 12/01/2017
MICHAEL LANDON
Current Property Owner
NICHOLAS A EKDAHL; HOLLY BATEMAN
DAVID BLAIS
MER TRUST
SHERYL J PHILLIPS
927 S 1000 E
933 S 1000 E
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
WEST JORDAN
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SCOTTSDALE
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
AZ
UT
AZ
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
AR
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
1335 W 7800 S
1786 E PRINCETON AVE
1012 E 900 S
18967 N 98TH WY
1018 E 900 S SALT LAKE CITY
SCOTTSDALE18967 N 98TH WY
926 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SANDY
934 S MCCLELLAND ST
940 S MCCLELLAND ST
948 S MCCLELLAND ST
947 S 1000 E
926 S MCCLELLAND ST
917 S 1000 E
927 S 1000 E
1176 E SECOND AVE
1038 E 900 S
2363 E LINDSAY WOOD LN
PO BOX 21447
PO BOX 681800
44 W 300 S
915 S MCCLELLAND ST
NAOMI RICE
YONG W KIM; HYE OK KIM
MIGUEL JR ESTRADA
BRIMLEY COCO LLC
FENTON HOLDINGS LLC
MICHAEL B CHUNG
SUSAN MAKOV
DANIEL B MOYES; SHERRY MATTHEWS-MOY923 S MCCLELLAND ST
WILLIAM E SHERWOOD; MELANIE SHERWO 925 S MCCLELLAND ST
GREGORY M CERVELLI; JAMIE A CERVELLI 927 S MCCLELLAND ST
DANIEL MCKINNEY; STEPHANIE MCKINNEY 935 S MCCLELLAND ST
HOT SPRINGS
PARK CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
AS REV TRUST 937 S MCCLELLAND ST
943 S MCCLELLAND ST
2121 S MCCLELLAND ST
909 S 1000 E
BONNIE J SUCEC
KELLY C FAVERO
RYAN T STURDEVANT
PARK WEED WILLIS; STEPHANIE K WILLIS 913 S 1000 E
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
989 E 900 S
984 E 900 S
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
924 S 1000 E Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84105
84102
84102
84105
84102
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
84105
866 S MCCLELLAND ST
868 S MCCLELLAND ST
1007 E 900 S
1023 E 900 S
1059 E 900 S
935 S 1000 E
943 S 1000 E
1016 E 900 S
1016 E 900 S
924 S MCCLELLAND ST
923 S 1000 E
1032 E 900 S
920 S MCCLELLAND ST
1054 E 900 S
1058 E 900 S
1066 E 900 S
903 S 1000 E
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: September 19, 2023
RE:Zoning Amendments:
Affordable Housing Incentives
PLNPCM2019-00658
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Sept 19, 2023
Set Date: Oct 3, 2023
Public Hearing: Oct 17, 2023
Potential Action: TBD
Visit the Council’s Website for more information on various topics relating to affordable housing,
including this proposal tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of the City zoning
ordinance by establishing Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI). The proposed amendments would allow
the following if requirements for affordable units are met in order to streamline and encourage more units
to be built in the City at an affordable rate. See more details on each of these changes starting at
the end of page 2, and chart on page 3 to see the level/quantity of affordability required for
each:
• Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories, depending
on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing.
• Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for development in
the CS (Community Shopping) zoning districts.
• Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the TSA Core
zoning districts.
• Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and
CB (Community Business) zoning districts.
• Allow housing on Institutional zoned land.
• Remove the density requirements in the RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning districts.
• On properties currently zoned for single- or two-family homes:
o Allow townhomes and housing structures that contain up to 4-unit buildings,
o a second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained;
o cottage developments;
Page | 2
o Allow twin and two-family homes in these zoning districts where they are not currently
allowed.
The proposal was initially envisioned as an overlay. However, since the incentives are different for various
zoning districts, the proposal was changed to a specific section of the zoning ordinance, 21A.52 Zoning
Incentives. The affordable housing incentives is proposed to be the first section of this new chapter of the
zoning ordinance.
The Planning Commission held public hearings and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City
Council. Additionally, the Planning Commission added a condition that if adopted by the City Council, the
incentives plan should be analyzed 24 months after approval, to include a report of the cost and benefits of
the changes.
Staff note on public notice/engagement: Because of the City-wide breadth and potential impact of
this topic, along with the context of the City-wide anti-gentrification study, the Council authorized the
mailing of a postcard City-wide, to all residents and property owners, with direction to go to the
Council’s main website on the affordable housing topic, that includes information on these issues and
others, at tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals
POLICY QUESTIONS
•Reporting and Enforcement Related Questions
o Reporting Requirements – annual reporting and auditing will be a key component of the
plan to ensure property owners and builders who use the incentives keep the units at
affordable levels.
▪Will the proposed fine structure be enough to ensure compliance by property
owners?
▪The Council could consider requiring a biannual report on the affordability
compliance of the program.
o Option for the City to contract with another entity to administer the program
▪Would the third party be responsible for enforcement?
▪What type of entity might be interested in administering the program?
o Will properties that are part of the program be required to get a business license and
participate in the Good Landlord Program?
o Is there a plan in place to link up the affordable housing with income-restricted individuals,
or would the City service as a central resource to connect individuals with housing?
•Staffing/Guidelines Questions
o The Planning Commission staff report noted additional staff will be needed to administer
the program. The Council may wish to ask the Administration when and how they will
propose funding this additional staffing, how many FTEs would be needed, and the
anticipated timeline to onboard and train those FTEs?
o Because this ordinance would go into effect prior to the next budget amendment, is existing
staff sufficient to accept any applications that may come in prior to the next budget and
ensure compliance with design and affordability objectives?
o Is there a possibility this ordinance will go into effect before design guidelines are
developed/approved? Would funding be needed to develop those design guidelines? Will
the development of the design guidelines be an administrative process, or will they be
approved by the Planning COmmission?
o Does the Administration plan to promote this program to the general public to notify them
of the program and potential benefits?
o How long might it take for the City to get the necessary affordability and design review
structures in place?
Page | 3
•Thriving in Place Plan Objectives and Community feedback
o The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether there are alternative
ways to achieve the goals of this proposal (see page 5).
o Given the significant community feedback received to date, the Council may wish to discuss
concerns that have been noted by some neighborhoods about the potential for these
incentives to result in the demolition of existing housing stock, including existing naturally
occurring affordable housing.
o The purpose statement of the affordable housing incentives notes design is key to the
success of the proposal: Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be
compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to
live and play. Does the Council wish to ask the administration to discuss how design
guidelines will be able to help implement this vision?
o Based on concerns expressed by some residents, the Council may wish to discuss the
benefit of additional housing units with the potential for additional traffic in areas where
transit is not readily available.
o Based on recent discussion about the lack of family-sized housing with much of the new
construction in the city, the Council may wish to discuss if this incentive program has ways
to provide more famil- sized affordable housing.
SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES
Pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report outline key changes of the proposed amendment. The
list below, from Attachment B Summary of Incentives, is a high-level summary of the key changes, based
on the type of zoning district.
•Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
o Permit additional height, between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on
the zone in various zoning districts that currently permit multifamily housing.
•Residential Multifamily Zoning Districts
o Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts,
o No additional height permitted.
o Only 25% of the units could be 500 square feet or smaller.
o Add development and design standards for rowhousees, sideways 3owhouses, cottages, and
other building forms.
•Single- and Two-family Zoning Districts
o Allow additional building types in single- and two-family zoning districts, provided 1-2 of
the units would be affordable.
o Allow townhouses in groups of up to four, 3–4-unit buildings, and cottage developments on
parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes.
o Twin and two-family homes would be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not
currently allowed.
o Add development and design standards for these dwellings.
•Other Incentives
o Waive the Planned Development process for some proposals
o Allow single-family and single-family attached housing on Institutional zoned land. Future
zoning amendments may be considered to allow multifamily housing.
Page | 4
o Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community
Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts to encourage the
redevelopment of underutilized commercial land. These districts currently permit
multifamily housing, but not single-family dwellings, including single-family attached
units, or cottages.
•Affordability requirements - Planning staff worked with developers to come up with a model that
would provide sufficient return on development to incentivize the development of affordable units
in various projects. Table 21A.52.050.G of the ordinance outlines the recommendation based on
that analysis. Attachment G of the Planning Commission staff report includes a summary of the
proforma and scenario analyses.
See the table on the next page.
Table 21A.52.050.G
Incentive Type
Types Incentives
Type A. Applicable to the single- and
two-family zoning districts: FR-1,
FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000,
R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and
SR-3.
Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an
affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to
those with incomes at or below 80% AMI.
New construction: At least 50% of the provided
dwelling units shall be affordable.
Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the
dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing
building is maintained as required in
21A.52.050.H.1.c.
Type B. Applicable to residential
multifamily zoning districts: RMF-
30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75
An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at
least one of the following affordability criteria:
1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes at or below 60% AMI;
2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes at or below 50% AMI; or
3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI
and these units shall not be occupied by those
with an income greater than 80% AMI.
For sale owner occupied units: An affordable
homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50%
of units affordable to those with incomes at or below
80% AMI
Type C. Applicable to zoning
districts not otherwise specified.
Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet
a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria
identified. Any fractional number of units required
shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those
with an income at or below 80% AMI;
2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those
with an income at or below 60% AMI;
3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those
with an average income at or below 60% AMI
and these units shall not be occupied by those
with an income greater than 80% AMI;
Page | 5
4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those
with an income at or below 30% AMI;
5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those
with an income at or below 80% AMI when the
affordable units have two or more bedrooms;
6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those
with an income at or below 60% AMI when the
affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI when
the affordable units have three or more
bedrooms.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Pages 2-3 of the transmittal summarize outreach efforts Planning conducted to get feedback from the
community on the proposed change.
Outreach efforts included: online surveys, developer discussion, recognized community organization
outreach, and open houses, both in person and online. The Historic Landmark Commission and Planning
Commission both reviewed the proposed changes. The Planning Commission held public hearings in May
2022 and March 2023.
Additionally, in the fall and winter of 2022/2023 the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20
members of the community, including neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing
advocates. The group reviewed and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings
in the fall and winter of 2022.
Based on the focus group’s recommendations, changes were made to the final draft. Their recommended
changes to the proposal are detailed in the Planning staff’s report and highlighted on pages 7-9 of
Attachment A – Updated Affordable Housing Incentives March 2023 to this memo.
As noted above, the Council also authorized a City-wide postcard to notify residents and property owners
about this proposal as well as the City-wide anti-gentrification plan.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
The Affordable Housing Incentives amendments are intended to encourage the development, construction,
and preservation of housing in the city through a variety of methods, including: allowing for additional
height, reducing parking requirements, allowing additional housing types, and providing planning process
waivers or modifications.
Purpose
The purpose statement of the Affordable Housing Incentives section reads as follows:
To encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate
the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would
otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is
Page | 6
intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable
places to live and play.
There are two primary goals of the Affordable Housing Incentives:
1. Help public and private dollars that go into building affordable housing create more housing units.
2. Create additional opportunities for property owners to provide new, affordable housing units.
(April 26, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 2)
Affordable Housing Definition
The draft ordinance provides the following definition for affordable housing:
Shall be both income and, as applicable, rent restricted. The affordable units shall be made available
only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable
percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as
periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing
Corporation, or its successor. Affordable housing units must accommodate (30% of gross income for
housing costs, including utilities) at least one of the following categories:
a.Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI;
b.Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and
up to 50% AMI; or
c.Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80%
AMI
Preservation of Existing Housing
The Affordable Housing Incentives adds provisions to encourage preservation of existing housing. This
includes allowing a second, detached dwelling on a property when the existing dwelling is maintained.
Key Concepts Discussed with the Planning Commission
Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outline the key considerations of the draft amendments discussed with
the Planning Commission. A short summary is provided below. See pages 7-14 for full analysis.
1.Implementation of city goals and policies identified in adopted plans
a. Planning staff found the proposed amendments are consistent with principles and polices
of Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC
2.Affordability level and percentage of units
a. See chart on page 3 above.
3.Neighborhood Impacts
The focus group discussed several mitigation options based on comments from the Planning
Commission and the public and came to a consensus on the following recommendations:
•The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for
additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts.
•Emphasis on the preservation of existing housing
•Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning
districts
4.Administration and Enforcement
Page | 7
a. Administrative staff anticipates additional staff will be needed to administer the program
based on the number of projects that use the affordable housing incentive program.
b. Language is included in the draft ordinance that would enable the City to contract with a
third party for administration on the incentives.
c. Language on reporting, compliance, and enforcement are included in the ordinance. The
properties using the AHI would be required to submit an annual report, and a restrictive
covenant would be placed on the property.
5.Infrastructure impacts
a. If a water, sewer, or storm drain line does not have adequate capacity for new housing
units, a developer is required to increase the capacity. This is handled during the building
permit process.
b. Planning staff also worked with Public Utilities to determine the impact this proposal may
have on water supply and demand in the city. Public Utilities provided scenarios for
different types of potential development that would result from the proposed changes.
i. Average usage for single-family residential dwellings is between 12,000-15,000
gallons per month.
1. Much of this is for outdoor watering and in the winter water usage is
approximately 6,500-7,000 gallons per month.
ii. A sampling of high-rise and wood frame construction with a total of about 725 units
averaged water usage of approximately 2,000 gallons per month, per unit.
iii. Two fourplexes and a cottage court (10 units) averaged approximately 3,000 gallons
per month, per unit.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
SALT LAKE CITY | PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING DIVISION | SLC.GOV/PLANNING | VERSION 1.1
UPDATED | MARCH 2023
44
[ THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]
45
CONTENTS
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING
451 S. State Street | Room 406
P.O. Box | 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 - 5480
5 Introduction
6 Project Process
7 Focus Group Recommendations
9 Summary of Changes
10 Program Basics, Administration & Enforcement
12 Multi-family & Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
18 Waive Planned Development Requirement for Specific Developments
20 Allow Housing on Institutional Lands
21 Allow Additional Housing Types
22 Modify Density Limits in Residential Multi-family Zones
24 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts
30 Next Steps
31 Appendix A: Draft Language
PLANNING DIVISION | UPDATED MARCH 2023 SLC.GOV/PLANNING46
4 47
5
This proposal is for affordable housing incentives. Over time, and particularly in recent years,
housing in Salt Lake City has become less affordable. There are many variables affecting
housing prices, including zoning regulations.
The goal of the proposed amendments are to increase affordable housing throughout Salt
Lake City. Where multifamily housing is permitted, the incentives are designed to encourage
developers to include affordable housing in projects and allow affordable housing developers
to build more housing units. The incentives also allow for small increases in housing units
throughout the city. The proposed amendments would incentivize the construction of
affordable housing through modifications to the zoning requirements.
The following pages describe the project process, the proposed zoning regulations, the
changes to them since presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022, and the next
steps in the project process.
For additional background and historic information on context and housing in Salt Lake City,
see the Affordable Housing Document from 2022: www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/
Affordable%20Housing%20Overlay/affordable_housing_12_28_21_draft_ordinance.pdf.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction 48
6 Project Process
The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing
affordability and to implement the city’s 2018 housing plan, Growing SLC. It was initially
envisioned as an overlay district and called “Affordable Housing Overlay”. Since the
proposal applies differently in various zoning districts, an “overlay” is not applicable, and the
“Affordable Housing Incentives” are now the first section in a new incentives chapter in the
city’s zoning regulations.
Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late 2019/early 2020. From the
initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the incentives that serves as the
basis for the current proposal. This was presented online in a StoryMap and staff requested
additional feedback from the community in a survey. Based on this feedback, staff developed
draft affordable housing incentives amendments to the city’s zoning regulations.
Staff presented these draft amendments to the community in the winter and spring of 2022
and to the Planning Commission at a hearing in May 2022. There was a significant amount
of public comment at the meeting and it is included with the staff report. The Planning
Commission provided additional feedback. Staff researched options to respond to the
feedback and worked with developers on scenarios and proformas.
In fall 2022, the Office of the Mayor convened a focus group comprised of community
members, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates to review the incentives and
respond to feedback. This revised draft addresses these comments and incorporates changes
recommended by the focus group. This document further describes the draft zoning
amendments and the changes that have been made to them. The text for the proposed
zoning amendments that would implement these changes are located in Appendix A.
Additional information is available on the project page:
www.slc.gov/planning/affordable-housing.
PROJECT PROCESS
49
7Focus Group Recommendations
FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
AFFORDABILITY LEVEL
2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP
RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL
MIXED-USE/MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
A project is required to do one of the
following:
• 20% of units are restricted as
affordable to those with an income
at or below 80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as
affordable to those with an income
at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as
affordable to those with an income
at or below 80% AMI when the
affordable units have two or more
bedrooms.
Incentives that require a higher
percentage of affordable units are
unlikely to be feasible for market rate
developers.
Lower number of affordable units are
required to provide for more deeply
affordable and larger units, otherwise
the incentives will not work.
The affordability requirement was
expanded to address size and reduce displacement as household income increases as indicated below:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
80% AMI when the affordable units have
two or more bedrooms.
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an average income at or
below 60% AMI and these units shall not
be occupied by those with an income
greater than 80% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
60% AMI when the affordable units have
two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as
affordable to those with an income at
or below 80% AMI when the affordable
units have three or more bedrooms.
SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
50% of units need to be affordable to
those with incomes at or below 80%
AMI.
In the single- and two-family zoning
districts the proposed incentives may
not provide sufficient profit for new
development.
Lower the required percentage of
affordable units to one when the
existing dwelling is maintained.
New construction: At least 50% of the
provided dwelling units shall be affordable;
or
Existing building maintained: A minimum
of one of the dwelling units shall be
affordable provided the existing building is
maintained.
50
8
INFRASTRUCTURE
2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP
RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL
Existing city requirements are for
developers to pay for necessary
infrastructure including water, sewer,
and storm water.
The city has an existing water supply
and demand plan from 2019 that
will be updated in 2023. It takes into
consideration infill and Northwest
Quadrant development.
Existing plans address future water
needs and emphasize system
conservation.
None. Development must provide necessary
upgrades to city services.
City plans and policies will continue
to be updated and assess for adequate
infrastructure.
Focus Group Recommendations
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS
2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP
RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL
PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT
To be eligible for the incentives
single-family and two-family
residential zoning districts, a property
shall be within a ¼ mile of high
frequency transit or located adjacent
to arterial streets.
Remove proximity to transit
requirements due to frequency of
non-fixed transit route changes and
to improve equitable distribution of
additional housing types.
The proximity to transit and adjacency to
arterial roads requirement for additional
housing types in the single- and two-family
zoning districts has been removed and no
longer applies to the AHI. The incentives
would apply to all areas of single- and two-
family residential districts.
DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
• Building entrances on street facing
façades.
• Glass on 15% of surface area on
street facing facades.
• One off-street parking space
required per unit.
Additional development and design standards needed.
• Determined that a blank wall
standard wasn’t necessary.
• Determined that additional
parking wasn’t necessary.
Additional standards added as indicated below:
• Clarified location requirements for
building entrances.
• Added 50% durable materials
requirement (fiber cement, brick,
concrete, etc.) for street facing facades.
• Added 120 sq. ft. open space
requirement with a minimum width of
6 ft. open space requirement per unit.
ENFORCEMENT
2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP
RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL
Require a restrictive covenant and
annual reporting for each property.
Increase city capacity to or use third
party to review annual reporting.
Increase city capacity for
enforcement.
Additional language provided on
enforcement, annual reporting, and the
restrictive covenant requirements.
Provision to allow for third party review.
51
9Summary of Changes
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
There are a number of modifications to the draft proposal presented to the Planning
Commission in May 2022. Several of the major modifications are summarized below and
further described in this document.
• The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement
for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This
opens the incentive up to all areas of the city within single- and two-family zoning districts,
increasing its equity and availability.
• An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. Members of the community and
focus group did not want to see existing housing demolished. Many existing housing units
are naturally more affordable than new housing units. This recommendation is addressed
in the revisions by allowing for a second detached dwelling on a lot if the existing dwelling
is maintained. It decreases the affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is
preserved from 50% of units to at least one of the units.
• Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning
districts. The focus group identified the design of the additional housing types and open
space as potential issues. There is additional language that requires durable building
materials, an entry feature, and open space.
• Removal of provisions that allowed for reduction from some development standards.
The yards and setbacks of the base zoning district apply to the perimeter of the development
and may not be reduced. No increase in building coverage is permitted.
• Enforcement penalties clarified. Enforcement of the incentives to ensure that units are
occupied as required was a frequent comment from members of the community. Staff has
detailed the annual reporting and auditing requirements and increased the fines that could
apply. Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on the property for fines and revocation of
the business license associated with the property.
• Additional incentive options for deeply affordable and larger units. Members of
the focus group had concerns regarding the proposed affordability level and percentage
of units required to be affordable. Staff and members of the development community
presented information on the feasibility of the existing incentive proposal and the viability
of requiring more deeply affordable units and/or a greater percentage of affordable units.
Options for a lower percentage of more deeply affordable and larger units are provided.
• Modifications for consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights text
amendment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to zoning districts within
the downtown in August 2022 and, while these have not been adopted, staff is proposing
changes to the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the proposed changes to
these zoning districts.
52
10
PROGRAM BASICS, ADMINISTRATION
& ENFORCEMENT
GENERAL STANDARDS
• Except for the single- and two-family zoning districts, there are requirements that the
affordable units are comparable to market rate units. This includes the location of the
entrance, dispersion of the units throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms,
and access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development.
• For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50%
of units shall be designated as affordable units.
• The proposal does not change other city requirements, incluidng building codes, fire
codes, or public utilities requirements.
Program Basics, Administration & Enforcement
ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT
The city anticipates that additional staff time will be needed to administer the incentives
program. The amount of staff time necessary will depend on the number of projects that use
the incentives, and the specific incentives adopted. Administration will include the following:
• Preparing and recording a restrictive covenant agreement.
• Reviewing annual reports for compliance. This will assess whether the dwelling units,
owner, and occupants are in compliance with the requirements.
• Projects that require annual reports to be provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene
Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or
others may submit that report in lieu of the city reporting requirements.
• Reports of noncompliance and or other violations will be investigated as necessary. A lien
may be placed on the property for fines and the business license revoked.
53
1154
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning12
PROPOSAL
Permit additional height between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on
the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. Allow for administrative
Design Review when a Design Review process is required.
MULTI-FAMILY & MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
There are several zoning districts where the height permitted is changing from what was
previously proposed. The “Proposed Maximum Height with AH Incentives” column identifies
what is now proposed. The changes are identified in a footnote at the bottom of the page.
The changes include the following:
• Consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights Amendments.
• Four additional options for more deeply affordable or larger units.
• Modifications to encourage greater flexibility and encourage more affordable units.
The simplified administrative design review process for many zoning districts remains. When
a public hearing is required, the approval process can take approximately 4-6 months and an
administrative design review process could shorten this process by 2-3 months.
55
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 13
Proposals that wanted to use this incentive would require affordable units that meet
the following characteristics: The three initial options for affordable units remain:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms.
Staff worked with market rate and affordable housing developers to test these in scenarios
and proformas. Incentives that require a higher percentage of affordable units are unlikely
to be feasible for market rate developers. To provide for more deeply affordable and larger
units, staff, developers, and the focus group prepared the following additional options:
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below
80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
The goal of this proposal is to encourage affordable housing in projects where it may not be
built otherwise and allow for projects that are already providing affordable units to provide
additional units. This is proposed by permitting additional height to encourage the development
of affordable housing and, in some zoning districts, by decreasing the processing time for
applications without modifying the design standards and requirements. Decreasing the
processing time could allow for projects to proceed that may not have otherwise and to begin
construction sooner with reduced carrying costs and development timelines.
56
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning14
The following Residential districts would allow for additional stories by right or with
administrative design review for additional height with affordable units as follows:
DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH AH INCENTIVES
RMU-35 35’, 45’ Design Review*45’ with administrative Design Review*
RMU-45 45’, 55’ Design Review*55’ with administrative Design Review*
RB 30’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building. Density limitations listed in the land use
table do not apply.†
RMU 75’ residential
125’ in mapped area
May build three additional stories equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building with administrative Design Review.**
RO
60’ multifamily
90’ if adjacent to a district with greater
maximum height
One additional story equal to the average height of
the stories permitted.
Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: Residential Districts
* Removes prohibition of additional height for property abutting a Single-Family or Two Family Residential District.
† Provides clarity on permitted units.
** Removes the mapped area and requires affordable units for additional height.
*** Removes SR-3 from table. Limits to incentives for single- and two-family zoning districts.
57
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 15
DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH AH INCENTIVES
SNB 25’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building.
CB 30’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building.
CN 25’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building.
CC
30’
45’ Design Review and additional landscaping equal
to 10% of the additional floor
45’ with administrative Design Review*
CG
60’
90’ Design Review and additional landscaping equal
to 10% of the additional floor.
May build two additional stories equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building with administrative Design Review*†
May build three additional storeis equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building for properties in the mapped area in the
Downtown Building Heights proposal.†
CSHBD1 105’ for residential with structured parking and
Design Review for buildings over 50’
105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the other stories in the building
with administrative Design Review.
CSHBD2 60’ for residential with Design Review over 30’
60’ with administrative Design Review and one
additional story equal to or less than the average
height of the other stories in the building with
administrative Design Review.
TSA Transition
UC-T: 60’
UN-T: 50’
MUEC-T: 60’
SP-T: 60’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building with administrative review. *only allowed if
affordable units are provided
TSA-Core
UC-C: 90’; 105’ with two sloping planes
UN-C: 75’
MUEC-C: 75’
SP-C: 75’
May build two additional stories equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building with administrative review. *only allowed if
affordable units are provided
Footnotes: Changes from May 2022: Commercial Districts
* Allows for additional landscaping to be met with open space. This includes courtyards, patios, or other usable areas.
† Proposed Downtown Building Heights for CG allows for 75’ & 105’ with Design Review, 150’ in new Depot District mapped area.
Removes mapped area previously included with incentives and replaces with Depot District mapped area.
The following Commercial districts would allow for additional stories by right or with
administrative design review for additional height with affordable units as follows:
58
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning16
The following Form-Based districts would allow for additional stories by right or with
administrative design review with affordable units as follows:
DISTRICT PERMITTED MINIMUM OR
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
PERMITTED MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM
HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES
FB-UN3 *pending
85’
125’ Design Review
125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the stories permitted with
administrative Design Review
FB-UN2 50’
65’ on identified corners and in mapped area
One additional story equal to the average height of
the stories permitted.
FB-SC 60’
75’ with 10% affordable units
One additional story equal to the average height
of the stories permitted. Moves affordable unit
requirement to the incentives chapter.
FB-SE 45’May build one additional story equal to the average
height of the other stories in the building.
FB-UN1 2.5 stories, 30’May build up to three stories and 30’ in height.
The two districts below would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative
design review with affordable units as follows:
DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH AH INCENTIVES
GMU
75’ flat
90’ pitched
120’ Design Review
180’ and two additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the other stories in the building
with administrative Design Review.*
MU 45’ mixed-use and residential
60’ with residential and Design Review
60’ with residential units and administrative Design
Review
Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: GMU District
* Proposed Downtown Building Heights amendments for GMU allows for a permitted height of 75’ and an increase
to 180’ with Design Review.
59
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 17
DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH AH INCENTIVES
D-1
Min. 100’ corners
Mid-block 100’ or greater with Design Review
Greater than 375’ with Design Review
Administrative Design Review when a Design Review
process is required.
D-2 65’
120’ Design Review
120’ and two additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the other stories in the building
with administrative Design Review.*
D-3 75’
90’ residential Design Review
180’ and three additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the other stories in the building
with administrative Design Review.*
D-4 75’
120’ Design Review
120’ and three additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the stories permitted with
administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative
review in mapped area.*
Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: Downtown Districts
* The proposed changes are to be consistent and compatible with Downtown Building Heights amendments
that allow the following:
D-1: Minimum height of 100’, with exceptions for utilities, accessory buildings, small parcels & footprints,
and buildings with Design Review. Design review required for buildings greater than 200’.
D-2: Increased additional stories from one to two. Permitted height remains 120’.
D-3: Permitted height remains 75’, up to 180’ permitted with Design Review.
D-4: Additional height permitted with administrative review in mapped area.
The Downtown districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative
design review with affordable units as follows:
60
18 Waive Planned Development Requirements
PROPOSAL
Permit affordable housing developments by right that would otherwise require a
Planned Development.
WAIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT
FOR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
The proposed changes are to be consistent with the Downtown Building Heights proposal,
which removed the Planned Development requirement for the Gateway Mixed Use zoning
district (GMU).
The waiver would require affordable units as otherwise permitted in the zoning district.
Proposals in the Community Shopping (CS) zoning district:
• These modifications would apply to a small number of properties in the CS zone. There are
20 parcels with a total area of 64 acres. The parcels consist of the Brickyard, Foothill Village,
Trolley Square, the Redwood Rd. shopping center with a Lucky grocery, and a church at the
southwest corner of 400 S and 800 E.
Proposals for buildings and lots that do not have street frontage: This part of the
proposal would allow for the development of housing in the following locations:
• Private streets
• Improved public alleys
• Parcels without adequate street frontage
61
19Waive Planned Development Requirements
This type of development currently requires a planned development, as buildings are
normally required to face a public street. This could apply in various zoning districts.
From 2015-2020, the Planning Commission reviewed approximately 80 Planned
Development requests. Approximately 45% of these requests included a request for lots
without street frontage. The applications also requested other items, such as reduced
yard setbacks or a reduction in landscaping, but for most, it is likely that the requirement
for street frontage was a primary issue. The removal of this requirement for projects that
provide affordable units could potentially decrease the review time and development
costs for the applicant.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
Planned development proposals often ask for modifications for reduction in the required
yard setback, height, or other regulations. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the
resulting development is one that is enhanced compared to a proposal that would otherwise
be constructed. However, all development proposals the Community Shopping (CS) zoning
districts require Planned Development approval.
This is also a Planned Development requirement for buildings that do not have street frontage,
including those on public alleys or private streets. This planning process takes approximately 4-6
months and requires Planning Commission approval. Similar to the other proposals, this would
decrease the review time for a project with affordable housing, and potentially enable additional
projects that may not choose to proceed when this process is required. Proposals using these
provisions would still need to meet other zoning district standards, including design standards.
62
20 Allow Housing on Institutional Lands
ALLOW HOUSING ON INSTITUTIONAL LANDS
PROPOSAL
Allow affordable housing on institutional lands.
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
The previous proposal required that 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an
income at or below 80% AMI.
The current proposal allows one of the seven options that apply to zoning districts with
additional height or process waivers. These are as follows:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
The intent of this is to allow single-family and single-family attached housing on properties
that are in the Institutional zoning district and excludes multifamily development. This
district includes schools, hospitals, and non-profits. However, state owned land, including the
University of Utah, is not subject to city zoning regulations. Future zoning amendments may
be considered to allow multifamily housing.
63
21Allow Additional Housing Types
PROPOSAL
Allow additional single-family dwellings, including single-family attached units (row
houses and sideways row houses), or cottages in commercial zoning districts (CB
Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial) to encourage
the redevelopment of underutilized land. These projects would be required to meet the
standards for those housing types. Permitting single-family dwellings would allow for these
dwellings in a cottage development.
ALLOW ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
The previous proposal required that 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an
income at or below 80% AMI.
The current proposal allows one of the seven options that apply to zoning districts with
additional height or process waivers. These are as follows:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
Allowing additional housing types could provide for more variety in development or
redevelopment opportunity. It would also provide the opportunity to transition additional land
to lower scale residential development.
64
Modify Density Limits22
PROPOSAL
Allow for additional units in RMF zoning districts when affordable housing is provided.
MODIFY DENSITY LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY ZONES
• RMF-30
• RMF-35
• RMF-45
• RMF-75
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
The goal is to encourage the construction of affordable multifamily housing in neighborhoods
that are typically close to services and amenities and have a variety of existing housing
types. Removing the density requirements could increase the number properties that
may accommodate affordable units. This benefit would increase the feasibility of these
developments.
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RMF) ZONING DISTRICTS
The city has four RMF zoning districts. They are located throughout the city with the greatest
concentration to the east of downtown. Properties in these districts have a mix of single and
multifamily uses. Many of the existing multifamily structures have density exceeding what is
currently permitted in the zone.
The four districts, distinguished by their height limits are listed below:
65
Modify Density Limits 23
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
There are not changes to the affordability from the May 2022 proposal. There are additions
and changes to the design standards:
• Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable
materials.
• Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street
facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning
feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations.
WHAT AFFORDABILITY IS PROPOSED?
The existing proposal removed the existing qualifying provisions for density in the individual
RMF zoning districts provided rental housing shall be income-restricted and rent-restricted and
meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria if the following are met:
• 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI;
• 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or
• 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI
and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI.
For sale owner occupied units shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those
with incomes at or below 80% AMI. This is intended to allow for a greater number of smaller
and more affordable units than what is currently permitted.
WHAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD APPLY?
The following standards would also apply:
• Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square
feet to promote a mix of unit sizes.
• Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking
space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units.
• Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and
not to the individual principal buildings within the development.
• Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply.
• Sideways row house and row house standards: Specific yard requirements. On street
facing facades buildings cannot exceed 100 feet in length and garages are not permitted.
There is a maximum length of 15’ for blank walls.
• No additional building coverage or height is permitted.
66
24 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts
PROPOSAL
Allow additional building types in single and two-family zoning districts with an affordable
component. Affordable units need to be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80%
AMI. The proposal is to allow townhouses in groups of up to four units, 3-4 unit buildings, and
cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes.
Twin and two-family homes would also be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not
currently allowed.
The units could be renter or owner-occupied. The appreciation on owner-occupied units
would be limited and, if sold, would require the unit to remain affordable for the remainder
of the required time period.
The proposal does not change other city requirements, including requirements for building
codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements.
SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
The city has six single-family zoning districts. These are divided into Foothills and R-1 districts.
The Foothills districts are generally located on the periphery of the city and close to the Foothills.
The R-1 districts are located closer to the center of the city. Most of these areas developed in the
early to mid-20th century.
67
25Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts
• FR-1/43,560
• FR-2/21,780
• FR-3/12,000
• R-1/12,000
• R-1/7,000
• R-1/5,000
• R-2
• SR-1
• SR-1A
• SR-3
NEW DWELLING TYPES
The proposal would allow these types of dwellings, provided the units met the affordability
requirement:
• Twin and Two-family Dwellings: Twin, two-family, and duplex dwellings are not currently
permitted in the single-family zoning districts (FR and R-1 zones). This proposal would
permit them and require them to meet the existing standards for dwellings in the single-
and two-family zoning districts.
• Townhouses and Row houses: These would be defined as row houses and
sideways row houses similar to the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district changes. In the
single- and two-family districts, the number of attached units would be limited to four and
design standards would provide greater compatibility with the existing development.
• Three- and Four-family Dwellings: Small, multi-unit dwellings with up to four units
would be permitted with additional design standards. These modifications are to ensure
greater compatibility with the existing development.
• Cottage Development: The proposal would allow cottage developments with similar
design and standards to the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district changes. Cottages are
designed to look like single-family homes and would be permitted in groups of two to eight
with a common green or open space.
These zoning districts allow two-family units in addition to single-family homes. This would
allow for the additional housing types in these zoning districts.
The districts and minimum lot sizes are as follows:
Many properties in the R-1 districts were previously zoned to allow for additional uses
including two, three-, and four- family buildings.
There are four additional two-family districts where the current proposal applies:
68
26
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
The focus group spent a significant amount of their discussion on the proposed incentives for
the single- and two-family zoning districts. There are several changes proposed:
• The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement
for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens
the incentive up to all areas in single- and two-family zoning districts. This increases its
equity and availability. The intent of the requirement was to encourage additional housing
units in areas that are served by frequent transit (rail or bus service with 15-minute
headways during peak periods) or are adjacent to arterial roads, which often have greater
intensities of development. However, this requirement proved difficult because the location
and frequency of the non-fixed bus routes has changed several times in the past few years.
Additionally, some areas of the city were excluded and this raised concerns regarding the
equity of the incentives and how they applied in different neighborhoods.
• Addition of an incentive to preserve existing housing. This incentive allows for the
construction of a second detached dwelling on the property when an existing dwelling is
maintained. When a dwelling is retained, the affordability requirement is lowered to one
of the units on the property. When an existing unit is not maintained, 50% would be
required to meet the affordability requirement. The proposed incentives may not provide
a sufficient profit for development. This provides an alternative with a lower percentage of
units required to be affordable.
Example of a 4-unit townhouse (sideways row house) on a nearly
11,000 square foot lot. Each unit is 1,840 sq. ft. with a two-car garage.
Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts69
27
• Additional design standards requiring durable building materials, entry features,
and open space. There is an existing requirement for 15% glass on street facing
facades.
• Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable
materials.
• Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street
facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning
feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations.
There are separate requirements for cottage developments for entries to face the
street or common open space.
• Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining
areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall
be accessible to all residents or users of the building. 120 sq. ft. of open space
with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling.
There are separate open space requirements for row house and cottage
developments.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
There are changes to the previous requirements. The following are new requirements:
• Arrangement of Dwellings: Dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a
building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or if a cottage development
with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage
development.
• Existing Building: When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added
internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling.
There are clarifications and modifications for the following:
• Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the property and not to the
individual principal building(s).
• Parking: One parking space would be required per dwelling unit. If a property has multiple
units, a minimum of one space would be required for each unit. A detached garage or
carport with up to 250 sq. ft. for each unit may be provided in a single structure.
• Subdivision: Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that
each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width
requirements.
• Rowhouse standards: There are specific yard requirements. On street facing facades
buildings cannot exceed 60 ft. in length and garages are not permitted. There is a
maximum length of 15’ for blank walls.
• Cottage standards: There are specific yard requirements. Individual cottages cannot be
more than 850 sq. ft. Open space and personal outdoor space must be provided.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and
counts toward the number of units permitted.
• No additional building coverage or building height is permitted.
Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 70
28
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff understands that there are concerns regarding the potential demolition of
historic resources. The process for construction and demolition, including review by the
Historic Landmark Commission, would not change for properties that are in local historic
districts or are local landmark sites. It would be difficult for a contributing, locally designated
building to be demolished for construction using the affordable housing incentives. Additions
and any new structures on the property would require historic review. Demolition of a
non-contributing structure and new construction would need to meet historic preservation
standards and guidelines.
The city’s regulations do not apply to districts or individual properties that are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, but are not locally designated. The existing demolition
process for these buildings would not change. Whether to redevelop a property would be up to
individual property owners. Additionally, some properties that are not currently designated as
local historic districts could be designated. Any new local historic district would need to meet the
requirements in the city’s Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Preservation of Existing Structure: Center lot depicts an existing single-family home
with a basement ADU, two surface parking spaces, detached two-car garage, and new,
detached single-family home to the rear. This is on a larger nearly 12,000 sq. ft. lot. The
three structures have a total building coverage of 27%.
Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts71
29
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
The proposal would allow for some gentle increases in density in areas of the city that are
predominantly occupied by single-family homes. Removal of the proximity to transit and
arterial requirements open the option to all areas of the city zoned for single- and two-
family dwellings and make this more equitable. The gentle increase in density that would
be permitted is compatible with the historic development patterns of the city, where a mix
of housing types, including duplexes and the division of a dwelling into multiple residences,
previously occurred.
County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Legend
Single and Two-Family
Zoning Districts
FR-1/43,560
FR-2/21,780
FR-3/12,000
SR-1
SR-1A
SR-3
R-1/12,000
R-1/7,000
R-1/5,000
R-2
±0 0.5 10.25 Miles
SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
72
30
ADOPTION PROCESS & IMPLEMENTATION
STEP 1: Planning staff is seeking additional feedback on the proposal. Public comments
were included with the May 2022 staff report. Comments received after the May 2022
public hearing are included in 2023 memos and reports. Based on the feedback, in fall
2022, the Office of the Mayor convened a focus group to review the proposal and make
recommendations.
Based on these discussions staff revised the proposal, and is presenting this revised
document to detail the changes to the proposal. Additional comments will be included with
subsequent memos and reports.
STEP 2: Review revised draft zoning ordinance text amendment language. This will be
reviewed by the community, the Planning Commission at a briefing, and a subsequent
public hearing. The Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council
who will hold an additional public hearing prior to action. Language implementing the
proposal will be adopted in the Zoning Ordinance.
STEP 3: After adoption, interested parties consult with planning and other city staff to
determine during the planning stages if the project meets the zoning and other applicable
requirements. A planning process may be required.
STEP 4: Development plans are reviewed to make sure they comply with the incentives
and applicable regulations. This would require the typical review process as well as an
additional review to ensure compliance with the incentives and a restrictive covenant
placed on the property. This would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
STEP 5: Building is constructed and after completion, a report is submitted annually to verify
compliance with the requirements of affordability.
NEXT STEPS
Next Steps73
31
DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE
APPENDIX A: DRAFT LANGUAGE
Appendix A: Draft Language 74
75
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The proposed amendments would incentivize the
construction of affordable housing through modifications to
the zoning requirements.
Over time, and particularly in recent years, housing in Salt Lake
City has become less affordable. There are many variables
affecting housing prices, including zoning regulations.
The goal of the proposed amendments are to increase
affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. Where
multifamily housing is permitted, the incentives are designed
to encourage developers to include affordable housing in
projects and allow affordable housing developers to build
more housing units. The incentives also allow for small
increases in housing units throughout the city.
Other recent and upcoming zoning changes further
enable the construction of more housing. However, there
are issues and concerns that zoning cannot address,
including job wages, home prices, and, outside of these
proposed amendments, the types of units constructed, and
the rents charged.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
Proposal Summary | March 2023
PROPOSAL
The proposed zoning amendments would incentivize the
construction of designated affordable units, lessening the
burden for those that would qualify and live in these units.
Residential units that wanted to use the incentives would be
required to place a restrictive covenant on the property for
the units to be made available to qualifying households. The
proposal could apply to rental housing units and for sale units.
This document summarizes the proposal. See more
information at: www.slc.gov/planning/affordable-housing
The City’s Planning Division is considering zoning
amendments to encourage the construction of
additional affordable housing. This includes
affordable housing incentives that would modify
zoning requirements in some areas of the city. This
document provides a summary of the changes and
updates from the May 2022 proposal.
77
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner | sara.javoronok@slcgov.com | 801.535.7625
SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES
Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
• Permit additional height, between 1-3 stories (approximately
10’ per story), depending on the zone in various zoning districts
that permit multifamily housing.
Residential Multifamily Zoning Districts
• Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts,
if the proposal meets the affordability requirements.
• No additional height permitted.
• Only 25% of the units could be 500 square feet or smaller.
• Add development and design standards for rowhouse,
sideways rowhouse, cottage, and other building forms.
Single- and Two-family Zoning Districts
• Allow additional building types in single- and two-family zoning
districts provided 1-2 of the units would be affordable.
• Allow townhouses in groups of up to four, 3-4 unit buildings,
and cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned
for single- or two-family homes. Twin and two-family homes
would also be permitted in the zoning districts where they are
not currently allowed.
• Add development and design standards for these dwellings.
Other Incentives
• Waive the Planned Development process for some proposals
when affordability requirements are met.
• Allow single-family and single-family attached housing on
Institutional zoned land. Future zoning amendments may be
considered to allow multifamily housing.
• Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial),
CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business)
zoning districts to encourage the redevelopment of
underutilized land. These districts permit multifamily housing,
but not single-family dwellings, including single-family attached
units, or cottages.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
There are a number of modifications to the draft proposal
presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022:
• The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to
arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the
single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the incentive
up to all areas of the city within single- and two-family zoning
districts, increasing its equity and availability.
• An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. The
revisions incentivize retaining an existing dwelling. The
affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved
decreases from 50% of units to at least one of the units.
• Additional design standards for new housing types in single-
and two-family zoning districts. There is additional language
that requires durable building materials, an entry feature, and
an open space.
• Enforcement penalties detailed. There are additional annual
reporting requirements and an increase in the fines that
could apply. Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on
the property for fines and revocation of the business license
associated with the property.
• There are additional incentive options for more deeply
affordable and larger units. These allow for a lower percentage
of units to be set aside, ranging from 5-10% of units.
• Modifications for consistency with the proposed Downtown
Building Heights text amendment. The Planning Commission
recommended changes to zoning districts within the downtown
in August 2022. Pending adoption, staff is proposing changes
to the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the
proposed changes to these zoning districts.
PROJECT TIMELINE
Spring 2023
Spring/Summer 2023
Fall 2023
Briefing and
Public Hearing
Public Hearing and
Tentative Adoption
Implementation
78
PLNPCM2019-00658 –City Council Briefing –September 19, 2023
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
•Implement city plans
•Housing SLC
•Plan Salt Lake
•Thriving in Place
•Market rate development may provide affordable units
•Make affordable housing more competitive with market housing in terms of land
costs and land availability
•More development right:
•Reduce the income required for affordable units
•Increase the number of affordable units
•Land use and zoning are one of many factors
GOALS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Winter 2019/2020 –Survey #1
•Summer 2020 –StoryMap, Survey #2, and Outreach
•2020-2021 –Internal Draft and Discussion
•January 2022 –Public Draft
•Winter/Spring 2022 –Outreach
•May 2022 –Planning Commission hearing
•Summer/Fall 2022 –Research and work with developers
•Fall/Winter 2022 –Focus group meetings and additional
modifications
•Winter 2023 –Refine recommendations and
modifications
•Planning Commission and HLC –March and April 2023
PROCESS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Incentive Based
•Additional Height
•Additional Building Types
•Process Modifications or Waivers
•Modification of Development Standards
•Income Restricted
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Typical salary:
•Healthcare support -$33,065
•Education -$52,624
•Office and admin support -$40,882
•34% increase in median income 2016-2022
•55% increase in rent 2016-2022
WHAT IS AFFORDABLE?
MFI = $106,000 1-person family (30%)4-person family (30%)
30% AMI $22,300 ($558)$31,800 ($795)
50% AMI $37,100 ($928)$53,000 ($1,325)
80% AMI $59,400 ($1,485)$84,800 ($2,120)
Sources: HUD, Living Wage-MIT, US Census ACS, Zillow
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Convened by the Office of the Mayor
•Included 15-20 members, comprised of
neighborhood leaders, developers, policy
advisors, and housing advocates
•Reviewed and discussed topics with the
most community concerns
•Affordability level and percentage of units
•Neighborhood impacts
•Administration and enforcement
•Infrastructure impacts
•Four meetings in fall/winter 2022
•Recommended changes to proposal
FOCUS GROUP
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Remove proximity to transit and arterial road
requirements
•Incentivize preservation of existing housing.
•Increase design standards for single and
two-family zoning districts.
•Additional incentive options for deeply
affordable and larger units.
•Recommendations for future zoning and
subdivision text amendments
FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Goal: Allow for additional affordable units in zoning
districts that permit multifamily and mixed-use
buildings.
Proposal:
•Additional height by right or with administrative
design review
•Additional housing types in some commercial
zones and in the institutional zone
•Require affordable units for an additional one or
two stories in the TSA zones rather than obtaining
an administrative review point score
MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE ZONES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at
or below 80%AMI;
•10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at
or below 60%AMI; or
•10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at
or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms
2022 INCENTIVE OPTIONS –MIXED USE AND MULTIFAMILY (NOT RMF)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or
below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income
greater than 80% AMI; or
•5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30%
AMI; or
•5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60%
AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
•5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below
80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
ADDITIONAL 2023 INCENTIVE OPTIONS –MIXED USE AND MULTIFAMILY (NOT RMF)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Quattro –Northeast corner of 400 S and 400 E
Zone: TSA-UN-C
Max Height: 75’
Site: 25,000 sq. ft./0.57 acres, 95 units, 97 parking spaces
Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for
administrative review are eligible for an increase in height. The
increase shall be limited to one story of habitable space. The height
of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the average
height of the other stories in the building.
Height with extra story: 83’8”
Surrounding properties are TSA-UN-C or TSA-UC-C (90’ max
height)
Proposal:
•Allow two extra stories, require affordable units for the extra
stories
•Must meet one of the options for the affordable units
EXAMPLE:
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Post District/Gale Street –300 W and 500 South
Zone: D-2
Max Height: 65’, 120’ with design review
Overall project: 581 residential units, 27,300 square feet
of commercial, 665 parking spaces, ~6-acre site
Downtown Building Heights Text Amendment: No
change
Proposal:
•Two additional stories with administrative Design
Review
•Must meet one of the incentive options for affordable
units
EXAMPLE:
81 ft
85 ft
85 ft
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•The three options from the 2022 AHI
provide a small incentive
•Lower AMI levels require a lower
percentage of units
•A higher percentage of units would
likely require a subsidy to implement
•Incentives could provide additional
units in buildings that already have
affordable units
SUMMARY
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Four RMF zoning districts –RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45
and RMF-75
•No additional height or building coverage
•Minimum lot width requirements would not apply
•Yards apply to perimeter of development
•Parking
•One space per unit for up to 10 units
•10 or more units would follow requirements in
21A.44
•Design standards
•Row houses and sideways row houses
•More than two units
•Must meet affordability requirements
RMF ZONES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Remove density limits if rental housing meets the
following:
•A minimum of 40% of units shall be affordable to
those with incomes at or below 60% AMI;
•A minimum of 20% of units shall be affordable to
those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or
•A minimum of 40% of units shall be affordable to
those with incomes averaging no more than 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by
those with an income greater than 80% AMI.
•For sale owner occupied units shall provide a
minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with
incomes at or below 80% AMI.
•No more than 25% of the units can be less than 500
sq. ft.
RMF ZONES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Gladhouse –1700 S and 1000 W
Zone: RMF-35
Max Height: 35’
Site: 27,058 sq ft/ 0.62 acres
Qualifying Provision Footnote:
9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up
to and including 11 units. 26,000 square feet for 12 units, plus 1,000 square feet for
each additional dwelling unit up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,500
square feet for each dwelling unit is required.
13 units permitted, 10 built with 24 total parking spaces (20
required)
Proposal would remove the density requirement allowing for
additional units, reduce required parking, and allow buildings
without street frontage
•Height and building coverage could not increase (60% MF+SFA)
•Need to meet affordability requirements
EXAMPLE:
•R-1, FR, R-2, and SR zoning districts
•Additional housing types permitted
•Two-family, Twin-homes
•Triplex
•Fourplex
•Sideways and Row houses
•Cottage development (2-8 units)
•New construction: 50% of units affordable at
80% AMI
SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Incentivize the preservation of existing
housing units
•Lower affordability requirement from 50% to
one unit
•Allow a second, detached dwelling on a
property
•Existing height and lot coverage
requirements
•Existing setbacks and yards apply to
perimeter of development
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Single-and two-family incentives
apply in all R-1, FR, and SR
zoning districts
•Removed proximity to transit
and arterial requirements due to
frequency of non-fixed transit
route changes
•Increase the equitable
distribution of additional housing
types.
APPLICABLE AREAS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•No increase in height permitted from
base zoning district
•No increase in building coverage
permitted
•Same or increased yards/setbacks
required for perimeter
•No minimum lot width
•One off-street parking space required
per unit
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Building entrance
•15% glass on each floor
•Rowhouse garage doors cannot face street
•Durable building materials
•Open space
DESIGN STANDARDS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
2700 South Duplexes
Zone: R-1/7,000
Site: 29,600 sq ft/0.68 acres
Permitted Use: Single-family, prior to 1995 was R-2, which
permitted duplexes
Proposal:
•Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, 3-4 townhouses, and cottage
developments would be permitted
•Affordability requirements
EXAMPLE:
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Apply to zoning districts that permit residential
development
•Apply to properties that are in the city’s local
historic districts and local landmark sites
•No modification to the city’s historic regulations
or processes
•Any proposals would need to meet standards
and guidelines
•Units could be added with additions or new
construction
•Properties that are in National Register Historic
Districts or individually listed but are not in local
districts are not subject to the city’s historic
regulations
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE AHI
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Restrictive covenant required -30 years, transfers to any future owner
•Prepare guidelines and administrative requirements
•Reports reviewed annually and properties can submit report for other
funding source
•Affordable Homeownership Unit
•Administrative requirements will set maximum price annually
•City will have first option on resale
•Owners need to meet income requirements at time of purchase
•Affordable Rental Unit
•Monthly rent, including costs, shall not exceed rate set by Utah Housing
Corporation annually
•Administrative requirements will address if income increases
ADMINISTRATION
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Administrative costs
•Staffing is likely a future need
•Construction cycle (12-36 months)
•Auditing would come after a project is completed
ADMINISTRATION
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Difference in affordable rate and charged rate
•Increased the fines that could apply to $100 per day
per unit fine, set in Consolidated Fee Schedule
•Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on the
property for fines
•Revocation of the business license associated with
the property
•Persons or related persons cannot be granted a
license for six months after the license is revoked
ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•New development must provide necessary
improvements
•Need to meet building and fire code and
public utilities requirements
•For example, depending on size and scope,
may need to replace water or sewer lateral,
main, etc.
•Water Supply and Demand Master Plan
anticipates infill development
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner
Nick Norris, Planning Director
John Anderson, Planning Manager
Brooke Olson, Principal Planner
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
08/08/2023________________________
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:33 MDT)
Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _0_8_/0_8_/_2_0_2 3_________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Incentives
STAFF CONTACT: Sara Javoronok, AICP Senior Planner
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com, 801-535-7625
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None. However, implementation of the amendments may require
additional staff and resources.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Former Mayor Jackie Biskupski initiated the text amendment
in 2019. The Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI) are proposed for the city’s zoning code to
incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The proposed amendments include the
following if requirements for affordable units are met:
• Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories,
depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing.
• Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for
development in the CS zoning districts.
• Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the TSA
Core zoning districts.
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
• Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community
Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts.
• Allow housing on Institutional zoned land.
• Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts.
• Allow townhouses, 3-4 unit buildings, a second detached dwelling when an existing
dwelling is maintained, and cottage developments on properties that are currently zoned
for single- or two-family homes. Permit twin and two-family homes in these zoning
districts where they are not currently allowed.
The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing affordability
and to implement Growing SLC. Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late
2019/early 2020. From the initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the AHI
that serves as the basis for the current proposal. Staff requested additional feedback from the
community in a survey on the draft framework. Based on this feedback, developed draft the initial
AHI text amendments. Staff presented these initial draft amendments to the community in the
spring of 2022 and to the Planning Commission and public at a hearing in May 2022.
Following the hearing, staff worked with developers and a focus group convened by the Office of
the Mayor to address and revise the draft based on the issues raised. The revisions also incorporate
changes from the now adopted RMF-30 and pending Downtown Building Heights text
amendments. Staff presented a revised draft to the Planning Commission for discussion on March
22, 2023 and March 29, 2023. The Historic Landmark Commission held a work session on April
6, 2023. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City
Council on April 26, 2023. The Planning Commission added a condition that the incentives be
analyzed 24 months after approval with a full report of the costs and benefits of the implementation
to the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities, related to the proposed project since the application was initiated:
Online Surveys and Comment Form:
• December-January 2020 – Planning staff posted an initial survey seeking feedback on
housing issues. Over 2,100 people responded.
• July 2020 – Planning staff presented a draft proposal in a Story Map and sought feedback
on the proposal. Nearly 300 people responded.
• February 2022 – Planning staff posted the draft amendments and sought feedback through
a comment form. Approximately 130 people responded.
• March 2023 – Planning staff posted an updated draft of the proposed amendments and
sought feedback through the comment form. Two people responded for a total of
approximately 175 since February 2022.
Developer Discussions: Planning staff met with several affordable housing developers in 2019 to
discuss issues and obstacles to building affordable housing in the community and how zoning may
be able to address them. Developers generally indicated that by right processes were best, there
should be parking reductions especially for lowest incomes, density limits made development
difficult in the RMF districts, additional height was needed in many zoning districts, and there was
a preference for form-based zoning districts.
Staff requested feedback from developers on the draft proposal and generally heard that the
incentives would allow them to construct more units and that the incentives in the single-family
zoning districts may encourage smaller developers to construct units.
Recognized Community Organization Notice and Meetings:
• June 25, 2020 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was
sent citywide.
o July 20, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use
and Zoning meeting (Zoom).
o August 6, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community
Council meeting (Zoom).
• March 3, 2022 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was
sent citywide.
o March 16, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench
Community Council meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with loss of
views, view easements, and wanted to be notified of potential projects in the
neighborhood.
o March 21, 2022 - Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land
Use Committee meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with additional
housing types proposed, especially in the Highland Park neighborhood, lack of
parking, lack of utility capacity, loss of neighborhood character, increase in rental
housing, and desire for the proposal to be implemented as a smaller, pilot program.
o April 7, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community
Council meeting (Zoom). Community members want to see more owner-occupied
housing in the neighborhood, expressed concerns with additional height in the FB
districts, have concerns with existing parking requirements in the FB zones, and
have general parking and safety concerns.
o April 13, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan
Meadows/Westpointe Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members
asked questions about parking and how the increased number of students and
increased park usage would be addressed.
o April 14, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community
Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about historic
districts and how the proposal would affect them, required parking, accessory
dwelling units, rental units, and neighborhood character.
o May 4, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues
Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community member questions included
affordability levels, the Planning Commission meeting and how to submit
comments if not able to attend, and the monitoring of the deed restricted properties.
o March 16, 2023 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City
Community Network meeting (Zoom).
Open Houses and Virtual Events:
• July 9, 2020 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on
Facebook. It reached 4,365 people with 1,423 3-second video views and 52 comments.
• February 16, 2022 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A
discussion on Facebook. It reached 772 people with 401 3-second video views and 71
reactions, shares, and comments.
• April 5, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting
to answer questions. There were no attendees.
• April 5, 2022 – Open House (Sugar House Fire Station #3) – Planning staff hosted an open
house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Seven people
attended.
• April 12, 2022 – Open House (Unity Center) – Planning staff hosted an open house to
provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Three people attended.
• April 14, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom
meeting to answer questions. No one attended.
• April 19, 2022 – Open House (Riverside Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to
provide information and answer questions on the proposal. No one attended.
• April 21, 2022 – Open House (Lindsey Gardens Park) – Planning staff hosted an open
house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. One person attended.
The Glendale and Sugar House Community Councils submitted letters.
Community Notification: The City Council office sent a flyer to commercial and residential
addresses in the city and owners that live outside of Salt Lake City. It identified housing
initiatives in the city and highlighted this proposal. A total of 99,832 were sent.
Focus Group: The Office of the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20 members.
It was comprised of neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates.
The group reviewed and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings
in the fall and winter of 2022. They made several recommended changes to proposal detailed in
the planning staff’s report.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access Report)
d) PC Agenda of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access)
e) PC Minutes of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access)
f) Planning Commission Memo of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access Memo)
g) PC Agenda of March 29, 2023 (Click to Access)
h) PC Minutes of March 29, 2023 (Click to Access)
i) PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access)
j) PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access)
k) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report)
Attachment E
EXHIBITS:
1) Ordinance: Final and Legislative Versions
2) Project Chronology
3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
4) Petition Initiation Request
5) Additional Department Comments
6) Public Comment Received after the Planning Commission Staff Report was Published
1. ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658 pertaining to zoning incentives and affordable housing
incentives.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held
public hearings on May 11, 2022 and April 26, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by former
Salt Lake City Mayor, Jackie Biskupski (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658) to amend various
sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code adding zoning incentives and affordable housing
incentives; and
WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requests a report on costs and benefits of implementation
of the affordable housing incentives 24 months following adoption; 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 text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.20.040. That Section
21A.20.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Enforcement: Civil Fines) shall be and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
1
A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at
twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for
purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per
violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses.
B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the
citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule
per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess
of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the
difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed
to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives.
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.A. That
Subsection 21A.24.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000
Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is
to provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives
developments with up to four units on lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or
larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable
community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and
intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for
safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible
development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.A. That
Subsection 21A.24.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000
Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to
provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives
developments with up to four units on lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square
feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable
community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and
intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for
safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible
development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.A. That
Subsection 21A.24.070.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000
Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
2
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to
provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives
developments with up to four units on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet
in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable
community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and
intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for
safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible
development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.A. That
Subsection 21A.24.110.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and
Two-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District
is to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of
predominantly single- and two-family dwellings. Uses are intended to be compatible with
the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are
intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to promote
sustainable and compatible development patterns.
SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.170.F. That
Subsection 21A.24.170.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU
Residential/Mixed Use District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
F.Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five
feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1
and F2 of this section.
1.
2.
Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45').
Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use
buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors.
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2. That
Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit
Station Area District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows (Table 21A.26.078.E.2 and
all notes thereto shall remain and are not amended herein):
2.Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table
21A.26.078.E.2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E.2. The minimum
3
building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The
building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the
width of the street facing building wall.
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.040.C. That Table
21A.27.040.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-SC and FB-SE Form
Based Special Purpose Corridor District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
TABLE 21A.27.040.Cꢀ
FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDSꢀ
Permitted Building Forms
Multi-Family And Storefront ꢀ
H ꢀ Maximum building height ꢀMaximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft.
Limitation on commercial uses Commercial or nonresidential uses are limited to the
first 3 stories and a height of 45 ft. This limitation
does not apply to hotel/motel uses, which are
limited to the maximum height of 75 ft.
F Front and corner Greenway
side yard setback
Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 15 ft.
Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft.
Avenue
Boulevard
Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 10 ft.
Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft.
B Required built-to Minimum of 50% of any street facing facade shall
be built to the minimum setback line. At least 10%
of any street facing facade shall be built to the
maximum setback line.
S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum
setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is
required. Any portion of the building taller than 30
ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required
building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over
30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no
minimum setback is required. See illustration
below.
R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum
setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is
required. Any portion of the building taller than 30
ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required
building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over
30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no
minimum setback is required. See illustration
below.
L Minimum lot size 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density.
4
W Minimum lot width 50 ft.
DU Dwelling units per building form No minimum or maximum.
Bf Number of building forms per lot 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of
lot area provided all building forms have frontage
on a street.
SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section
21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Residential Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use
category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
5
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/R-1/R-1/R-1/ SR- SR- SR- R- RMF- RMF- RMF- RMF- RB R-R-R- RO
43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 1 2 3 2 30 35 45 75 MU- MU- MU
35
P
45
PAffordable
Housing
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Incentives
Development
6
SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section
21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Commercial Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use
category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
7
Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District
CN
P
CB
P
CS1
P
CC
P
CSHBD1 CG
P
SNB
PAffordable
Housing
P
Incentives
Development
8
SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section
21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add
the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts, in alphabetical order with other use
categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
9
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
TSA-UN TSA-MUEC
Core Transition Core Transition
TSA-UC
Transition
TSA-SP
Core TransitionCore
Affordable Housing Incentives
Development
P P P P P P P P
10
SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section
21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the
table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
D-1
P
D-2
P
D-3
P
D-4
PAffordable Housing Incentives
Development
SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section
21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses in the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for the Gateway District, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
Use G-MU
Affordable Housing Incentives Development P
SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section
21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Special Purpose Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
11
Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District
RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS PL PL-2A I UI MH EI MU
Affordable
Housing
P
Incentives
Development
12
SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section
21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Form Based Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
[Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.]
Use Permitted Uses By District
FB-UN1
P
FB-UN2 FB-UN3
P
FB-SC FB-SE
PAffordable Housing Incentives
Development
P P
[Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should
be codified.]
Use Permitted Uses By District
FB-UN1
P
FB-UN2
P
FB-SC
P
FB-SE
PAffordable Housing Incentives
Development
SECTION 16. Creating a new Chapter 21A.52 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of
the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Incentives) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new
Chapter 21A.52 Zoning Incentives and shall read as follows:
21A.52.010 PURPOSE:
The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals
within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents.
21A.52.020 APPLICABILITY:
This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection.
21A.52.030 RELATIONSHIP TO BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICTS:
13
Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district
standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section.
21A.52.040 APPROVAL PROCESS:
Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or
modified within this chapter.
A.
B.
C.
The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within
this chapter.
The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this
chapter.
Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1.
21A.52.050 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES:
A.Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of
affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of
affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be
permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is
intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and
comfortable places to live and play.
B.Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to
development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated
below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or
overlay districts shall apply.
C.
D.
Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this
section.
Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are
required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any
additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be
submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the
end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of
Community and Neighborhoods or successor.
1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that
demonstrates compliance with this chapter.
a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s)
provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund,
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding
source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods,
or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions,
including tenant income and rent rates.
b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above,
the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to
the following:
(1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description.
(2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address.
(3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving
the incentives that includes:
14
(A) The total number of dwelling units
(B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit
(C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit
(D)Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of
affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and
a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the
approval requirements.
(E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required
to be affordable under this section, including a change in the
number of people residing in each unit and any change in
tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted.
(F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed
on an annual basis.
(G)Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental
rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent
received for the identified affordable dwelling units.
(H)Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no
longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the
length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the
agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was
taken to address the noncompliance.
2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall
review the report to determine if the report is complete.
3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and
Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that:
a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance.
b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner.
c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance.
4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that
indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall:
a. Cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and
concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the
property that demonstrates compliance; or
(1) Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the
expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall
include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and
the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and
Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and
extension are appropriate and whether or not fines shall be stayed
during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated
report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates
compliance.
b. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any
noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall
15
be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in
compliance.
5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this
section.
6. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20,
except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E.
E.Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property
as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to
21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below.
1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding
fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a
statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within
14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt
Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount
entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a
lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which
the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment
of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is
released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax
receipt issued by the treasurer.
2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the
property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business
license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license
shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community
and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14
days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the
charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an
officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to
confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and
Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the
hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals
hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is
revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or
use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the
license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal
or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license
has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the
conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a
period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good
cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with
an individual who has had a license revoked.
F.Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for
the authorized incentives:
16
1.Restrictive Covenant Required:
a.Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a
legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be
approved by the city attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the
restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation:
acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and
any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of
compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance
for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any
violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the
property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the
affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is
transferrable to any future owner.
b.For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be
provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any
sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is
capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below.
2.The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment
restricted.
a.Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only
to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual
income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as
applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro
FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for
household size).
b.Rent/Housing Payment Restriction
(1)For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all
required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other
charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than
charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written
lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the
maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the
Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt
Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given
affordable unit type.
(2)For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing
payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private
mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or
homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not
exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income
permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given affordable
17
unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of
bedrooms in the unit plus one person.
3.
4.
Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units
in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the
building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to
all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set
forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to
units in single- and two-family zoning districts.
The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives
pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or
agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21.
G.Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section.
Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning
district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed
within each zoning district in order to be eligible for the affordability incentives. To
use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base
zoning districts.
Table 21A.52.050.G
Incentive Types
Types Incentive
Type A. Applicable to the single- and Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an
two-family zoning districts: FR-1,
FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000,
R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and
SR-3.
affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to
those with incomes at or below 80% AMI.
New construction: At least 50% of the provided
dwelling units shall be affordable.
Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of
the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the
existing building is maintained as required in
21A.52.050.H.1.c.
Type B. Applicable to residential
multifamily zoning districts: RMF-
30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75
An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at
least one of the following affordability criteria:
1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes at or below 60% AMI;
2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes at or below 50% AMI; or
3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI
and these units shall not be occupied by those
with an income greater than 80% AMI.
For sale owner occupied units: An affordable
homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50%
of units affordable to those with incomes at or below
80% AMI.
18
Type C. Applicable to zoning
districts not otherwise specified.
Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet
a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria
identified. Any fractional number of units required
shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI;
2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 60% AMI;
3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by
those with an income greater than 80% AMI;
4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 30% AMI;
5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more
bedrooms;
6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 60% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more
bedrooms; or
7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more
bedrooms.
1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin
home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses,
sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2,
FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning
districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table
21A.52.050.G are met.
2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying
provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for
the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the
RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply,
provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are
met.
3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG
General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts:
a.The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and
cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the
affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with;
19
b.To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development
shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table
21A.52.050.G.
4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the
affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with:
a.Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of
21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement
notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable.
Additional building height as indicated in the following sections:b.
(1) Residential districts:
Permitted Maximum Height with IncentiveZoning
District
RMU-35
RMU-45
RB
45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone.
55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone.
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do
not apply.
RMU
RO
May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
(2)Commercial Districts:
Zoning
District
SNB
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
CB
CN
CC
CG
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by
meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5.
May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties
in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G.
CSHBD1
CSHBD2
105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative
Design Review.
20
TSA-
Transition
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative review.
TSA-Core May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative review.
(3)Form-based districts:
[Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.]
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in
the building.
May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in
the building.
FB-UN2
FB-SC
FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in
the building.
FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height.
[Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should
be codified.]
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
FB-SC
FB-SE
May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height.
(4)Downtown districts:
Zoning
District
D-1
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is
required.
D-2
D-3
Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories
in the building with administrative Design Review.
Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other
stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
21
D-4 Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories
permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design
Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b.
(5)Other districts:
Zoning
District
GMU
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other
stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review.
c.Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following:
(6)Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district
that exceed 20,000 square feet in size.
(7)Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500
gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or
in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area.
5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose
of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to
approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification
that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible
for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability
requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040.
a.Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal
building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without
having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the
restrictions of 21A.36.010.B;
b.
c.
d.
Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley;
Principal buildings with frontage on a private street;
Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned
Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C.
H.Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to
provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for
the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and
compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless
specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in
subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more
restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not
allowed to be modified through the planned development process.
1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2,
SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts:
a.Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only
one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage
22
or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be
provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and
building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When
covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking
may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall
provided.
b.
c.
Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the
development and not to the individual principal buildings within the
development.
Density:
(1)Lots approved through a planned development prior to the
effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major
modification of the planned development to use the incentives.
Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be
divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are
exempt from minimum lot area, lot width, and lot frontage
requirements.
(2)
(3)
(4)
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and
counts toward the number of units permitted.
Arrangement of dwellings:
(A)New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner
within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as
attached units, or a cottage development with three or
more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are
part of the cottage development.
(B)When an existing building is maintained, new units
may be added internal to the existing structure, as an
addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any
addition must comply with the standards of the base
zoning district; however, the addition may contain
additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the
existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall
remain as exterior walls.
(C)The units shall comply with this section, applicable
requirements of the base zoning district, and any
applicable overlay district.
2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the
following provisions shall apply:
a.Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be
less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes.
Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only
one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily
developments with less than 10 units.
b.
23
c.Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the
development and not to the individual principal buildings within the
development.
d.Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply.
3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions
apply to the specific building types listed:
a.Row house and Sideways row house
(1) Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of
the base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the
building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard
unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning
district
(C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
(2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2,
FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR-
1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a
maximum of four residential dwelling units per building.
(3) Building length facing street:
(A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the
average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1,
FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-
2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts;
(B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the
RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts;
and
(C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other
zoning districts.
(4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building
entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing
the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a
public street shall have the primary entrance on the street
facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch,
canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in
the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be
closer than 5 feet from the front property line.
(5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder
of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to
satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the
discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the
24
proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the
structure.
(6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser
parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking
space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be
located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind
a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within
the principal structure subject to any other applicable
provision.
(7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on
the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along,
a public street.
(8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum
outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum
measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet.
(9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a
street must contain a minimum of 15% glass.
(10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall
uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at
the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’.
(11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical
equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to
minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting
include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the
architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard
area subject to yard location restrictions found in section
21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required
Yards” of this title.
Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House
Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House
25
b.Cottage Development
(1) Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the
base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the
property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard,
unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning
district.
(C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
(2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have
a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage.
(3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross
floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum
square foot requirement.
(4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public
street or a common open space.
(5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder
of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to
satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the
discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the
26
proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the
structure.
(6)
(7)
Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open
space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space
shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space.
The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space
requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of
private open space is required per cottage. The open space
shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be
separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to
distinguish the private space.
(8)Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in
21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All
provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing
building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage
on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other
applicable provision.
c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the
following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two
residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard
requirement, that standard applies.
(1)Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard
setback of the base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in
the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side
property line, unless a greater setback is required for
single-family homes.
(C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
(2)Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary
entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an
unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to
second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations.
Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a
street must contain a minimum of 15% glass.
Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder
of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to
satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the
discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the
(3)
(4)
27
proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the
structure.
(5)Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards,
patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces.
All required open space areas shall be accessible to all
residents or users of the building.
(A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of
open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be
provided for each building with a dwelling.
(B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the
land area within the development shall be open space,
up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include
courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other
similar types of open space amenities. All required
open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or
users of the building.
d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except
as identified in 21A.24.
e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no
more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units.
f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate
developments without planned development approval subject to the
following standards:
(1)Required yards shall be applied to the overall development
site not individual lots within the development. The front and
corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards;
(2)
(3)
(4)
Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development
not individual lots within the development; and
Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the
development are permitted on any lot within the development.
The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final
plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a
public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or
private street; and
(5)An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be
established for the operation and maintenance of any common
infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be
recorded with the final plat.
SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1. That
Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Planned Developments: Purpose
Statements) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
28
1. Affordable housing that meets the requirements of 21A.52.050.
SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section
21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and
hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list
in alphabetical order:
Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing Incentives Development
Dwelling, Three-family
Dwelling, Four-family
Dwelling, Row House
Dwelling, Sideways Row House
Dwelling, Cottage Development
SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That
Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall
be and hereby is amended as follows:
a. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING.” That the definition of
“AFFORDABLE HOUSING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and read as follows:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable,
rent-restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and
households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area
median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as
periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah
Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable (30% of gross income for housing costs,
including utilities) housing units must accommodate at least one of the following categories:
a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to
30% AMI;
b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than
30% and up to 50% AMI; or
c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and
up to 80% AMI.
29
b. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order
and read as follows:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that
meets the criteria in 21A.52.050.
c. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY.” That the definition of
“DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and read as follows:
DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units.
d. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY.” That the definition of
“DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and read as follows:
DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units.
e. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of
“DWELLING, ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and read as follows:
DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least
one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a
public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit
may be on its own lot.
f. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE.” That the definition
of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of
definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows:
DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that
share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each
30
unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or
attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot.
g. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT.” That the
definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into
the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows:
DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified
development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling
units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or
open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot.
SECTION 20. That the “ZONING FEES” section of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to add the fees set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule
shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 21. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first
publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
31
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
(SEAL)
July 7, 2023
Date:___________________________Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.By: ________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
Ordinance creating zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives
32
EXHIBIT A
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Affordable Housing Incentives Fines
Noncompliance violation $100/affordable Plus rental difference
unit/day
21A.20.040.B
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658 pertaining to zoning incentives and affordable housing
incentives.
9
10
11
12
13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held
public hearings on May 11, 2022 and April 26, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by former
Salt Lake City Mayor, Jackie Biskupski (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658) to amend various
14 sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code adding zoning incentives and affordable housing
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
incentives; and
WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requests a report on costs and benefits of implementation
of the affordable housing incentives 24 months following adoption; 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.
23 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
24
25
26
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.20.040. That Section
21A.20.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Enforcement: Civil Fines) shall be and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
1
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at
twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for
purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per
violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses.
B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the
citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule
per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess
of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the
difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed
to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives.
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.A. That
Subsection 21A.24.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000
Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is
to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing
incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots
twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas
of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be
compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for
the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play,
promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing
character of the neighborhood.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.A. That
52
53
Subsection 21A.24.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000
Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to
provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing
incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not
less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of
the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be
compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for
the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play,
promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing
character of the neighborhood.
2
64
65
66
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.A. That
Subsection 21A.24.070.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000
Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to
provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing
incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not
less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of
the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be
compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for
the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play,
promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing
character of the neighborhood.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.A. That
78
79
Subsection 21A.24.110.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and
Two-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District
is to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing
neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings
by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. Uses are intended to be
compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for
the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to
promote sustainable and compatible development patterns.
SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.170.F. That
89 Subsection 21A.24.170.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU
90 Residential/Mixed Use District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
F.Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five
feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1
and F2 of this section. Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum of
one hundred twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review process
(chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located within the
one hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located in
subsection F3 of this section.
1.
2.
Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45').
Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use
buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors.
3
101
102
103
3.One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU
District:
104
105
FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3
106
107 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2. That
Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit
Station Area District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows (Table 21A.26.078.E.2 and
all notes thereto shall remain and are not amended herein):
108
109
110
4
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
2.Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table
21A.26.078.E.2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E.2. The following
exceptions apply:
a. The minimum building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or
private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty
percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall.
b. Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for administrative review are
eligible for an increase in height. The increase shall be limited to one story of
habitable space. The height of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the
average height of the other stories in the building. This is in addition to the height
authorized elsewhere in this title.
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.040.C. That Table
124
125
21A.27.040.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-SC and FB-SE Form
Based Special Purpose Corridor District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
126
127
TABLE 21A.27.040.Cꢀ
FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDSꢀ
Permitted Building Forms
Multi-Family And Storefront ꢀ
H ꢀ Maximum building height ꢀMaximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. An
additional 15 ft. in height (for a total height of 75
ft.) may be permitted for residential uses if a
minimum of 10% of the units areꢀ affordable
housing. ꢀ
Limitation on commercial uses Commercial or nonresidential uses are limited to the
first 3 stories and a height of 45 ft. This limitation
does not apply to hotel/motel uses, which are
limited to the maximum height of 75 ft.
F Front and corner Greenway
side yard setback
Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 15 ft.
Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft.
Avenue
Boulevard
Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 10 ft.
Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft.
B Required built-to Minimum of 50% of any street facing facade shall
be built to the minimum setback line. At least 10%
of any street facing facade shall be built to the
maximum setback line.
S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum
setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is
required. Any portion of the building taller than 30
ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required
building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over
30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no
5
minimum setback is required. See illustration
below.
R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum
setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is
required. Any portion of the building taller than 30
ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required
building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over
30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no
minimum setback is required. See illustration
below.
L Minimum lot size
W Minimum lot width
4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density.
50 ft.
DU Dwelling units per building form No minimum or maximum.
Bf Number of building forms per lot 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of
lot area provided all building forms have frontage
on a street.
128
129
130
131 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section
21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Residential Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use
category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
132
133
134
135
136
6
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/
43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000
R-1/R-1/R-1/ SR- SR- SR- R- RMF- RMF- RMF- RMF- RB R-R-R-RO
P
1 2 3 2 30 35 45 75 MU- MU- MU
35
P
45
PAffordable
Housing
Incentives
Development
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
137
7
138
139
140
SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section
21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
141 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
142
143
Uses for Commercial Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use
category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
8
Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District
CN
P
CB
P
CS1 CC
P
CSHBD1 CG
P
SNB
PAffordable
Housing
P P
Incentives
Development
145
9
146
147
148
149
150
151
SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section
21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add
the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts, in alphabetical order with other use
categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
152
10
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
TSA-UN TSA-MUEC
Core Transition Core Transition
TSA-UC
Transition
TSA-SP
Core TransitionCore
Affordable Housing Incentives
Development
P P P P P P P P
153
11
154
155
156
157
158
159
SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section
21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the
table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
D-1
P
D-2
P
D-3
P
D-4
PAffordable Housing Incentives
Development
160
161 SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section
21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses in the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for the Gateway District, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
162
163
164
165
Use G-MU
Affordable Housing Incentives Development P
166
167
168
169
170
171
SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section
21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Special Purpose Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
12
172
Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District
RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS PL PL-2A I UI MH EI MU
Affordable
Housing
P
Incentives
Development
173
13
174
175
176
177
178
SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section
21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use
category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Form Based Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows:
179
180
[Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.]
Use Permitted Uses By District
FB-UN1
P
FB-UN2 FB-UN3
P
FB-SC FB-SE
PAffordable Housing Incentives
Development
P P
181
182
183
184
[Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should
be codified.]
Use Permitted Uses By District
FB-UN1
P
FB-UN2
P
FB-SC
P
FB-SE
PAffordable Housing Incentives
Development
185
186
187
188
SECTION 16. Creating a new Chapter 21A.52 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of
the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Incentives) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new
Chapter 21A.52 Zoning Incentives and shall read as follows:
189 21A.52.010 PURPOSE:
190
191
The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals
within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents.
192
193
21A.52.020 APPLICABILITY:
This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection.
194
195
21A.52.030 RELATIONSHIP TO BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICTS:
14
196
197
Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district
standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section.
198 21A.52.040 APPROVAL PROCESS:
199
200
Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or
modified within this chapter.
201
202
203
204
205
A.
B.
C.
The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within
this chapter.
The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this
chapter.
Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1.
206 21A.52.050 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES:
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
A.Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of
affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of
affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be
permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is
intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and
comfortable places to live and play.
Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to
development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated
below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or
overlay districts shall apply.
B.
C.
D.
Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this
section.
Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are
required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any
additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be
submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the
end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of
Community and Neighborhoods or successor.
1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that
demonstrates compliance with this chapter.
a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s)
provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund,
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding
source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods,
or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions,
including tenant income and rent rates.
b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above,
the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to
the following:
(1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description.
(2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address.
(3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving
the incentives that includes:
15
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
(A) The total number of dwelling units
(B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit
(C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit
(D)Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of
affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and
a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the
approval requirements.
(E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required
to be affordable under this section, including a change in the
number of people residing in each unit and any change in
tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted.
(F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed
on an annual basis.
(G)Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental
rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent
received for the identified affordable dwelling units.
(H)Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no
longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the
length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the
agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was
taken to address the noncompliance.
2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall
review the report to determine if the report is complete.
3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and
Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that:
a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance.
b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner.
c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance.
4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that
indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall:
a. Cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and
concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the
property that demonstrates compliance; or
(1) Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the
expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall
include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and
the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and
Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and
extension are appropriate and whether or not fines shall be stayed
during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated
report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates
compliance.
b. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any
noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall
16
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in
compliance.
5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this
section.
6. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20,
except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E.
E.Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property
as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to
21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below.
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding
fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a
statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within
14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt
Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount
entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a
lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which
the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment
of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is
released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax
receipt issued by the treasurer.
2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the
property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business
license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license
shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community
and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14
days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the
charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an
officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to
confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and
Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the
hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals
hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is
revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or
use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the
license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal
or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license
has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the
conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a
period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good
cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with
an individual who has had a license revoked.
328
329
F.Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for
the authorized incentives:
17
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
1.Restrictive Covenant Required:
a.Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a
legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be
approved by the city attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the
restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation:
acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and
any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of
compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance
for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any
violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the
property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the
affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is
transferrable to any future owner.
b.For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be
provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any
sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is
capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below.
2.The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment
restricted.
a.
b.
Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only
to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual
income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as
applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro
FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for
household size).
Rent/Housing Payment Restriction
(1)For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all
required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other
charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than
charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written
lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the
maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the
Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt
Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given
affordable unit type.
(2)For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing
payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private
mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or
homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not
exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income
permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given affordable
18
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of
bedrooms in the unit plus one person.
3.
4.
Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units
in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the
building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to
all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set
forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to
units in single- and two-family zoning districts.
The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives
pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or
agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21.
387
388
389
390
391
392
G.Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section.
Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning
district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed
within each zoning district in order to be eligible for the affordability incentives. To
use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base
zoning districts.
393 Table 21A.52.050.G
Incentive Types
Types Incentive
Type A. Applicable to the single- and Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an
two-family zoning districts: FR-1,
FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000,
R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and
SR-3.
affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to
those with incomes at or below 80% AMI.
New construction: At least 50% of the provided
dwelling units shall be affordable.
Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of
the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the
existing building is maintained as required in
21A.52.050.H.1.c.
Type B. Applicable to residential
multifamily zoning districts: RMF-
30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75
An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at
least one of the following affordability criteria:
1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes at or below 60% AMI;
2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes at or below 50% AMI; or
3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI
and these units shall not be occupied by those
with an income greater than 80% AMI.
For sale owner occupied units: An affordable
homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50%
of units affordable to those with incomes at or below
80% AMI.
19
Type C. Applicable to zoning
districts not otherwise specified.
Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet
a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria
identified. Any fractional number of units required
shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI;
2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 60% AMI;
3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by
those with an income greater than 80% AMI;
4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 30% AMI;
5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more
bedrooms;
6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 60% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more
bedrooms; or
7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more
bedrooms.
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin
home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses,
sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2,
FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning
districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table
21A.52.050.G are met.
401
402
403
404
405
406
2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying
provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for
the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the
RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply,
provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are
met.
407
408
409
410
411
3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG
General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts:
a.The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and
cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the
affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with;
20
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
b.To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development
shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table
21A.52.050.G.
4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the
affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with:
a.Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of
21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement
notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable.
Additional building height as indicated in the following sections:b.
(1) Residential districts:
Permitted Maximum Height with IncentiveZoning
District
RMU-35
RMU-45
RB
45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone.
55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone.
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do
not apply.
RMU
RO
May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
423
424
425
(2)Commercial Districts:
Zoning
District
SNB
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
CB
CN
CC
CG
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by
meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5.
May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties
in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G.
CSHBD1
CSHBD2
105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative
Design Review.
21
TSA-
Transition
TSA-Core
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative review.
May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative review.
426
427
428
429
430
(3)Form-based districts:
[Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.]
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in
the building.
May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in
the building.
FB-UN2
FB-SC
FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in
the building.
FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height.
431
432
433
434
435
[Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should
be codified.]
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
FB-SC
FB-SE
May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height.
436
437
438
439
(4)Downtown districts:
Zoning
District
D-1
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is
required.
D-2
D-3
Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories
in the building with administrative Design Review.
Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other
stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
22
D-4 Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories
permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design
Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b.
440
441
442
(5)Other districts:
Zoning
District
GMU
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other
stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review.
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
c.Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following:
(6)Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district
that exceed 20,000 square feet in size.
(7)Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500
gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or
in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area.
5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose
of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to
approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification
that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible
for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability
requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040.
a.Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal
building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without
having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the
restrictions of 21A.36.010.B;
Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley;
Principal buildings with frontage on a private street;
Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned
Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C.
b.
c.
d.
H.Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to
provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for
the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and
compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless
specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in
subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more
restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not
allowed to be modified through the planned development process.
1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2,
SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts:
a.Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only
one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage
23
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be
provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and
building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When
covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking
may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall
provided.
Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the
development and not to the individual principal buildings within the
development.
b.
c.Density:
(1)Lots approved through a planned development prior to the
effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major
modification of the planned development to use the incentives.
Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be
divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are
exempt from minimum lot area, lot width, and lot frontage
requirements.
(2)
(3)
(4)
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and
counts toward the number of units permitted.
Arrangement of dwellings:
(A)New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner
within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as
attached units, or a cottage development with three or
more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are
part of the cottage development.
(B)When an existing building is maintained, new units
may be added internal to the existing structure, as an
addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any
addition must comply with the standards of the base
zoning district; however, the addition may contain
additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the
existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall
remain as exterior walls.
(C)The units shall comply with this section, applicable
requirements of the base zoning district, and any
applicable overlay district.
2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the
following provisions shall apply:
a.Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be
less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes.
Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only
one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily
developments with less than 10 units.
b.
24
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
c.Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the
development and not to the individual principal buildings within the
development.
d.Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply.
3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions
apply to the specific building types listed:
a.Row house and Sideways row house
(1) Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of
the base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the
building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard
unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning
district
(C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
(2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2,
FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR-
1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a
maximum of four residential dwelling units per building.
(3) Building length facing street:
(A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the
average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1,
FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-
2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts;
(B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the
RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts;
and
(C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other
zoning districts.
(4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building
entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing
the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a
public street shall have the primary entrance on the street
facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch,
canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in
the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be
closer than 5 feet from the front property line.
(5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder
of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to
satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the
discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the
25
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the
structure.
(6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser
parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking
space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be
located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind
a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within
the principal structure subject to any other applicable
provision.
(7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on
the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along,
a public street.
(8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum
outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum
measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet.
(9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a
street must contain a minimum of 15% glass.
(10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall
uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at
the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’.
(11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical
equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to
minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting
include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the
architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard
area subject to yard location restrictions found in section
21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required
Yards” of this title.
Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House
598
599 Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House
26
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
b.Cottage Development
(1) Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the
base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the
property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard,
unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning
district.
(C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
(2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have
a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage.
(3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross
floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum
square foot requirement.
(4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public
street or a common open space.
(5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder
of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to
satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the
discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the
27
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the
structure.
(6)
(7)
Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open
space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space
shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space.
The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space
requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of
private open space is required per cottage. The open space
shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be
separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to
distinguish the private space.
Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in
21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All
provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing
building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage
on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other
applicable provision.
(8)
c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the
following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two
residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard
requirement, that standard applies.
(1)Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard
setback of the base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in
the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side
property line, unless a greater setback is required for
single-family homes.
(C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary
entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an
unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to
second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations.
Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a
street must contain a minimum of 15% glass.
Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder
of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to
satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the
discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the
(2)
(3)
(4)
28
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the
structure.
Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards,
patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces.
All required open space areas shall be accessible to all
residents or users of the building.
(A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of
open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be
provided for each building with a dwelling.
(B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the
land area within the development shall be open space,
up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include
courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other
similar types of open space amenities. All required
open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or
users of the building.
(5)
d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except
as identified in 21A.24.
e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no
more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units.
f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate
developments without planned development approval subject to the
following standards:
(1)Required yards shall be applied to the overall development
site not individual lots within the development. The front and
corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards;
Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development
not individual lots within the development; and
Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the
development are permitted on any lot within the development.
The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final
plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a
public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or
private street; and
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be
established for the operation and maintenance of any common
infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be
recorded with the final plat.
SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1. That
Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Planned Developments: Purpose
Statements) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
711
712
29
713
714
715
716
717
1.At least twenty percent (20%) of the housing must be for those with incomes that are at
or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Affordable housing that meets
the requirements of 21A.52.050.
SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section
718 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and
719
720
hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list
in alphabetical order:
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing Incentives Development
Dwelling, Three-family
Dwelling, Four-family
Dwelling, Row House
Dwelling, Sideways Row House
Dwelling, Cottage Development
729
730
731
732
733
734
SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That
Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall
be and hereby is amended as follows:
a. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING.” That the definition of
“AFFORDABLE HOUSING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and read as follows:
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable,
rent-restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and
households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area
median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as
periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah
Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable (30% of gross income for housing costs,
including utilities) housing units must accommodate at least one of the following categories:
a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to
30% AMI;
b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than
30% and up to 50% AMI; or
30
747
748
749
750
c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and
up to 80% AMI.
b. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order
and read as follows:
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that
meets the criteria in 21A.52.050.
c. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY.” That the definition of
“DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and read as follows:
758
759
760 DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units.
761
762
763
764
d. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY.” That the definition of
“DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and read as follows:
DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units.
765
766
767
e. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of
“DWELLING, ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and read as follows:
768
769
770
771
DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least
one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a
public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit
may be on its own lot.
772
773
774
f. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE.” That the definition
of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of
definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows:
31
775
776
777
778
DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that
share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each
unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or
attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot.
779
780
781
g. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT.” That the
definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into
the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows:
782
783
784
785
DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified
development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling
units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or
open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot.
786
787 SECTION 20. That the “ZONING FEES” section of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to add the fees set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule
shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website.
788
789
790
791
792
SECTION 21. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first
publication.
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
801
802
803
804
32
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
(SEAL)
Date:___________________________
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney822823Ordinance creating zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives
33
824 EXHIBIT A
825
826
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Affordable Housing Incentives Fines
Noncompliance violation $100/affordable Plus rental difference
unit/day
21A.20.040.B
827
34
2. CHRONOLOGY
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2019-00658
July 15, 2019 Petition initiated by Mayor Jackie Biskupski
Petition assigned to Sara JavoronokJuly 15, 2019
December 3, 2019 First survey posted. Notice emailed to listserv and posted on social media
accounts.
June 25, 2020
June 26, 2020
Notice mailed to all Community Councils.
StoryMap with framework for proposal and survey posted. Notice
emailed to listservs and posted on city social media accounts.
July 9, 2020 Planning staff held an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook Live.
July 20, 2020 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use and
Zoning meeting.
August 6, 2020 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council
meeting.
January 28, 2022
February 16, 2022
March 3, 2022
Project website updated and Project Update notice emailed to listservs.
Planning staff held a second AMA/Q&A on Facebook Live.
Second notice mailed to all Community Councils. Planning staff met with
seven Community Councils in March and April 2022.
March 16, 2022
March 21, 2022
April 2022
Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench Community
Council meeting.
Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use
Committee meeting.
Flyer mailed to 99,832 commercial and residential addresses in Salt Lake
City and owners outside of the city.
April 5, 2022
April 5, 2022
Open House held at Sugar House Fire Station #3.
Planning staff hosted Virtual Office Hours on an open Zoom meeting to
answer questions.
April 7, 2022 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council
meeting.
April 12, 2022
April 13, 2022
Open House held at the Unity Center
Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan Meadows/Westpointe
Community Council meeting.
April 14, 2022
April 14, 2022
Planning staff hosted Virtual Office Hours on an open Zoom meeting to
answer questions.
Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community Council
meeting.
April 19, 2022
April 21, 2022
April 29, 2022
Open House held at Riverside Park
Open House held at Lindsey Gardens Park
Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and notice emailed to
listserv.
May 4, 2022 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues Community
Council meeting
May 6, 2022 Staff report posted to Planning’s website
May 11, 2022
October 25, 2022
March 16, 2023
Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing. The item was tabled.
First of four Focus Group Meetings
Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City Community
Network meeting.
March 22, 2023
March 29, 2023
April 6, 2023
Planning Commission Briefing
Planning Commission Work Session
Historic Landmark Commission Work Session
April 14, 2023 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and notice emailed to
the listserv.
April 21, 2023
April 26, 2023
Staff report posted to Planning’s website
Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to the City
Council
3. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2019-00658 – A petition initiated
by former Mayor Jackie Biskupski to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to add a new
chapter with Affordable Housing Incentives. The proposed amendments are to incentivize and
reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives include administrative Design Review and
additional building height in various zoning districts, Planned Development requirement
modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional
dwelling types in various zoning districts. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters
of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning amended as part of this
petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to
other related sections of the code as part of this proposal.
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter.
his meeting will be held via electronic means, while potentially also providing for an in
person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County
Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. If you are
interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, please visit the
website www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings/ or call 801-535-7654 to obtain connection
information.
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
Sara Javoronok at 801-535-7625 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail sara.javoronok@slcgov.com. The application details can be
accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the
petition number PLNPCM2019-00658 or on the project page at
https://www.slc.gov/planning/2023/03/08/affordable-housing/.
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.
4. PETITION
INITIATION REQUEST
5. ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Kristeen Beitel, Public Utilities
When weighing increased densification as an incentive for affordable housing, it is important for
applicants to consider the potential increase in construction costs resulting from required offsite
utility improvements. Densification may place greater demands on water, sewer, and storm
drain systems, which could exceed the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Property owners
and developers may be required to upgrade the offsite public utilities to ensure sufficient
capacity for the new developments.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
POSTED
From:Clark, Aubrey
To:Turner Bitton; Planning Public Comments
Subject:
Date:
RE: (EXTERNAL) Supportive Comments for Affordable Housing Incentives Public Hearing
Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:58:07 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Turner,
Thank you for submitting your comments. I have forwarded it to the Planning Commission, and it
will be shared during the public hearing.
Thanks,
Aubrey Clark | (She/Her/Hers)
Administrative Assistant
PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Direct: (801) 535-7759 or Mobile: (385) 415-4701
Email: Aubrey.Clark@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV
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: Turner Bitton
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:52 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Supportive Comments for Affordable Housing Incentives Public Hearing
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
Hello,
I had planned to attend tonight’s planning commission digitally but learned that there is no longer a digital
attendance option and I’m at Disneyland so I can’t make it. I wanted to make sure that our support for the
Affordable Housing Incentives was formally submitted. In addition to our formal support, I would like to submit
this statement for the record:
“SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors supports the Affordable Housing Incentives, however based on
estimates in the current proposal, we are concerned that projects in single-family neighborhoods will not
be financially viability. If the city is serious about promoting the construction of more housing in high-
opportunity single-family neighborhoods, some of the current conditions that make those projects
financially unfeasible should be removed.
The Scenarios in Attachment G show that there is virtually no economic incentive for market rate
developers to pursue the AHI’s. However, it has the potential to add more affordable units on SELECT
projects that are already pursuing LIHTC’s
Especially in multi-family districts, density bonuses need to take into account building code requirements,
for example that the maximum number of stories that can be built with a wood-frame structure is five. If
the density bonus provided forces builders to use a steel-frame construction technique, the economic
benefits of an extra floor of apartments does not overcome the extra cost of using expensive construction
materials.
In addition, to make the incentives more functional, the incentives should be changed to:
1) Allow lots to be split and to allow for the sale of separate units.
2) Eliminate ALL parking requirements for projects that meet the threshold for the incentives. This would
make many projects more affordable, especially in higher density zones.
3) In multi-family districts near rail transit, the incentives in terms of FAR (floor area ratio) and height limits
should be much stronger to (a) make more projects financially viable and (b) locate more residents and
businesses near rail.
Overall, the incentives should be increased to find a broader mix of incentives that produce positive results
for market rate developers considering adding affordable units to projects.”
Thanks,
Turner C. Bitton (he/him)
Executive Director
SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors
www.slcneighbors.org
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Budget & Public Policy Analyst
DATE:September 19, 2023
RE: Parking Permit Program Ordinance Amendment to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 12.64.040
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Transportation Division operates a parking permit program available in areas where non-resident vehicle
parking creates ongoing issues on at least eight block faces. Parking restrictions are tailored to address the
specific challenges of the area and there are many possible combinations such as no parking or time-limited
parking at certain hours and days of the week. The Administration is proposing a single sentence change to
City Code that would allow the transportation director to waive the minimum requirement of eight standard
block faces for establishing a parking permit area.
The three proposed land uses where the eight-block minimum requirement could be waived are:
- A hospital or medical building,
- A university or college building, or
- A TRAX station.
This change could result in more and smaller parking permit areas. The Transportation Division does not
anticipate significant workload or expense increases because of the change. A map of the current permit areas
is available in Attachment 1. Chapter 12.64 of City Code governing the program is available in Attachment 2.
The Central Ninth Business District approached the Transportation Division about creating a parking permit
area, but the impacts are concentrated in fewer than the eight-block minimum. A recent parking study of 900
South conducted by a consultant for the Transportation Division recommended exploring the feasibility of a
Central Ninth parking permit program (Attachment 3). The area is seeing increased parking impacts from
denser housing, more businesses, and the TRAX station which doesn’t have a park and ride lot. There are likely
other neighborhoods that would also be interested in pursuing a parking permit area of less than eight-blocks.
Goal of the briefing: Review and identify whether the Council wants to make any modifications to the
proposed ordinance change.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: September 19, 2023
2nd Briefing: October 3, 2023 (if needed)
Potential Final Vote: October 3 or 17, 2023
Page | 2
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.In the near term - Balancing the Use of Street Parking for Residents and the General Public –
The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to balance the competing interests of residents
needing vehicle street parking near their homes and the general public’s access to street parking. Does
allowing the transportation director to waive any minimum size requirements strike the right balance between
policy goals? For example, should a one-block parking permit area be created in response to a busy small
health clinic or dental office since both could be considered medical buildings allowing a waiver of the
minimum size requirement?
2.In the long term – Balancing the use of street parking with longer term goals for urban centers
including eliminating parking requirements. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administraiton,
including the Planning division, whether this proposed change may complicate future zoning reform efforts
such as eliminating parking requirements in areas around transit or where access to transit is plentiful. The
Council may wish to ask the Planning Division for their review and thoughts on this proposed change,
including recommendations for a phasing out of parking permit programs if the City evolves to a point where
residents have fewer cars overall (a long-term stated goal in multiple City master plans). The Council may also
wish to discuss with the Administraiton whether the Planning Director should be a part of the waiver process.
3.Add Frontrunner and Streetcar Stations as Eligible for Eight-block Minimum Waiver – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to broaden the TRAX station waiver to also
include Frontrunner and Streetcar stations. Potential language including all three could be “fixed guideway
public transit stations.” The Transportation Division has expressed an openness to this potential change.
4.Short-term and Seasonal Parking Permits – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how often
the current option of seasonal parking permits is used and could any ordinance changes help address short-
term parking impacts such as from a major construction project and/or the State Fairpark. Temporary parking
permit areas up to 180 days are allowed in response to an emergency per City Code 12.64.175.
5.Periodic Review and When to End an Existing Parking Permit Area – The Council may wish to ask
the Administration are parking permit areas periodically reviewed? City Code section 12.64.150 and 160
identify the process for enlarging, shrinking, or ending an existing permit area which include a mailed notice
to property owners, public hearing, written report, and determination. For example, parking permit areas
around Judge Memorial High School (area #6) and Smith’s Ballpark (area #7) may see parking impacts
significantly change if the school moves and The Bees relocate.
ADDITIONIAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Map of Parking Permit Areas (Attachment 1)
There are currently nine areas as shown in the Attachment 1 map. There is no parking permit Area 1. Note that
not every block face within the highlighted areas has restricted parking programs. An interactive and more
detailed street-level map showing which blocks are subject to parking permits is available on the
Transportation Division website here: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/permitparking/
City Parking Permit Program, Salt Lake City Code Chapter 12.64 (Attachment 2)
The full chapter of City Code governing the program is available in Attachment 2. Some sections of note are:
Section 12.64.040 identifies general and specific criteria the transportation director uses to determine whether
to establish a parking permit area. Criteria include support from area residents as expressed by petitions and a
required ballot, how often on street parking is occupied, thresholds that 70% of parking is generally occupied
for four days per week at least nine months of the year or longer than two months for seasonal permits,
commuter vehicles are 25% or more of on street parking, and the transportation director believes a parking
permit area would not cause the problem to simply move to an adjacent area.
Page | 3
Section 12.64.050 outlines the process to designate a parking permit area. First at least 25% of area residents
petition the transportation director for creating a parking permit area. A parking study is then conducted to
evaluate the criteria listed in the prior section (12.64.040). If the study concludes the criteria are met, then a
ballot is mailed to all addresses and property owners to vote in favor of or against. 30 days are allotted for
ballots to be returned. The process ends when 51% or more of the returned ballots are against. Otherwise,
majority support is assumed, and a public hearing is held.
Section 12.64.060 approves or denies an area designation. Within 30 days of the public hearing required in the
prior section, the transportation director writes a report determining whether to create the parking permit
area, specific regulations, and the final area boundaries. All addresses in the area are mailed notice of the
determination whether denying or approving creation of the permit area. The City Council may review and
modify a determination per subsections E and F.
Section 12.64.100 prioritizes parking permit allocation between competing groups in the following order from
highest to lowest: area residents household members, area business that own or lease including full time
employees, area residents and area businesses within a seasonal permit area during that term, guests,
customers, and clients, temporary visitors. Note that permits must be displayed in the vehicle authorized to
use them and renewed annually for a fee currently set at $48. There are no fees for guest permits.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of Salt Lake City Parking Permit Areas 2023
2. City Parking Permit Program, Salt Lake City Code Chapter 12.64
3. 900 South Reconstruction Project: Corridor and District Parking Report 2022
ACRONYMS
TBD – To De Determined
TRAX – Transit Express which is the Utah Transit Authority’s light rail system
CHAPTER 12.64
CITY PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM
SECTION:
12.64.010: Purpose
12.64.020: Definitions
12.64.030: Area Designation; Authority
12.64.040: Area Designation; Criteria
12.64.050: Area Designation; Process
12.64.060: Area Designation; Transportation Engineer Actions
12.64.070: Signs And Markings In Designated Areas
12.64.080: Parking Permit; Application; Term
12.64.090: Parking Permit; Fees
12.64.100: Parking Permit; Issuance Conditions
12.64.110: Parking Permit; Display Required
12.64.120: Parking Permit; Activities Permitted
12.64.130: Temporary Visitor Permits
12.64.140: Parking Permit; Revocation Conditions
12.64.150: Enlargement Of Area
12.64.160: Removal Of Area Designation Or Deletion Of Streets
12.64.170: Modification Of Regulations
12.64.175: Emergency Procedures; Temporary Parking Permit Area
12.64.180: Unlawful Activities; Penalty
12.64.010: PURPOSE:
A. There exist certain entities within the city, such as hospital and university complexes and other large buildings, which attract
commuters seeking parking in nearby areas which are predominantly residential and business in nature. The increased demand
often exacerbates the severe shortage of street parking for residents and businesses in such areas.
B. This chapter authorizes a program and implementing procedural system by which residents and businesses within qualifying
areas may receive preferential treatment when competing with commuter vehicles for available on street parking in predominantly
residential neighborhoods of the city. The enactment of a preferential parking permit program, administered by the transportation
engineer and implemented and operated by the parking permit coordinator, can address the adverse effect of motor vehicle
congestion caused by the long term parking of commuter vehicles within these areas by:
1. Increasing access to residents and businesses;
2. Increasing traffic/pedestrian safety by reducing traffic congestion;
3. Reducing the adverse environmental impacts on an area created by excessive air and noise pollution and the accumulation
of trash and refuse on public streets;
4. Encouraging the use of mass transit, car pooling and other alternative modes of transportation by reducing commuter vehicle
traffic that originates from outside the permit area and has no apparent relation to area residents and businesses;
5. Promoting the tranquillity, safety, health and welfare of area inhabitants, which are desirable attributes that are associated
with a positive urban environment. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.020: DEFINITIONS:
A. As used in this chapter:
ADDRESS: The street number and applicable apartment/condominium number for each dwelling unit, business, or other use. Each
apartment or commercial unit is regarded as a unique address.
AREA: Refers, irrespective of zoning, to a geographical region, not necessarily contiguous, where residents dwell and businesses
may operate.
AREA BUSINESS: Any professional establishment or nonresident property owner whose business property is located within a city
parking permit area.
AREA PERMITTEE: An area resident or an area business which has received from the transportation division an authorized area
regular permit or an authorized seasonal city permit.
AREA REGULAR PERMIT OR REGULAR PERMIT DECAL: The permanent adhesive decal issued by the parking permit
coordinator for assignment to vehicles under the legal control of area residents and businesses.
AREA RESIDENT: Any person who dwells or resides within a parking permit area.
AREA SEASONAL PERMIT: A permanent adhesive decal issued by the parking permit coordinator for assignment to vehicles
under the legal control of area residents and businesses of a seasonal city permit area.
AREA VEHICLE: A vehicle that originates from inside a permit area and is under the control of area residents or area business
owners and includes automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, or other motor driven forms of transportation. It does not include boats and
trailers.
CITY PERMIT AREA OR PARKING PERMIT AREA: Any officially designated permit parking area within the corporate limits of Salt
Lake City wherein motor vehicles displaying a valid permit as described herein shall be exempt from parking regulations or
restrictions solely applicable to commuter vehicles.
CITY PERMIT PROGRAM: Salt Lake City's permit parking program, as a whole, administered by the transportation engineer and
operated by the parking permit coordinator pursuant to the provisions and regulations of this chapter.
COMMUTER VEHICLE: A motor vehicle parked in a city permit parking area that: 1) is not under the control of an area resident,
business owner or property owner, and 2) does not bear a permit for the designated area.
DECLARATION: The final action taken by the transportation engineer setting the conditions for either approval or denial of the
proposed city permit area.
DIRECTOR OR TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER: The director of the transportation division
of the city.
DWELLING: A building, or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes. Such dwelling must bear an address
assigned by the city engineer. The number of independent dwelling units recognized therein shall not exceed the number authorized
under permit for zoning.
EMERGENCY PARKING SITUATION: A parking situation that, in the reasonable opinion of the director, causes a threat to the
tranquility, safety, health or welfare of inhabitants of a city neighborhood that will be addressed by implementing temporary permit
parking procedures. An emergency situation may include, but is not limited to, the use of a facility within or adjoining a neighborhood
that in the reasonable opinion of the director: 1) is likely to result in the neighborhood qualifying as a city parking permit area or a
seasonal city parking permit area, whether such use is governmental or otherwise, 2) which use appears to the director to be inimical
to one or more of the objectives of the city permit parking program as set forth in subsection 12.64.010B of this chapter or its
successor, and 3) where such use can be identified, forecast and is repetitive.
GUEST PERMIT: The portable card stock placard issued by the parking permit coordinator to area residents and area businesses
for use on vehicles under the legal control of guests, customers and/or clients during periods when persons operating said vehicles
are actually visiting or engaged in business at the permittee's address not to exceed two (2) days per visit.
LEASE: That a person pays rent or other remuneration for use of a parcel of real property as such person's residence or place of
business.
OWNS: That a person has at least one-fourth (1/4) of the fee or equitable interest in a parcel of real property within a city permit
parking area.
PERMIT PARKING COORDINATOR: The person designated by the transportation engineer to operate and manage the permit
parking program, including the implementation and operation of permit parking areas, on a routine, daily basis.
PERMIT VEHICLE: Any vehicle properly displaying area regular, area seasonal, guest, or temporary visitor permit, issued by the
parking permit coordinator for authorized use on such vehicles.
PERMIT YEAR: The twelve (12) month period set for the administration of a city permit area, including the expiration and renewal
of permit area regular and guest permits.
PROGRAM: Means and shall refer to the process of designation, administration and enforcement of all city parking permit areas
and regulations established by the transportation engineer pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
REGULAR PERMIT DECALS: The permanent adhesive decal issued by the parking permit coordinator for assignment to vehicles
under the legal control of area residents and area businesses.
RESIDENT: A person who resides in the city parking permit area on a regular basis.
SEASONAL CITY PERMIT AREA OR SEASONAL CITY PARKING PERMIT AREA: An area which meets the criteria for a city
permit area as set forth in section 12.64.040 of this chapter except that the twenty five percent (25%) or higher occupancy by
commuter vehicles is the result of special events occurring continually over a period of less than nine (9) months and more than two
(2) months each year.
TEMPORARY CITY PARKING PERMIT AREA: A city parking permit area established on a temporary basis pursuant to section
12.64.175 of this chapter or its successor.
TEMPORARY VISITOR PERMIT: The temporary disposable paper permit issued for a predetermined length of time, not to exceed
forty five (45) days, to area residents and area businesses for use on vehicles under the legal control of service persons, operators
of construction vehicles or equipment, and long term visitors at the area permittee's address.
B. The masculine form, as used in this chapter, if applicable as shown by the context thereof, shall also apply to a female person.
(Ord. 86-05 § 1, 2005: Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.030: AREA DESIGNATION; AUTHORITY:
The transportation engineer may, upon recommendation of the parking permit coordinator, and pursuant to the provisions hereunder,
consider for designation as a city permit parking area any area which satisfies the threshold criteria established below. Where he
deems it necessary and appropriate to accomplish the legislative intent and objectives, the transportation engineer may then
designate by declaration any qualified area as an approved city permit parking area in which motor vehicles displaying a valid area
parking permit may stand or be parked without limitations imposed on commuter vehicles by the parking regulations in the area.
Such declaration shall also state the applicable parking regulations and the proposed fees for permit issuance that the transportation
engineer anticipates submitting to the city council for consideration. (Ord. 46-16, 2016)
12.64.040: AREA DESIGNATION; CRITERIA:
A. General Criteria: An area shall be deemed eligible for consideration as a city permit parking area if the transportation engineer
determines, after evaluation of the surveys and traffic studies prepared at the direction of the parking permit coordinator, that the
qualified area is adversely affected by commuter vehicles for any extended period(s) during the day or night, on weekends or
holidays.
B. Specific Factors: In determining alleged adverse effects upon an area, the transportation engineer shall analyze and evaluate
factors which include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The extent of the desire and perception of need by the residents for permit parking as evidenced by receipt of verified
petitions and ballots as required herein;
2. The extent to which legal on street parking spaces are occupied by motor vehicles during any given time period; and
3. The extent to which vehicles parking in the area during the period proposed for parking regulations are commuter vehicles
rather than resident vehicles.
C. Threshold Technical Criteria: The transportation engineer may, upon recommendation of the parking permit coordinator, and
pursuant to the provisions hereunder, consider for designation as a city permit parking area, an area whose streets (or portions
thereof) qualify by satisfying the following eligibility criteria:
1. Seventy percent (70%) or more of the parking capacity is generally occupied;
2. Such occupancy continues for any consecutive four (4) hour period and such occupancy rate occurs at least four (4) days per
week during at least a nine (9) month period per year. If the recommendation is for designation of a seasonal city permit area, the
occupancy occurs over a period of more than two (2) months and fewer than nine (9) months;
3. Twenty five percent (25%) of the vehicles occupying the on street spaces are other than area vehicles;
4. The requesting area consists of curb space fronting a minimum of eight (8) standard block faces geographically located within
the proposed permit area; and
5. The parking permit coordinator agrees that implementing the proposed permit area will not, to a significant extent, transfer
the commuter vehicle parking problem to a different adjacent area should the area under consideration be designated permit parking.
(Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.050: AREA DESIGNATION; PROCESS:
A. Persons desiring to have their area designated permit parking shall consult with the parking permit coordinator or his designee
to tentatively establish the boundaries of the area proposed for designation.
B. Upon receipt of a petition containing the signatures of a minimum of twenty five percent (25%) of residents and/or businesses
within the area boundary proposed for permit parking designation, the parking permit coordinator shall cause a parking study, or
other surveys as may be deemed necessary, to be undertaken as soon as is practicable consistent with scheduling constraints, in
order to determine if the proposed area satisfies the eligibility requirements as set forth in section 12.64.040 of this chapter, or its
successor. Should the studies reflect that other nearby area streets are similarly congested with curb parking, the parking permit
coordinator may require such streets (or portions thereof) to be added to the proposed permit parking area.
C. Upon certification by the parking permit coordinator that the general and technical threshold criteria set forth in section
12.64.040 of this chapter appear satisfied for a proposed area, the petitioners shall be notified that they shall have fifteen (15) days
from such notice to: 1) submit a listing of all addresses within the certified area from the most current Polk or Coles city directories
and 2) submit a listing from the Salt Lake County assessor's office of each separate tax parcel/property owner of record thereon
within the certified area. In the interim, a ballot shall be prepared by the parking permit coordinator for the purpose of determining
whether or not he should favorably recommend to the transportation engineer that the proposed area be created. The ballot form
shall indicate two (2) choices, a "yes" (in favor of) choice or a "no" (not in favor of) choice for area permit parking designation. In
addition a section allowing for "comments" shall be on the ballot.
Upon receipt of the area address and tax parcel listings, the parking permit coordinator shall, consistent with scheduling constraints,
mail the ballot to all addresses and property owners of record within the area proposed for designation. The mass mail shall contain
the following:
1. The proposal to create a city permit area and the listing of streets (or portions thereof) included within the proposed
boundary.
2. An information sheet generically describing the city's permit parking program, and including options related to on street
parking restrictions within a permit area, issuance of vehicle permits, and area program fees. The recommendation shall be available
for public inspection at the division of transportation office.
3. The official ballot form as prescribed above.
D. For the purpose of counting residents and businesses within the proposed permit parking area, each authorized address shall
be given one count. For the purpose of counting owners, each separated tax parcel shall receive an additional count, regardless of
whether its owner(s) is a resident or a business. For the purpose of counting petition signatures/ballot votes, only one signature/vote
per authorized address shall be counted toward the minimum petition/ballot requirements. Owners may sign/vote for any vacant
parcel addresses, but may not sign/vote for occupied addresses. In the case of condominium or other hybrid ownership projects, one
count shall be given the owner and one count for a nonowner occupying the unit and one count and vote shall be given to the
ownership association for the condominium complex; vacant units shall be treated as vacant rentals above.
E. A thirty (30) day time period, commencing on the date of the mass mailing, shall be allowed for the purpose of voting. After
indicating their preference on the ballot, residents and businesses shall return their ballot, on or prior to, the cutoff date (printed on
the ballot) to the parking permit coordinator. To determine consensus as to whether or not area residents and area businesses are in
favor of proceeding on to the next phase in the area designation process related to establishing the proposed permit parking area,
the following criteria shall apply: fifty one percent (51%) or more of eligible residents and businesses, whose ballot has been received
by the parking permit coordinator during the period allotted for voting, must indicate by ballot vote that they are not in favor of
establishing the permit parking area by checking the "no" (not in favor of) choice listed on the ballot. For areas qualifying as a
seasonal parking area, no ballot shall be required. Only a public hearing with residents indicating their favor with the change shall be
required.
1. Immediately following the thirty (30) day deadline date specified for balloting, all ballots received by the imposed deadline
shall be counted. The "yes" (in favor of) votes and the "no" (not in favor of) votes shall then be tallied separately and a percentage
derived for each category by applying the stated formula to count petition signatures/ballot votes prescribed for in this section.
2. Should the official ballots received by the parking permit coordinator by the deadline date specified to receive such ballots,
when tallied, fall below the required fifty one percent (51%) or more of residents and businesses indicating they are not in favor of
establishing permit parking, it shall be assumed that a majority of residents and businesses in the area are in favor of permit parking.
The parking permit coordinator shall then favorably recommend to the transportation engineer the establishment/creation of the
proposed city permit parking area.
3. Should the official ballots received by the parking permit coordinator within the deadline date specified to receive such
ballots, when tallied, meet the required fifty one percent (51%) or more of residents and businesses indicating they are not in favor of
establishing permit parking, the area designation process will cease and the parking permit coordinator will take no further action
related to establishing permit parking for the area. No new applications for permit parking for the area will be accepted for a period of
one year from the date on which the said balloting period expired.
F. Upon receipt of the parking permit coordinator's favorable recommendation to establish a permit parking program for the area,
the transportation engineer, as soon as practicable consistent with scheduling constraints, shall fix a time, date and location for a
public hearing to consider the parking permit coordinator's recommendation to designate the proposed area of city permit parking
area where curb parking is restricted or allowed by permit only. Said hearing shall also be conducted for comment and analysis to
determine the boundaries as well as the appropriate area rules and regulations, parking restrictions, issuance of permits, fees and
other pertinent matters.
G. At least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date, written notice of the public hearing(s) provided for herein shall be: 1) published
in a newspaper of general circulation, 2) posted not more than four hundred feet (400') apart along the streets proposed in the permit
area, and 3) mailed to the listed residents, owners and those institutions known to the parking permit coordinator to generate a
significant volume of commuter parking in the neighborhood. The notice shall clearly state the purpose of the hearing, the location of
the hearing, the proposed boundaries of the permit area, the proposed permit fee schedules and formulas for issuance, and the
location where the parking permit coordinator's recommendation is on file and available for public review.
H. Any interested party shall be entitled to appear and be heard on the proposal, subject only to reasonable rules of order that
may be established by the transportation engineer. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.060: AREA DESIGNATION; TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER ACTIONS:
A. Within thirty (30) days following the hearing, the transportation engineer shall deny or approve the designation of a city permit
parking area as he deems justified under the objectives and procedures above. The transportation engineer shall reduce his decision
to writing in the form of a report that shall be filed with the city recorder, accompanied by the parking permit coordinator's
recommendation related to the permit parking area and made available to any interested party upon request.
B. The transportation engineer's report shall include:
1. Significant subjects and concerns raised at the public hearing conducted;
2. The findings relative to those designation criteria deemed applicable to the city permit area;
3. Conclusions as to whether the findings, including testimony obtained at the public hearing, justify preferential permit parking
for the area under consideration;
4. The transportation engineer's approval (or denial) of the proposed permit parking area;
and, if approved:
5. The proposed boundaries of the city parking permit area;
6. The proposed parking regulations, including administrative provisions for issuing permits; and
7. An implementation schedule indicating when the new permit parking area will become effective.
C. If the transportation engineer approves creation of a city permit parking area, a declaration of designation shall be prepared as
an administrative regulation establishing the program for the area, including the boundaries, parking regulations, proposed fees, and
other pertinent matters, for its administration and implementation. The declaration shall be mailed to each listed address in the area's
designated boundaries. The parking permit coordinator shall promptly implement the program pursuant to the schedule. If the
transportation engineer denies the creation of a city permit parking area, a notice of such denial shall be mailed to each listed
address in the area's designated boundaries.
D. Information generated through the original designation process and the designation criteria set forth in this chapter shall also
be utilized by the transportation engineer in determining whether to remove any particular existing city permit parking area or portion
thereof from designated status and participation in the program.
E. Action by the transportation engineer in creating, deleting or modifying the boundaries applicable in city parking permit areas
under this chapter, shall be final. However, the city council may agree to review and to modify such decision(s) by a vote of at least
four (4) of its members.
F. The transportation engineer's decision shall be stayed by the filing of a written objection requesting city council review,
provided the objection is filed within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the report. The objection shall specify grounds upon which
council review is justified. If accepted for review, the matter shall be scheduled for public hearing before the city council, with the
mailing of ten (10) days' written notice thereof to the appellant, petitioner of record and the transportation engineer. An objection
failing to receive the necessary votes for review shall be deemed an affirmation of the transportation engineer's decision.
G. Actions by the transportation engineer as to the implementation and enforcement shall be considered administrative matters.
(Ord. 46-16, 2016)
12.64.070: SIGNS AND MARKINGS IN DESIGNATED AREAS:
Upon the declaration of the transportation engineer designating a city permit parking area, the parking permit coordinator shall cause
appropriate signs, markings and/or meters to be erected in the area, indicating prominently thereon the parking regulations, the
effective date, and conditions under which permit parking shall be exempt therefrom. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997:
Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.080: PARKING PERMIT; APPLICATION; TERM:
Each parking permit issued by the parking permit coordinator office shall be valid for one year or portion thereof to be determined by
the parking permit coordinator excluding visitor permits. Permits shall not be transferable, but may be renewed annually upon
reapplication in the manner required by the parking permit coordinator. Each application or reapplication for a parking permit shall
contain information sufficient to identify the applicant's identity, claim for permit eligibility, authorized residence or business within the
city permit parking area, the license number of the motor vehicle for which application is made, and such other information that may
be deemed relevant by the parking permit coordinator. Applications shall be accompanied by a fee established under section
12.64.090 of this chapter. (Ord. 46-16, 2016)
12.64.090: PARKING PERMIT FEES:
To defray program administration costs, the transportation engineer shall propose to the city council a fee schedule for the city
parking permit program. The city council may consider including such proposed fees on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee
schedule. (Ord. 46-16, 2016)
12.64.100: PARKING PERMIT; ISSUANCE CONDITIONS:
A. Parking permits shall be issued by the parking permit coordinator's office. Each such permit shall be designed to state or reflect
thereon the particular city permit parking area. No more than one parking permit shall be issued for each motor vehicle included on
the application. The number of permits available and the manner for allocating permits between various competing resident (as
opposed to commuter) vehicles, and the manner in which the process will be administered for each designated area in the program
shall be established by the transportation engineer's declaration of designation.
B. The following classifications of persons or entities (listed in order of priority) may be issued parking permits for motor vehicles
under their control upon request pursuant to the allocation basis set forth in said declaration:
1. Area residents of the city permit parking area for motor vehicles owned or controlled and regularly parked in the area by
household members.
2. Area business owners who own or lease property (and their full time employees) within a city permit parking area for motor
vehicles associated with the business use regularly parked in the area. However, no more than one parking permit may be issued for
each such motor vehicle.
3. Area residents and area businesses (and the full time employees of area businesses) within a seasonal city permit area
during the term set forth in the declaration.
4. Guests, customers, and/or clients of city permit area residents or area businesses who may be provided guest permits by
such area permittees for use on vehicles under the legal control of guests, customers and/or clients during periods when persons
operating such vehicles are actually visiting or engaged in business at the area permittee's address, for periods not to exceed two (2)
days per visit.
5. Temporary visitors as provided by section 12.64.130 of this chapter or its successor.
C. Issuance of a permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the holder thereof an on street parking space within the designated
permit parking area. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.110: PARKING PERMIT; DISPLAY REQUIRED:
Permits shall be displayed on the authorized vehicle as provided in the regulations adopted in the declaration. (Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.120: PARKING PERMIT; ACTIVITIES PERMITTED:
A motor vehicle bearing a valid parking permit displayed as provided for herein, shall be permitted to stand or be parked in the permit
area for which the permit has been issued without being limited by parking regulations or prohibitions solely applicable to commuter
vehicles. The permit does not exempt drivers or owners from complying with general parking regulations and penalties imposed by
the traffic code set out in this title, or ordinances. All other motor vehicles not displaying permits that are parked within a city permit
parking area shall be subject to the commuter parking regulations adopted by such declaration authorized by this chapter, and the
penalties provided for herein. (Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.130: TEMPORARY VISITOR PERMITS:
Each declaration shall authorize the parking permit coordinator to issue temporary visitor parking permits to residents and
businesses located within designated permit areas for use of their bona fide transient visitors, service persons, and construction
personnel for a limited duration not to exceed forty five (45) days. Prior to expiration, a vehicle bearing a visitor permit shall have all
the parking rights, obligations and privileges held by permanent permits. Appropriate requirements or limitations on visitor permits,
methods and qualification for fees, shall be recommended in each permit parking area by the parking permit coordinator and
contained in the transportation engineer's declaration. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.140: PARKING PERMIT; REVOCATION CONDITIONS:
A. Faithful compliance with the terms of the city parking permit program is a condition subsequent to the privilege of obtaining a
permit. Violation of the terms of the city parking permit area shall be deemed a forfeiture of those privileges.
1. Any permit holder convicted for violation of this chapter may be required to surrender such permit as a part of sentencing.
2. The parking permit coordinator is authorized to revoke the city parking permit of any person found to be in violation of this
chapter, and upon written notification thereof, the person shall surrender such permit to the parking permit coordinator. Failure, when
so requested, to surrender a city parking permit so revoked shall constitute an infraction.
3. In the event the parking permit coordinator has good cause to believe that any person or entity is abusing the visitor permit
system described above, he shall so notify the permit holder. Any further application for a visitor permit by such person found
abusing the system may be denied for a period of not more than one year.
B. Any person aggrieved by such a determination made by the parking permit coordinator under subsections A2 and A3 of this
section shall have the right to appeal to the transportation engineer within seven (7) days of such determination. (Ord. 69-98 § 1,
1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.150: ENLARGEMENT OF AREA:
Upon recommendation from the parking permit coordinator that the designation criteria and circumstances indicate that enlargement
of an existing permit parking area is warranted and appropriate, the transportation engineer may begin proceedings to enlarge the
area by initiating the following procedure:
A. Notice shall be given to all addresses within the proposed permit area expansion boundary of a public hearing to be held. Such
notice shall be given as provided for in subsection 12.64.050G of this chapter.
B. Such notice shall contain:
1. The date, time and place of the public hearing to consider the proposed area expansion.
2. A description of the transportation engineer's intentions to enlarge the existing permit parking area.
3. A listing of the streets (or portions thereof) proposed to be added to the existing permit parking area.
4. A listing of the rules and regulations proposed for governing the enlarged permit parking area, including the issuance of
permits and fees.
C. The hearing shall be conducted as provided under subsection 12.64.050H of this chapter. The transportation engineer shall
take into account the factors justifying the permit parking area expansion in accordance with subsection 12.64.040C of this chapter,
with the exception that the requirement stated in subsection 12.64.040C4 of this chapter shall not be considered.
D. Within thirty (30) days of the public hearing the transportation engineer shall approve or deny the proposed permit area
enlargement. The transportation engineer shall reduce his decision to writing in the form of a report that shall be filed with the city
recorder and made available to any interested party upon request. The report shall follow the format outlined in subsection
12.64.060B of this chapter.
E. If the permit parking area enlargement is approved, a declaration of expansion shall be prepared and distributed using the
criteria outlined in subsection 12.64.060C of this chapter. Criteria contained in subsections 12.64.060D through G of this chapter
shall apply. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.160: REMOVAL OF AREA DESIGNATION OR DELETION OF STREETS:
Upon recommendation from the parking permit coordinator that the designation criteria and circumstances indicate that removal of
permit designation from an entire permit parking area is warranted and appropriate, the transportation engineer may begin
proceedings to delete a permit parking area or selected streets of a permit parking area by initiating the following procedure:
A. By giving notice to all addresses within the boundary of the permit parking area proposed to be wholly removed from permit
parking designation or within the boundary of an existing permit parking area where certain streets (or portions thereof) are proposed
to be deleted from permit parking area, that a public hearing is to be held to consider this action. Such notice shall be given as
provided for in subsection 12.64.050G of this chapter.
B. Such notice shall contain:
1. The date, time and place of the public hearing to consider the proposed removal or deletion.
2. A description of the transportation engineer's intention to remove from designation a permit parking area or to delete certain
streets (or portions thereof) from an existing permit parking area.
3. A listing of the streets (or portions thereof) proposed for removal from designation or deletion from a permit parking area.
C. The hearing shall be conducted as provided under subsection 12.64.050H of this chapter. The transportation engineer shall
take into account the factors justifying the proposed removal of area permit parking designation or the proposed deletion of certain
streets (or portions thereof) from an existing permit parking area.
D. Within thirty (30) days of the public hearing the transportation engineer shall approve or deny the proposed removal from
permit designation of an entire permit parking area or the proposed deletion of certain streets (or portions thereof) from an existing
permit parking area. The transportation engineer shall reduce his decision in writing in the form of a report that shall be filed with the
city recorder and made available to any interested party upon request. The transportation engineer's report shall include:
1. Significant subjects and concerns raised at the public hearing conducted;
2. The findings relative to those designation criteria and circumstances which indicate whether or not removal from designation
or the deletion of certain streets (or portions thereof) from an existing city permit parking area is warranted;
3. Conclusion as to whether the findings, including testimony obtained at the public hearing, justify the removal from designation
or the deletion of certain streets (or portions thereof) from an existing city permit area;
4. The transportation engineer's approval (or denial) of the proposed removal or deletion;
5. If approved, an implementation schedule for removal or deletion.
E. If permit parking area designation is removed from an entire area or if the deletion of certain streets (or portions thereof) from
an existing permit parking area is approved, a declaration of removal shall be prepared and distributed using the criteria outlined in
subsection 12.64.060C of this chapter. Criteria contained in subsections 12.64.060D through G of this chapter shall apply.
In the case of deleting certain streets (or portions thereof) from an existing permit parking area, the area declaration of designation
shall be amended to reflect the approved deletion. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6, 1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.170: MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS:
Upon recommendation from the parking permit coordinator that circumstances warrant modification to regulations or restrictions
governing an existing permit parking area the transportation engineer may begin proceedings to make such modifications by
initiating the following procedure:
A. Notice shall be given to all addresses within the boundary of the existing permit area of a public hearing to be held. Such
notice shall be given as provided for in subsection 12.64.050G of this chapter.
B. Such notice shall contain:
1. The date, time and place of the public hearing to consider the proposed area modifications.
2. A description of the transportation engineer's proposed modifications to the existing permit parking area.
3. A listing of the streets (or portions thereof) that will be affected by the proposed modifications.
C. The hearing shall be conducted as provided under subsection 12.64.050H of this chapter. The transportation engineer shall
take into account the factors justifying the proposed modifications/changes to rules, regulations and/or restrictions governing the
existing parking permit area.
D. Within thirty (30) days of the public hearing the transportation engineer shall approve or deny the proposed modification(s) to
the permit area. Should the modification(s) be approved, the parking permit coordinator shall be directed to implement the change(s)
as soon as is practicable, consistent with scheduling constraints. The permit area declaration of designation shall also be amended
to reflect the new, approved modification(s) to the area rules, regulations and/or restrictions. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 77-97 § 6,
1997: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
12.64.175: EMERGENCY PROCEDURES; TEMPORARY PARKING PERMIT AREA:
In the event the transportation director determines that an emergency parking situation exists, the director may implement
procedures for the establishment of a temporary city permit parking area. Such procedures shall, at a minimum, include:
A. Conducting an informal public meeting as soon as is practicable after the determination of the emergency situation. The
purposes of the meeting are to allow the director an opportunity to announce to the public the director's determination of the
emergency situation and of the details of the director's proposal regarding the establishment of a temporary city permit parking area
and of temporary regulations pertaining thereto and to allow verbal public comment at said meeting and continuing written comment
thereafter regarding said determination and proposals. The director shall give whatever informal notice of said meeting to the
residents, business owners and property owners of the proposed temporary city parking permit area the director deems appropriate
under the circumstances. Such notice may include the distribution of flyers throughout the said area. The formal notice requirements
of section 12.64.050 of this chapter or its successor shall not apply to this informal meeting.
B. Following the informal meeting and receiving the comments from those in attendance, the director shall make whatever further
review and modifications of the proposed temporary city parking permit area and proposed temporary regulations the director may
deem appropriate or the director may abandon the proposal. If the director determines to proceed with the proposal after such further
review, the director shall reduce such decision to writing in the form of a report that shall be filed with the city recorder and made
available to any interested party upon request. Said report shall include:
1. Significant subjects and concerns raised at the informal meeting conducted;
2. Preliminary findings and conclusions justifying the implementation of the temporary city parking permit area and temporary
regulations and a declaration of the emergency parking situation;
3. The boundaries of the temporary city parking permit area;
4. The parking regulations, including administrative provisions for issuing permits; and
5. An implementation schedule indicating when the temporary city parking permit area will become effective.
C. No such temporary city parking permit area or temporary regulations shall remain in effect for more than one hundred eighty
(180) days.
D. No later than ninety (90) days following the effective date of implementing the temporary city parking permit area, the director
shall put into place procedures for the possible designation of a regularly approved city parking permit area as provided in this
chapter, to take the place of the temporary city parking permit area.
E. The director shall have discretion to make adjustments as the director may deem appropriate to the boundaries of the
temporary city parking permit area and to the temporary parking regulations during the period that the temporary city parking permit
area and temporary regulations are in effect. The director shall reduce such adjustments to writing in the form of amendments to the
previously issued report, which amendments shall be filed with the city recorder and made available to any interested party upon
request. (Ord. 86-05 § 2, 2005)
12.64.180: UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES; PENALTY:
A. It is unlawful and a violation of this chapter, unless expressly provided to the contrary herein, for any person to stand or park a
motor vehicle, or to cause the same to be done contrary to the parking regulations established pursuant hereto. Such violation shall
be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00).
B. It is unlawful and a violation of this chapter for a person to falsely represent himself as eligible for a parking permit, or to furnish
false information in an application therefor to the parking permit coordinator office. Such violation shall constitute a class B
misdemeanor.
C. It is unlawful and a violation of this chapter for a person holding a valid parking permit issued pursuant hereto to permit the use
or display of such permit on a motor vehicle other than that for which the permit is issued. Such conduct shall constitute an unlawful
act and violation of this chapter, both by the person holding the valid parking permit and the person who so uses or displays the
permit on a motor vehicle other than that for which it is issued. Such violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed fifty dollars
($50.00).
D. It is unlawful and a violation of this chapter for a person to copy, produce or otherwise bring into existence a facsimile or
counterfeit parking permit in order to evade parking regulations applicable in a city permit parking area. Such violation shall constitute
a class B misdemeanor. (Ord. 69-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 24-97 § 1, 1997)
2180 South 1300 East | Suite 220 | Salt Lake City, UT 84106 | (801) 463-7600 | Fax (801) 486-4638
www.fehrandpeers.com
FINAL REPORT
Date: February 2022
To: H. W. Lochner
Salt Lake City
From: Fehr & Peers
Subject: 900 South Reconstruction Project: Corridor and District Parking Report
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3
The 900 South Reconstruction Project .......................................................................................... 3
Study Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Existing Parking Conditions ................................................................................................................... 6
Projected Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 14
Shared Parking Methodology & Analysis ..................................................................................... 15
900 South Reconstruction Parking Changes .............................................................................. 17
Parking Management Strategies and Recommendations ................................................................. 17
Central Ninth District ..................................................................................................................... 17
9th & 9th District ............................................................................................................................. 22
Exhibits ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 2 of 32
Introduction
This technical memorandum summarizes our approach and results of a parking analysis conducted
in association with the 900 South Reconstruction project in Salt Lake City, Utah. This memorandum
documents the on-street parking inventory and occupancy data for observed conditions during the
2020 COVID pandemic. The pandemic affected parking demand in both commercial and residential
areas, and counts taken for the purpose of this analysis may not reflect parking demand conditions
seen during non-pandemic times. Nevertheless, the parking analysis was needed to support design
activities for the 900 South Reconstruction project, and this document describes analytical
techniques used to estimate what on- and off-street parking demand would be without the
pandemic compared to current on- and off-street supply. In addition, it acknowledges potential
changes to future parking supply and demand associated with anticipated land use and
transportation changes, with recommendations to address existing parking demands and conflicts
while laying the groundwork for more walkable and sustainable neighborhoods in the future.
Executive Summary
The project team observed parking utilization along the 900 South corridor from 900 West to 1300
East in September 2020 (during the COVID pandemic) with a focus on the Central Ninth and 9th &
9th business districts. The team conducted additional surveys and analyses to understand changes
in parking demand resulting from community and economic restrictions due to COVID-19. In
general, parking supply along the 900 South corridor is adequate to meet demand, accounting for
supply changes associated with the 900 South Reconstruction project. However, in the Central Ninth
District, recent development patterns resulted in high demand for on-street parking from
neighborhood residents and the area’s public parking supply is quickly nearing capacity. We
recommend that the City undertake the following actions to address parking needs in the Central
Ninth District and the 9th & 9th District:
Consider changing off-street parking minimums in the FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zoning
districts, if such changes do not undercut the citywide and local goals of transit-rich,
walkable, and sustainable neighborhoods;
Provide more flexibility for parking options in multifamily developments, such as offering
“unbundled” parking where residents could pay extra to rent an off-street parking space
(which could be located on- or off-site);
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 3 of 32
Increase enforcement and management of time-based restrictions for 900 South parking
in both business districts to encourage turnover, potentially shifting to a paid parking
model if this method proves inadequate and sufficient resources, political will, and
organizational infrastructure allow for the implementation of paid parking in this area;
Explore creating a parking permit program in the Central Ninth District and increasing
enforcement of the parking permit program in the 9th & 9th District;
Establish off-street shared parking agreements with business and private property owners
where land uses have complementary operating hours and could share resources, and
consider a valet program to make off-site parking resources more convenient to customers;
and
Create a Transportation Demand Management program for the Central Ninth District to
encourage people to walk, bike, and take transit rather than drive.
Due to the complex intersectionality of departmental jurisdiction over parking (and related
infrastructure, management, and policies), implementing these recommendations will require
coordination between multiple Salt Lake City departments. They may also require new structures
and staffing to successfully execute. Some recommendations may be less popular than the status
quo, and may require additional outreach, political support, and funding.
Background
The 900 South Reconstruction Project
The 900 South Reconstruction project encompasses streetscape, roadway, and subsurface utility
improvements along the 900 South corridor from 900 West to Lincoln Street (945 East) in Salt Lake
City. A major portion of the project is the construction of the 9 Line Trail, which will eventually
extend from the Surplus Canal and I-215 east to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The trail was already
built in the section of the corridor from Lincoln Street to 1100 East (2019) and west of I-15 (2011).
Along the 900 South corridor between 900 West and 900 East, there are several project components
that will impact parking supply:
Construction of the 9-Line trail on the south side of the corridor
Extension of the southern curb line north into the current roadway to reduce the roadway
width
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 4 of 32
Curb extensions and crosswalk improvements at many intersections throughout the
corridor
Bus stops
Lane alignment adjustments, especially near the ends of the project and near the Central
Ninth and 9th & 9th business districts
This document quantifies the impacts of the proposed 900 South redesign on the corridor’s parking
supply and recommends policy and management strategies to address parking issues in the two
study areas.
Study Areas
The project team analyzed parking supply and demand along 900 South, in the eastbound and
westbound directions, between 900 West and 1300 East. It also included analysis of parking needs
in two neighborhood business districts:
The Central Ninth District: 300 West to West Temple, and 800 South to approximately 1000
South (at the I-15 overpass ramps)
The 9th & 9th District: 800 East to 1100 East, and 800 South to Belmont Avenue
(approximately 970 South)
This memorandum provides information separately for the 900 South corridor, Central Ninth, and
9th & 9th Districts. The sections of 900 South within the Central Ninth and 9th & 9th study areas are
addressed in the district analyses as well as in the overall corridor analysis.
Data Collection
The project team collected several kinds of data to assess parking demand and supply on the
corridor and in the districts. This included on-street and off-street parking inventory and occupancy
surveys. The project team also conducted community outreach in late 2020 and early 2021 to
residents and businesses in the Central Ninth and 9th & 9th Districts about parking needs and
possible parking management strategies in their areas.
On-street Parking Inventory
Salt Lake City Transportation Division staff prepared an inventory of existing on-street parking
spaces along the 900 South corridor and in the districts. The inventory was presented in a GIS
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 5 of 32
format and identified the number of parking spaces on each block face, in each direction, and
whether the parking spaces were parallel or angled. The data also noted when parking spaces
appeared to be sub-standard but were in use anyway: for instance, cars were parked in sections of
curb shorter than the standard 20’ length for a parking space. For this analysis, parking spaces that
were identified as sub-standard were still considered part of the on-street parking supply, since the
public often still used these spaces.
Off-street Parking Inventory
The project team counted off-street parking spaces near the Central Ninth and 9th & 9th districts to
identify off-street parking resources that could be shared in the future. While there are some surface
lots that present opportunities for shared parking, the owners of these parking lots may seek to
develop them in a different manner in the future. Exhibit 1, provided in the Appendix, includes a
summary of off-street parking supply and potential shared parking resources in the Central Ninth
and 9th & 9th districts. The summary shown in Exhibit 1 is preliminary in nature and did not involve
detailed counts of parking demand in these lots throughout the course of a day or different days
of the week. No members of the project team nor the City spoke with the owners of these parking
lots to discuss their interest in sharing parking resources. Any shared parking agreements would
likely be between two or more property owners, with established parameters for times of use,
locations of shared resources, liability responsibilities, maintenance costs, and other issues.
On-street Parking Demand
The project team gathered on-street parking utilization data on Wednesday, September 16th, and
Saturday, September 19th, 2020. On both dates, the project team conducted hourly sweeps of
vehicles parked along 900 South and in the two districts from 7 AM – 12 AM. From 7 AM until 6
PM, parking data was gathered via drone footage and digitized later; from 6PM until 12AM, on-site
counts were conducted because light conditions were no longer conducive for aerial flights. It
should be noted that these counts were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, at a time when
many businesses were impacted and operating at limited capacity. Later sections of this document
describe how the analysis was adjusted to account for differences in demand due to the pandemic.
Community Outreach
The project team hosted several meetings with residents and business or/and community
representatives in the districts to hear their feedback on parking needs and issues on the 900 South
corridor as well as in the districts included in this study. These meetings occurred on October 13th,
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 6 of 32
2020 and April 6th, 2021 for the Central Ninth district, and on November 5th, 2020 and April 6th, 2021
for the 9th & 9th district. On December 17th, 2020, the project team hosted an additional meeting to
discuss parking issues with the neighborhood known as “Liberty 9th”, approximately extending from
State Street to 700 East.
Existing Parking Conditions
This section outlines existing parking supply and demand (utilization) data along the corridor and
in the districts. It also summarizes input heard from neighborhood residents and business owners
about parking issues in the districts as well as the City’s current parking policies that affect the study
area.
Current Parking Utilization
The project team tallied parking counts for each block face, in each direction, to estimate the peak
parking utilization over the course of a weekday and weekend throughout the corridor. Several
caveats apply to these estimates of parking utilization due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some
businesses along the corridor were not open or not operating at their full capacity due to COVID
restrictions, including bars, restaurants, and some retail businesses. In fact, several businesses along
the corridor had already closed because of the pandemic. Therefore, these parking utilization
estimates are not representative of the actual parking demand that these districts will experience
once the pandemic ends and the economy recovers. In addition, residential parking demand may
be higher than normal with more people working from home and the local school district (Salt Lake
City School District) holding online classes only during September 2020. The “Projected Conditions”
section of this technical memorandum outlines the project team’s approach for adjusting estimates
to reflect post-COVID demand. Salt Lake City should consider gathering additional parking demand
counts after the COVID pandemic ends, to identify conditions representing the “new normal”, and
in advance of implementing any significant recommendations.
900 South Corridor
Figure 1 below shows the peak hour of parking demand for the 900 South study area (a larger
version of this graphic is provided in Exhibit 2).
Figure 1: Corridor-Wide Peak Hour Parking Demand, Weekday and Weekend
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 7 of 32
The observed peak parking time and day for the full corridor was from 7 - 8 PM on a weekday,
when on-street parking demand totaled around 900 cars corridor-wide and in the districts, out of
roughly 1,800 on-street spaces. During this period, demand along the corridor or in the two study
areas was at its highest in the Central Ninth district, especially along Jefferson and Washington
Streets. Jefferson and Washington Streets are both primarily residential, with both single-family
homes and multi-family buildings, and with angled 45-degree parking lining both sides of the
streets north of 900 South. The evening peak reflects when most residents were home for the night.
Demand on these streets remained high for the remainder of the evening hours observed, until
midnight. It is also worth noting that observed demand for on-street parking was high between
State Street and 500 East. This section of 900 South contains a mix of businesses and residential
properties, many of which rely on the on-street parking to meet their needs.
The figure notes where parking demand is greater than 100%. The “>100%” symbol is used where
more vehicles are parked along the curb (parallel or angled) than is technically allowed in the
Transportation Division’s on-street parking design policies. The policies use a standard stall size
and orientation, and indicate offset distances from driveways, fire hydrants, crosswalks, and other
features. For instance, some sections of curb may be considered “substandard” by the City because
they aren’t long enough to meet design standards for a parallel parking space, but drivers are still
able to fit cars into those spaces.
Central Ninth District
Figure 2 shows the peak hour parking demand for the Central Ninth district (a larger version of this
graphic is shown in Exhibit 3).
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 8 of 32
Figure 2: Central Ninth Peak Hour
When looking only at the Central Ninth district, the observed peak parking time and day was 1 - 2
PM on a weekday, with some overlap of local business parking demand and residential parking on
the side streets (Jefferson and Washington, primarily). Across the district, the project team observed
demand for 316 on-street parking spaces during the time period, out of roughly 450 total on-street
parking spaces in the district study area. This study assumes that the on-street parking demand
observed in residential areas may reflect an increase in work-from-home activities associated with
the COVID-19 global pandemic.
9th and 9th District
Figure 3 below shows the peak hour parking demand for the 9th & 9th district (a larger version of
this graphic is shown in Exhibit 3).
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 9 of 32
Figure 3: 9th & 9th Peak Hour Parking Demand
When looking only at the 9th & 9th district, the peak hour was the same whether weekday or
weekend: about 342 on-street occupied spaces in this area from 6-7PM, out of roughly 570 on-
street spaces in the district study area. This reflects dinnertime demand at several restaurants in the
district, ranging from fast casual to sit-down restaurants and fine dining. While some restaurants
closed during the pandemic (such as Mazza, just east of 900 East on 900 South), others are surviving
with patio seating, curbside pickup, and limited indoor seating. Demand drops considerably after 8
PM, reflecting the slowed pace of dinner service in the later hours of the evening. Likewise, use of
on-street parking on 900 South is extremely low after 10PM.
Community Feedback
The project team hosted small group stakeholder meetings to get additional feedback about
parking issues experienced by residents and businesses in the districts. Stakeholder invitees were
suggested by Community Council leaders for each study area, and represented a range of residents,
business owners, property owners, and community organizations. The project team also specifically
invited people who have previously identified parking as a serious issue to be addressed in the
study areas. The project team hosted two meetings each for the Central Ninth district and the 9th
& 9th district. The first meeting provided an opportunity for participants to share their critical
parking needs, change in business due to the pandemic, truck and delivery needs, and key parking
problems they felt needed to be solved. The feedback received was valuable but may not
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 10 of 32
necessarily be fully representative due to limited participation by invited stakeholders. The project
team hosted one meeting with Liberty 9th district representatives – this area was originally out of
the study area scope, but the project team reached out to representatives for comment after
observing parking conditions in the section of 900 South from State Street to 700 East.
Central Ninth District
Parking was a source of concern among representatives of the Central Ninth district. Several
common themes emerged from business owners and residents during this meeting:
Both neighborhood residents and business owners expressed concern about the demand
for parking associated with new multi-family homes (in particular, micro-unit
developments: recent projects that feature small studio apartments, few amenities, no off-
street parking, and lower rental prices per unit) that are either planned or under
construction in the Central Ninth district. This leads to tension in the neighborhood
between new and established residents, and between residents and businesses, as
microunit tenants with personal automobiles utilize the free and non-time-restricted on-
street parking.
On-street parking is readily available outside the immediate boundaries of the Central
Ninth district, but this parking is seen as less accessible or desirable because:
o Boundary streets such as 300 West or West Temple (or the freeway ramp to the
south) are large, busy streets with fast-moving traffic that are difficult to cross and
feel like barriers to people walking or bicycling.
o Encampments of people experiencing homeless have become more prevalent in
the areas west of 300 West, and some business visitors may not feel comfortable
parking in these areas to walk to the Central Ninth district (especially at night).
Business is down significantly because of the COVID-19 pandemic – around 60-70%
depending on the business. Parking counts gathered during this time likely reflect that drop
in business.
Business owners and residents generally supported using policy strategies to manage
parking supply and demand. Time restrictions, enforcement, and residential parking
permits were all mentioned by residents as potential solutions.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 11 of 32
9th & 9th District
Business owners at the 9th & 9th district were concerned about preserving business access to alleys
and loading areas, and particularly about the impacts to business from construction. Some common
themes heard at this meeting included:
While some customers do walk, bike, or take transit to the area, 9th & 9th district is
considered by some business owners as a regional destination. According to meeting
attendees, people are currently driving here, so parking is important.
Business activity during COVID-19 times is down about 50-75% from pre-pandemic times.
Meeting attendees did not feel strongly that parking was a problem in the area and noted
that customers to the business district can easily find plenty of free, on-street parking if
they are willing to walk a block. It should be noted that this viewpoint differs from feedback
that Salt Lake City’s administration has received from the 9th & 9th neighborhood in the
past, where residents and businesses have reported that parking is a problem.
Liberty 9th District
The Liberty 9th district extends along 900 South from State Street to 700 East. This area was not the
subject of a detailed parking analysis such as those completed for the 9th & 9th or Central Ninth
districts, but the project team reached out to a group of representatives after hearing feedback
from the public outreach team and observing parking conditions in this segment. Business owners
in the Liberty 9th district expressed a desire for more parking along the corridor. The following
locations were identified by meeting participants as needing additional on-street parking:
The area around the northeast corner of 500 East/900 South. Parking demand tends to be
high around midday on weekends, and business representatives indicated they would like
to see additional parking spaces added curbside in this area. The proposed design for 900
South does not include these requested spaces.
Property and business owners near the 300 East/900 South intersection indicated that the
angled parking spaces located in front of the businesses currently are very helpful, and that
the landscaped park-strip can be difficult to maintain so parking would be preferred. The
project team conducted a careful consideration of existing infrastructure, proposed design,
crosswalks, bus stops, and driveways, and determined that it is not possible to add angled
parking to 900 South in this area.
Business owners also noted that the lack of parking striping or T-marks leads to inefficient
use of the available parking spaces throughout the corridor, and that it would be helpful
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 12 of 32
to the businesses if the City were willing to stripe spaces. However, Salt Lake City staff have
observed that at times, and in some locations, parking spaces are more efficiently utilized
when unstriped than they would be if those locations were striped.
Relevant Policies
Several policies and practices affect the parking conditions on the corridor. These include specific
zoning code requirements, procedures such as parking permit programs and striping and parking
design standards, current time and use restrictions along and near the 900 South corridor, as well
as the goals and visions of adopted citywide and neighborhood plans.
Zoning Regulations
Zoning districts throughout the corridor represent a wide range of land use types and forms, with
accompanying parking regulations that dictate the minimum amount of off-street parking supply
to be provided with each new development. These regulations represent the minimal amount of
parking that must be built with new development; developers and private property owners are
allowed to build more parking beyond the minimum if they choose. While most of the corridor has
off-street parking requirements for new development, several zoning districts have specific district-
wide parking requirements that are tailored to the urban form of each district and are generally
lower than parking requirements in other parts of the City. These are outlined below.
The Downtown Support zone (D-2) requires a half parking space per dwelling unit for
residential uses and no minimum parking requirement for non-residential developments
up to 25,000 square feet (1 space per 1,000 usable square feet thereafter). The D-2 district
stretches along 900 South between West Temple and State Street.
Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 1 and 2 (FB-UN1, FB-UN2) zones do not require any off-
street parking spaces regardless of use. Most of the Central Ninth district is zoned as FB-
UN1 or FB-UN2.
The Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone requires 1 parking space per dwelling unit, a
reduction from the standard 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit that applies generally
across zoning districts. Several nodes between State Street and Liberty Park along 900
South include CN zoning. Non-residential parking space requirements are similar to those
across many zoning districts, as provided in Table 21A.44.030 of the Salt Lake City Code.
The Community Business (CB) zone around the 9th & 9th district requires 1 parking space
per dwelling unit, a reduction from the standard 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Non-
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 13 of 32
residential parking space requirements are provided in Table 21.A.44.030 of the Salt Lake
City Code.
As reflected in earlier sections, residents and business owners in the Central Ninth district expressed
concern about the lack of off-street parking in their neighborhoods, which are mostly contained in
the FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zones. The boom in multi-family residential development such as
microunits in the Central Ninth district, while adding density and more housing options to the area,
exacerbates the imbalance between parking demand and on-street supply.
City Procedures and Policies
Salt Lake City has several procedures and policies that affect parking on the corridor. While these
are not always codified or formalized, they influence parking supply management. They include the
following:
Salt Lake City does not stripe parallel or angled parking spaces outside the CBD area, to
reduce maintenance costs and because marked/striped parking spaces typically indicate
paid parking.
Salt Lake City does not generally support converting green space in the park-strips to
parking spaces. While property owners have been able to negotiate such conversions in
the past, the City is drafting a new policy that seeks to preserve amply-sized park-strips in
the public right-of-way, for the purpose of reducing impermeable surfaces, improving
public tree health, reducing runoff load on public utilities, preventing the perception of
privatizing public right-of-way space, improving air quality, and reducing demand for
driving.
Salt Lake City has a parking permit program, outlined in Section 12.64.101 of the Salt Lake
City Code, whereby residents and businesses can receive preferential parking treatment in
their neighborhoods. While several residents and business owners along the 900 South
corridor felt that parking permit programs could be helpful, the City’s permit program
cannot address the area’s problems as it is currently written. The current parking permit
program is designed to prevent people from outside a neighborhood featuring large
employment and traffic generators, such as hospitals, universities, sports facilities, and
other large facilities, from encroaching on local neighborhood on-street parking. More
information on potential parking permit program changes and solutions is provided later
in this report.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 14 of 32
Parking Signage and Restrictions
On-street parking is mostly unmarked and unrestricted throughout the corridor. Parallel parking is
common, with some areas featuring parallel and angled cut-back parking. Several segments have
time restrictions from 8 AM to 6 PM, especially near commercial nodes. These are typically
restrictions requested by the business or property owners (past or present) and include:
15-minute loading zone, westbound, in front of Maud’s Café (422 West)
2-hour time limit, eastbound 900 South, between Orchid Dynasty (365 West) and Water
Witch (163 West)
2-hour time limit, westbound 900 South, in front of the Big O Donut Shop (248 West)
30-minute time limit, eastbound, in front of the (formerly) Jade Market (161 West)
2-hour time limit, westbound, between State Street and Edison Street
2-hour time limit, westbound, signed sporadically between 300 East and 500 East
2-hour time limit, westbound, in front of Beltex Meats and Tradition at the northwest corner
of 500 East
2-hour time limit, eastbound, from Windsor Street to the Coffee Garden (878 East)
1-hour time limit, eastbound, in front of the Coffee Garden
1-hour time limit, westbound, between Windsor Street and 900 East
1-hour time limit, eastbound, not consistently marked, between 900 East and Lincoln Street
1-hour time limit, westbound, near Vessel Kitchen (905 East)
2-hour limit, eastbound, from Lincoln to 1000 East
2-hour limit, westbound, from 1000 East to Vessel Kitchen
2-hour limit, westbound, from 1000 East to 1100 East
2-hour limit, eastbound, on weekdays between September 1 and June 1, between 1200
East and 1300 East, except for cars with an Area 6 residential parking permit
In addition, parking is prohibited on westbound 900 South near East High School from 7 AM to 3
PM on school days to accommodate school bus park ing. Parking is always prohibited on eastbound
900 South adjacent to Liberty Park.
Projected Conditions
This section describes the methodology for projecting near-term utilization of parking in the Central
Ninth and 9th & 9th districts, acknowledging that the data gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 15 of 32
will not accurately reflect parking demand once the community and the economy recover from the
pandemic.
Shared Parking Methodology & Analysis
Parking data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic assumes reduced non-residential parking
demand due to state recommendations to work from home, avoid public gatherings, restrict indoor
dining, and maintain social distance. The project team collaborated with the Salt Lake City
Transportation Division to perform a shared parking analysis of the Central Ninth and 9th & 9th
districts using resources from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Manual to estimate
what anticipated demand might have been before and what it might be once both districts recover
economically from the pandemic.
The methodology outlined in the ULI Shared Parking Manual is the national state-of-the-practice
for determining parking demand within mixed-use developments. The methodology acknowledges
that different land uses have different temporal demand for parking, and these demands peak at
different times of day and different months of the year, allowing a broad range of land uses to
share the same supply of parking spaces. The Manual helps planners estimate the peak shared
demand for parking among a development’s mix of uses throughout the day and year. Additional
adjustments for modal shift (the percent of walking, bicycling, and transit trips) and non-captive
ratios (the percent of trips where a person parks in one stall for multiple uses in the area) are
accounted for in this methodology, since mixed-use development often has a higher percent of
people walking, bicycling, or taking transit than single-use development.
The ULI manual includes baseline parking rates informed by parking surveys on numerous
operational uses across the United States. While these are generally acceptable in many land use
contexts, the baseline ULI parking rates are built on nationwide suburban area parking demands
and do not perfectly mimic the unique travel patterns and different development patterns and
intensities found in the two study areas. Therefore, this analysis used parking requirements outlined
in Salt Lake City zoning codes for the parking generation rates. These parking requirements already
account for modal shift and non-captive ratios unique to the study areas, so no further parking
demand reductions were assumed. Parking demand estimates developed to understand peaks on
both weekdays and weekends acknowledge that people visit various land uses differently
depending on what day it is. For example, office parks are generally not busy in weekends, and
restaurants are often busier at mealtimes and on weekends.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 16 of 32
As stated in The Dimensions of Parking, 5th Edition (Urban Land Institute, 2010), “The level of
occupancy at which optimum efficiency is achieved varies; generally, however, a parking facility
operates most efficiently when occupancy is somewhere between 85 and 95 percent.” In other
words, while a nearly full parking lot may still have some stalls available for use, getting to those
few remaining parking stalls becomes enough of an obstacle that users will feel that the parking lot
is already at capacity and avoid it. To account for this effect, this analysis assumed that once 85%
of the stalls in each parking lot were occupied, the lot would be considered full.
Results Summary
The parking analysis results are shown below in Table 1: Shared Parking Analysis Summary
.
Table 1: Shared Parking Analysis Summary
Central Ninth 9th & 9th
Total Parking
Supply
865 1268
Shared Parking
Demand -
Weekday
617 744
Shared Parking
Demand -
Weekend
553 590
Estimated Peak
Utilization
72% 59%
Source: Fehr & Peers.
As shown in the table, once the economy recovers fully, the 9th & 9th district parking demand still
has significant room for growth before reaching the design supply. At the same time, the Central
Ninth district parking demand, estimated to be 72% full following pandemic recover, is approaching
the perception of existing and planned parking in the area being “full”, based on the 85% threshold
discussed earlier. Salt Lake City should begin strategizing ways to manage on-street parking in the
Central Ninth district to mitigate negative impacts on businesses and residents. Suggested
strategies are provided in the “Recommendations” section at the end of this technical
memorandum.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 17 of 32
900 South Reconstruction Parking Changes
The 900 South Reconstruction project impacts on-street parking. In some sections of 900 South,
the roadway space re-allocation to the trail and greening uses will result in a loss of parking spaces.
In other sections, additional parking in the median will make up for parking losses along the curb.
Changes are outlined in more detail in Exhibit 4 to this memorandum.
Parking Management Strategies and
Recommendations
Parking management strategy recommendations along 900 South focus on the business districts
of Central Ninth and 9th & 9th. These recommendations are provided below. Due to the complex
intersectionality of departmental jurisdiction over parking (and related infrastructure, management,
and policies), implementing these recommendations will require coordination between multiple
Salt Lake City departments. They may also require new structures and staffing to successfully
execute. Some recommendations may be less popular than the status quo, and may require
additional outreach, political support, and funding.
Central Ninth District
As discussed in the “Projected Conditions” section, the Central Ninth district will likely approach full
utilization of its on-street public parking spaces once businesses are able to fully reopen and
restabilize after the COVID-19 pandemic. According to this analysis (which assumes businesses will
reopen and operate at full capacity), parking demand in the Central Ninth for all land uses will take
up approximately 71% of the current on- and off-street supply. Furthermore, residential projects
that are currently in planning or construction phases (and are not providing off-street parking) are
not accounted for in the 71% estimate, so utilization of available parking may be higher in the near
future.
While Salt Lake City is becoming a more pedestrian-friendly and transit-accessible destination to
live, work, and play, this process takes time as land uses turn over, redevelop, densify, and intensify.
During this transition, there will still be residents and businesses that are dependent on the use of
private vehicles, especially outside the downtown core, where it may be harder to meet one’s daily
needs within a 15-minute walking, bicycling, or transit radius. Even if residents choose to commute
on foot, on bike, or by transit, many will likely still park private vehicles at their place of residence.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 18 of 32
Car ownership rates may also take some time to decline. In the meantime, Salt Lake City could
consider the actions outlined below.
Amend the FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zones to adjust parking requirements
Salt Lake City may wish to consider either of the following pieces of feedback received about FB-
UN1 and FB-UN2 zoning in the Central Ninth area.
1. Applying this zoning to more, or all, applicable places in Salt Lake City, rather than
concentrating the City’s only “no-minimum” parking zoning (which encourages the less-
expensive development of homes, a net positive for the City) in one small area bounded
on all sides by large streets and structures. Feedback from stakeholders and community
council meeting attendees indicated that there was less resistance to the zoning itself than
its application only in Central Ninth. Residents and businesses expressed frustration with
bearing the burden of being a testing ground.
2. The “no-minimum” parking requirements for these zones. While this district does have
good access to transit, land uses in the area are not yet diverse or intense enough.
Residents may not yet be able to meet daily living needs within a 15-minute walking,
bicycling or transit radius. The City’s policy of “no-minimum” parking requirements around
the Central Ninth district allows developers to build residential units without any off-street
parking (though it does not mandate a maximum of zero off-street parking), and thus all
Salt Lake City residents are bearing the cost of supplying its on-street parking, a public
resource, to residents of a private development free of charge. During outreach meetings,
stakeholders expressed that any parking requirement above zero would be an
improvement over the current situation.
Fehr & Peers conducted research on published development codes for a range of cities with high-
capacity transit, to identify how peer cities handle the question of minimum parking requirements
for multifamily housing at or near transit stations. These cities included Portland, Oregon; Denver,
Colorado; and Alexandria, Virginia. The parking requirements for areas near transit stations are
shown in Table 2 on the following page.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 19 of 32
Table 2: Sample Parking Requirements for Multifamily Housing near Transit
Location Code Requirements Notes
Portland, OR1 0 spaces for buildings up to 30
units
.20 spaces per unit for 31-40 units
.25 for 41-50 units
.33 for 51+ units
No parking required for non-
residential uses
Max of 1.35 spaces per unit for
developments in mixed use areas
with good transit access
These codes apply to multi-family
developments within walking distance of
transit. The City of Portland does not require
on-site parking for households in single-
dwelling zones far from transit stations.
Minimum number of parking spaces can be
further reduced for affordable housing and
other exceptions.
Denver, CO2 0.75/bedroom Denver has recently adopted form-based
codes, with Downtown and Urban Center
districts that resemble the Central Ninth
Alexandria, VA3 0.8/bedroom These requirements apply to development
within walking distance of a Metro commuter
rail station. Developers can get additional
parking reductions for high bus access, high
walkability index scores, or for inclusion of
studio apartments within the product mix.
Notes:
1. Portland City Code, Chapter 33.266, Parking, Loading and Transportation and Parking Demand
Management, accessed online 12/10/21:
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/code/266-parking_0.pdf
2. Denver Zoning Code, accessed online 3/5/21:
https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Departments/Community-Planning-and-
Development/Denver-Zoning-Code
3. Alexandria Zoning Code, accessed online 3/5/21:
https://library.municode.com/va/alexandria/codes/zoning?nodeId=ARTVIIIOREPALO_S8-
200GEPARE
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 20 of 32
Readers should note that some cities around the country are opting to remove minimum parking
requirements altogether, regardless of proximity to transit service.
Provide more flexibility for parking options in multifamily developments
Salt Lake City could encourage additional steps for developers to take in providing parking options
to residents of new multifamily housing developments. For example, building managers could offer
“unbundled” parking options to building residents, allowing them the option to pay additional
monthly fees to lease an off-street parking space (either in the same building, or potentially in other
buildings or lots through shared parking agreements). Additionally, building managers could
provide car-share options to accommodate residents who prefer to be car-free most of the time
but occasionally need access to a vehicle. This could help reduce the need for on- or off-street
parking if shared vehicles were an option for residents and could be included as part of the
entitlements process through Salt Lake City.
Enforce, modify, and/or expand time-based restrictions for on-street parking
For the business owners along 900 South in the Central Ninth district, on-street parking is a vital
resource. As noted previously, on-street parking supply will increase by 36 spaces (net) with the
new design of 900 South. Upon completion of the 900 South Reconstruction project, all on-street
parking on 900 South between 300 West and West Temple will be signed as two-hour parking from
8 AM to 10 PM. Encouraging turnover of these spaces will help keep parking supply available for
adjacent commercial uses. Signage will establish two-hour parking from 8 AM to 10 PM, and Salt
Lake City parking enforcement officers will patrol the area to ensure that the desired turnover
occurs. This will discourage commuters from using on-street parking as park-and-ride spaces for
the 900 South TRAX station and will discourage residents from parking on 900 South during
business hours when commercial demand exists. If increased enforcement of time restrictions is not
effective in appropriately moderating parking users, the City could explore the next step of
implementing a paid parking program, but this comes with a significant increase in technology
investment, maintenance, City structural and financial modifications, political will, and enforcement.
Explore creating a parking permit program
Salt Lake City could consider creating a parking permit program for the Central Ninth district
designed to meet its unique needs. The current Salt Lake City parking permit program is geared
towards neighborhoods surrounding major employment generators with a large daily influx of
commuters that impact available on-street parking on residential streets. The Central Ninth district
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 21 of 32
would not be able to meet eligibility requirements for the parking permit program as currently
designed because it would not meet the threshold for non-residents parking in the neighborhood.
In addition, the existing program would not solve the conflict, which is currently between residents
of the same neighborhood.
If the City chooses to pursue this option, the new parking permit program should be carefully
designed and tailored to the conditions of the neighborhood surrounding it. This could entail the
following:
Designating 900 South parking for business use and side streets/cross streets for residential
permits at all hours;
Controlling the number of available residential permits to avoid oversubscription to the
available supply of spaces;
Ensuring fair access to parking spaces for residents of single-family homes and multi-family
homes;
Assigning license plate numbers to specific permits to ensure that residents do not use
spaces intended for businesses, and issuing parking tickets for residents that park in spaces
intended for businesses; and
Investment in parking technology to efficiently manage the program, such as using smart
parking meters to dissuade residents from parking in commercial parking during typical
business hours but allowing them to use those spaces overnight.
Further study may be needed to fully explore this option and its feasibility.
Establish off-site shared parking agreements
As noted previously in this report, several properties around the Central Ninth feature off-street
parking lots that are unused or underutilized during the district’s busier times of day. Salt Lake City
and community representatives could work with private property owners and businesses to
establish shared parking agreements that would allow visitors and residents in the Central Ninth
access to those spaces when they are not otherwise in use. Similarly, community representatives
could help business owners establish valet parking programs, where parking spaces that are
typically empty in the evening and weekend hours could be utilized by the district’s restaurants and
bars in exchange for a portion of the valet fees. The currently-underdeveloped areas surrounding
the Central Ninth often have plenty of parking available, but the walk to and from these parking
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 22 of 32
areas can be uncomfortable for business patrons, so a valet program could be particularly effective
in relieving parking pressure in the heart of the Central Ninth.
Create a Transportation Demand Management program for the Central Ninth
Several of the strategies listed above can be thought of as Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies, which encourage different individual and group travel behaviors with the goal of
reducing demand on the transportation (or parking) network. In the past, TDM strategies provided
by a developer have been allowed by Salt Lake City in exchange for increased density or reduced
parking. These will not be included as incentives in the proposed (2021) off-street parking
ordinance. While the car-share, valet programs, and bundled/unbundled parking concepts can all
be considered TDM, community representatives at the Central Ninth may wish to develop a more
comprehensive approach to handling parking and transportation demand in the area, rather than
at a building-by-building level. A TDM program could also include recommendations for handling
special event traffic (such as community events at Spy Hop or holiday dinners at the restaurants
within the Central Ninth) to mitigate impacts on the neighborhood during peak times. Additional
TDM strategies could include creating carpool priority parking, curbside pick-up/drop-off zones for
ride sharing companies like Uber and Lyft, bike racks, discounts for patrons that walk, bike, or take
transit, or providing free transit passes (perhaps paid for by paid parking programs in the district)
for employees of Central Ninth businesses to discourage them from driving to work.
9th & 9th District
Parking supply at the 9th & 9th district is currently sufficient to meet demand at this time, and this
area will not lose any substantial amount of parking as part of the 900 South Reconstruction project.
Given that this area is relatively stable and unlikely to experience significant amounts of
redevelopment soon, the current balance of supply and demand should serve the neighborhood
adequately for some time. However, Salt Lake City and the community could explore some of the
following options to help resolve issues as they arise.
Enforce time-based restrictions for on-street parking, or implement paid parking
Should development patterns change substantially in this area, or should conflicts increase between
residents and commercial properties, Salt Lake City could consider increased enforcement of the
existing time-restricted parking spaces to make more efficient use of the supply available.
Neighborhood stakeholders that participated in this study noted that there are not enough
enforcement staff to monitor current issues, so additional funding may be needed from the City for
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 23 of 32
more enforcement staff. One possibility would be to implement paid on-street parking stalls and
use the revenues from the stalls to fund neighborhood enhancements and additional enforcement
staff. Stakeholders also noted previous neighborhood requests to simplify the time restrictions on
the corridor. Spaces allowing free 15-minute parking (even if paid parking is implemented) may
also be appropriate in front of businesses that have shorter visit times, such as coffee shops or
takeaway restaurants.
Explore off-site shared parking
Salt Lake City and community representatives could work with private property owners and
businesses to establish shared parking agreements that would allow visitors and residents in the
9th & 9th area access to those spaces when they are not otherwise in use. Similarly, community
representatives could help business owners establish valet parking programs, where parking spaces
that are typically empty in the evening and weekend hours could be utilized by the district’s
restaurants in exchange for a portion of the valet fees.
Consider expanding parking permit areas
Some streets in the 9th & 9th area already participate in a parking permit program, near Rowland
Hall and East High School, to mitigate conflicts between student parking demand and
neighborhood residents. Neighborhood stakeholders indicated that the current parking permit
program involves several different time-specific permits (one-hour permits, two-hour permits, etc.)
and that simplifying the program and modifying its qualification criteria would be helpful.
Expanding the residential parking program to cover the streets most impacted by business traffic
(for example, Windsor Street and Lincoln Street) may also be helpful in mitigating parking conflicts
between residential and commercial uses, if future parking surveys indicate a higher-than-desired
percentage of non-local traffic parking on these streets. Neighborhood representatives noted that
some homes in the area have access to driveways and garages (via streets or alleys) while others
were built without these amenities. The expansion of parking permit programs would need to
carefully consider neighborhood needs to avoid pushing business traffic onto streets where
residents rely most heavily on on-street parking. If changes are made to parking permit programs
in this area, Salt Lake City may wish to take a comprehensive approach to the neighborhood to
address the issues listed here and provide a more systematic way of managing needs in the
neighborhood. As areas like 9th & 9th are expected to proliferate throughout the city in the future,
identifying appropriate permit strategies here first may help the City stave off issues in other
locations as they develop.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 24 of 32
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Preliminary Inventory of Off-Street Parking near Central Ninth and 9th & 9th Districts
Address Site Estimated
Spaces
Business Hours Potential for Shared Parking
Central Ninth District
936 South
300 West
T.F. Brewing 8 Generally 12 PM
to 11 PM
weekdays, 12 PM
to 12 AM
weekends
Low. Available off-street parking is
limited and business hours cover
multiple time periods throughout the
day.
NW corner of
300 West/900
South
Fleet Block,
Salt Lake City
Corporation
20+ NA High. Parcel is part of the Fleet Block,
planned for redevelopment. Potential
shared parking needs could be
planned into the redevelopment.
909 South
300 West
Tacos Garay 10 9 AM – 6 PM
daily
Medium. Hours could be conducive
to sharing with overnight parking or
evening visitors to Central Ninth, but
supply is limited and ill-defined with
neighboring lots.
921 South
300 West
Trails
Gentleman’s
Club
50 12 PM – 2 AM
daily
Low. Business hours cover multiple
time periods throughout the day.
271 West 900
South
Utah Village
Motel
10 24 hours/day Low. Business hours are all day.
248 West 900
South
The Big O
Doughnuts
~5 Generally 7 AM –
3 PM, closed M/T
Medium. Hours could be conducive
to sharing with overnight parking or
evening visitors to Central Ninth, but
supply is limited.
260 West 900
South
Js Automotive
Repair
~12 NA Low. Spaces are used for overnight
storage of vehicles under repair.
234 West 900
South
Vertical Diner ~6 9 AM – 10 PM
daily
Low. Business hours cover multiple
time periods throughout the day.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 25 of 32
208 West 900
South
Spy Hop ~8 9 AM – 5 PM
weekdays
Medium. Hours could be conducive
to sharing with overnight parking or
evening visitors to Central Ninth, but
supply is limited.
231 West 800
South
Ward
Engineering
~80 8 AM – 5 PM
weekdays
High. Hours could be conducive to
sharing with overnight parking or
evening visitors to Central Ninth. Part
of the lot is already self-serve pay-by-
the-hour spaces.
906 South
200 West
Former dry
cleaner
(burned
down)
~20?
Difficult to
tell
NA Medium. Redevelopment of site is
anticipated; shared parking
arrangements could potentially be
negotiated as part of redevelopment
plans.
926 South
Jefferson
Street
Wasatch
Meats
~40 NA Low. Lot likely used for storage of
delivery trucks during non-business
hours.
NW corner of
900 South
and Richards
Street
Property
owner is
University of
Utah, unclear
what the land
use is
~15 NA Medium. Depends on the land use,
which is unclear. Parkstrip is currently
being used for camping.
55 West 900
South
AllenComm ~75 8AM – 5PM
weekdays
Medium. Hours could be conducive
to sharing with overnight parking or
evening visitors to Central Ninth, but
it is a considerable walking distance
from current Central Ninth
boundaries and the lot is gated and
locked at night.
30 West 900
South
Premier
Diagnostics
(former Pier
One store)
~45 9AM – 5PM
weekdays
High. Hours could be conducive to
sharing with overnight parking or
evening visitors to Central Ninth, but
it is a considerable walking distance
from current Central Ninth area,
through an environment that is not
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 26 of 32
friendly to people walking, bicycling,
or taking transit.
SW corner of
900 South
and Main
Street
Multiple
owners; large
parking areas
behind
several
buildings
~60 NA Medium. Not clear which parking
spaces belong to which land uses.
More discussions with property
owners and business owners would
be needed.
9th & 9th District
705 East 900
South
Graham
Orthodontics
~15 8:30AM – 5PM Medium. Hours could be conducive
to shared parking for evening visitors
to 9th & 9th, but supply is limited.
801 East 900
South
Life in Christ
Reformed
Church
~30 Services at 10:30
AM Sundays
High. Site is close to business areas
and hours are conducive to shared
parking arrangements.
847 South 800
East
Unknown ~20 NA Medium. Land use is uncertain but
SLC Open Data indicates a permit
pulled in late 2020 for a commercial
building. May be possible to
negotiate shared parking agreements
with owner.
876 East 800
South (parcel
address)
Parking lot at
approximately
849 East 900
South
~10 NA High. Lot is owned by Smith’s, signed
as shared parking for “9th & 9th
Center”, so already used as shared
parking for the business district.
859 East 900
South
Barbacoa ~18 10:30AM – 9PM
weekdays, 11AM
– 8PM weekends
High. Lot is signed as parking for “9th
& 9th Center” and is already used as
shared parking for the business
district.
867 East 800
South
Smith’s
grocery store
~330 6AM – 11PM High. Smith’s ownership has already
discussed possibilities for shared
parking agreements with SLC,
specifically for spaces along west side
of lot which are less frequently used.
916 South 900
East
Tower
Theater,
Coffee
~15 6AM – 7PM for
Coffee Garden,
evenings daily for
Medium. Supply is limited but the
area is already signed as shared
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 27 of 32
Garden,
Cahoots
Tower Theater,
10AM – 9PM daily
for Cahoots
parking (although for specific
businesses).
909 South 900
East
Dolcetti
Gelato, Great
Clips,
Centered City
Yoga, Warby
Parker
~24 6AM – 10 PM
among various
uses
Medium. Supply is limited but the
area is already signed as shared
parking (although for specific
businesses).
848 – 856
South Lincoln
Street
Rowland Hall-
St. Mark’s
~48 8AM – 4:30 PM
weekdays
Medium. Signed as private parking
for Rowland Hall, but may be
generally unused during non-school
hours, days, and seasons.
952 East 900
South
University
Veterinary
Hospital
~26 7AM – 7PM
weekdays, 8AM –
2PM Saturdays
Medium. Overlap of hours with peak
times for the business district.
965 East 900
South
Title Nine ~9 11 AM – 5 PM
Monday –
Saturday
High. Site is close to business areas
and hours are conducive to shared
parking arrangements for evening
use.
843 South
Lincoln Street
Rowland Hall-
St. Mark’s
~45 8AM – 4:30 PM
weekdays
Medium. Signed as private parking
for Rowland Hall, but may be
generally unused during non-school
hours, days, and seasons.
989 East 900
South
Contender
Bicycles
~18 9AM – 7PM
Monday through
Saturday
Medium. Overlap of hours with peak
times for the business district.
1085 East 900
South
The Bridal
Studio
~15 11AM – 6PM
Tuesday through
Saturday
Medium. Overlap of hours with peak
times for the business district.
Exhibit 2: Corridor Parking Supply and Demand
900 South Reconstruction Project
Page 1
The 900 South Reconstruction project will change the design of the street and some parking spaces.
The maps below show the percent
of on-street parking that was used
during the corridor’s busiest hour
of a typical weekday and a typical
weekend day.
Salt Lake City gathered parking counts in September 2020 to observe how much
parking was being used, and adjusted that observation to account for pre-COVID
conditions. Special attention was paid to parking demand in the Central Ninth District
and the 9 th & 9th District, given the higher concentration of commercial activity in
those districts when compared to the rest of the corridor.
Peak Hour (Weekday: 7PM - 8PM)Peak Hour (Weekday: 7PM - 8PM)
Parking needs in the Central Ninth District peaked at a
dierent time of day than the 900 South corridor as a whole.
Parking needs in the 9th & 9th District peaked consistently
between 6PM – 7PM, whether weekday or weekend.
Peak Hour (Weekend: 6PM - 7 PM)Peak Hour (Weekend: 6PM - 7 PM)
900 E
900 W
State St
800 S
300 W
Main St
700 E
900 S
400 E
700 S
500 E
800 E
1100 E
200 W
West Temple St
200 E
600 E
300 E
700 W
B
B
15
In the Central Ninth,
weekday parking demand was
highest during the lunch hour
and immediately afterward,
reflecting visitors to
restaurants and other
businesses in the area.
Parking demand was also high
late at night, particularly on
residential side streets such as
Washington Street and
Jeerson Street, when people
are home for the night.
New multi-family homes in the
Central Ninth have been built
without o-street parking, and
this contributes to the high
demand for on-street parking
throughout the district.
On weekends, Central Ninth
parking demand was strongest
during the morning and late
evening hours, likely reflecting
local residents parking on
streets near their homes, as
well as evening patrons to local
bars along 900 South.
The district is a popular
location for entertainment
and community gathering,
with many restaurants within
a block or two of the 9th &
9th intersection.
Demand for on-street parking
generally remains strong
through the evening hours, but
drops significantly after 9PM
on weekdays and 10PM on
weekends.
This district has fewer bars and
nightlife activities than
Central Ninth, and so its
demand for public on-street
parking ends relatively early.
90
0
E
90
0
W
St
a
t
e
S
t
800 S
30
0
W
Ma
i
n
S
t
70
0
E
900 S
40
0
E
700 S
50
0
E
80
0
E
11
0
0
E
20
0
W
We
s
t
T
e
m
p
l
e
S
t
20
0
E
60
0
E
30
0
E
70
0
W
B
15
>100%25%50%75%100%
9th & 9th DistrictCentral Ninth District
9th & 9th DistrictCentral Ninth District
Exhibit 3: District Parking Supply and Demand
900 South Reconstruction Project
900 E 800 S
700 E
900 S
800 E
1100 E
800 S
300 W
Main St
900 S
200 W
West Temple St
Peak Hour: 1PM - 2PM on a weekdayPeak Hour: 1PM - 2PM on a weekdayCentral Ninth
District
Central Ninth
District
Peak Hour: 6PM-7PM on a weekday or SaturdayPeak Hour: 6PM-7PM on a weekday or Saturday
15
9 th & 9th
District
9 th & 9th
District
>100%
25%
50%
75%
100%
>100%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 30 of 32
Exhibit 4: Reconstruction Design Impacts to On-Street Parking
Segment Reason for Change Degree of Change
900 West to 800 West Parking repurposed westbound
to match corridor alignment
west of 900 West. Eastbound,
underutilized parking
repurposed to narrow roadway
width.
Roughly 34 parking spaces will be
repurposed in this block.
800 West to 700 West Westbound and eastbound on-
street parking will be
repurposed to accommodate a
mid-block crossing.
Roughly six parking spaces will be
repurposed in this block.
700 West to 600 West Parallel parking stalls added
eastbound
Roughly five parking spaces will
be added eastbound in this block.
600 West to 500 West One space will be repurposed
eastbound to accommodate an
improved pedestrian crossing.
One parking space will be
repurposed eastbound in this
block.
500 West to 400 West Parking will be repurposed to
accommodate narrower street
and parking will also be added
near intersections.
One parking space will be
repurposed eastbound in this
block.
400 West to 300 West Westbound parking will be
repurposed to accommodate a
transition to angled parking.
Eastbound, parking is
repurposed to accommodate
Three parking spaces will be
repurposed in this block.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 31 of 32
transition into Central Ninth
district, and parking is added
near two driveways.
300 West to 200 West Curbside parking replaced with
median parking.
Roughly 25 parking spaces will be
added in this block.
200 West to West
Temple
Curbside parking replaced with
median parking.
Roughly 12 parking spaces will be
added in this block.
West Temple to Main
Street
Parking repurposed to
accommodate transition into
the Central Ninth district, and to
create space for the trail.
Roughly 10 parking spaces will be
repurposed in this block.
Main Street to State
Street
Eastbound parking repurposed
to accommodate right turn lane
at State Street.
Roughly seven parking spaces
will be repurposed in this block.
State Street to 200 East Eastbound, some parking is
added near the 200 East
intersection, and in other
locations parking is repurposed
as green space where existing
parking is too close to
intersections.
Roughly five parking spaces will
be added in this block.
200 East to 300 East Eastbound parking is added
near 200 East.
Three parking spaces will be
added in this block.
300 East to 400 East Parking repurposed in both
directions to accommodate bus
Two parking spaces will be added
in this block.
Salt Lake City
December 2021
Page 32 of 32
stops and added in some
locations where a lane reduction
allows for on-street parking.
400 East to 500 East Parking added in both directions
due to lane reduction.
Roughly five parking spaces will
be added in this block.
500 East to 600 East No change in parking.
600 East to 700 East No change in parking.
700 East to 800 East One parking space added
eastbound due to lane
reduction.
One parking space will be added
in this block.
800 East to 900 East Parking stalls repurposed in
both directions to
accommodate bus stops, and
additionally in the eastbound
direction to ensure safe
transition into the 9th & 9th
district, as well as to preserve
trees while accommodating the
trail.
Roughly seven parking spaces
will be repurposed in this block.
900 East to Lincoln
Street
Eastbound parking repurposed
to accommodate bus stop.
Two parking spaces will be
repurposed in this block.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________Date Received: _________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 28, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT:Amendment to the Residential Parking Permit Program Ordinance
STAFF CONTACT:Jon Larsen, Transportation Division Director, jon.larsen@slcgov.com
801.535.6630
DOCUMENT TYPE:Ordinance amendment
RECOMMENDATION: Pass an ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT:There could be a nominal increase in revenue due to an increase in
participation in the Residential Parking Permit program.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:As the Central Ninth neighborhood continues to grow, it has
exacerbated a long-standing parking issue that impacts residents in the historic single-family
homes on Jefferson Street and Washington Street. Because there is not designated park and ride
parking for the 900 South TRAX station, transit riders will often park on street in the
neighborhood. There is also spillover parking demand from nearby businesses that end up on
Jefferson Street and Washington Street. There is evidence of support to create a residential
parking permit program for these two streets, but it isn’t allowed under the current ordinance,
which requires eight continuous block faces. The proposed text changes would allow for the
creation of a residential parking permit program for this neighborhood, with minimal impact on
the program function elsewhere in the City.
The ordinance change would not automatically create a residential parking permit program in the
Central Ninth area; it would simply allow for it to be a possibility. The normal process for
rachel otto (Aug 29, 2023 15:21 MDT)08/29/2023
08/29/2023
creating a residential parking permit zone would still need to be followed, likely resulting in a
series of robust discussions with the community about how to balance the needs of the many
stakeholders.
PUBLIC PROCESS: There have been multiple discussions with residents of the Central Ninth
Neighborhood who would be most impacted by and benefit the most from this change. This issue
was also discussed at the June 8, 2023 Central Ninth Community Council meeting.
EXHIBITS:
1) Proposed Residential Parking Permit Program amendment text
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(Ordinance amending Section 12.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to area designation criteria for the City Parking Permit Program)
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.64 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Parking Permit Program)
authorizes a program and implementing procedural system by which residents and businesses within
qualifying areas may receive preferential treatment when competing with commuter vehicles for
available on street parking; and
WHEREAS, Section 12.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code sets forth general criteria, specific
factors and threshold technical criteria for the transportation engineer to consider when designating an
area as a city permit parking area; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”) Transportation Division has become
aware of areas within Salt Lake City wherein residents and businesses experience a severe shortage
of street parking due to high commuter vehicle parking as intended to be addressed by the City
Parking Permit Program, but which fail to meet the criteria set forth in Section 12.64.040; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the area designation criteria
are necessary to ensure all areas within Salt Lake City that satisfy the purpose of the City Parking
Program as set forth in Section 12.64.010 (Purpose) of the Salt Lake City Code can be properly
designated as Parking Permit Areas, as defined in Section 12.64.020 (Definitions).
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending Section 12.64.040. Section 12.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code
shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.64.040: AREA DESIGNATION; CRITERIA:
A. General Criteria: An area shall be deemed eligible for consideration as a city permit parking area
if the transportation engineer determines, after evaluation of the surveys and traffic studies prepared
at the direction of the parking permit coordinator, that the qualified area is adversely affected by
commuter vehicles for any extended period(s) during the day or night, on weekends or holidays.
B. Specific Factors: In determining alleged adverse effects upon an area, the transportation
engineer shall analyze and evaluate factors which include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The extent of the desire and perception of need by the residents for permit parking as
evidenced by receipt of verified petitions and ballots as required herein;
2. The extent to which legal on street parking spaces are occupied by motor vehicles during any
given time period; and
3. The extent to which vehicles parking in the area during the period proposed for parking
regulations are commuter vehicles rather than resident vehicles.
C. Threshold Technical Criteria: The transportation engineer may, upon recommendation of the
parking permit coordinator, and pursuant to the provisions hereunder, consider for designation as a
city permit parking area, an area whose streets (or portions thereof) qualify by satisfying the
following eligibility criteria:
1. Seventy percent (70%) or more of the parking capacity is generally occupied;
2. Such occupancy continues for any consecutive four (4) hour period and such occupancy rate
occurs at least four (4) days per week during at least a nine (9) month period per year. If the
recommendation is for designation of a seasonal city permit area, the occupancy occurs over a period
of more than two (2) months and fewer than nine (9) months;
3. Twenty five percent (25%) of the vehicles occupying the on street spaces are other than area
vehicles;
4. The requesting area consists of curb space fronting a minimum of eight (8) standard block
faces geographically located within the proposed permit area; provided that, if fewer than eight (8)
standard block faces are impacted, then the transportation engineer shall have discretion to waive the
requirement of this Subsection (C)(4) if the proposed permit area is impacted by one of the
following: (a) hospital or medical buildings; (b) university or college buildings; or (c) a TRAX
station; and;
5. The parking permit coordinator agrees that implementing the proposed permit area will not,
to a significant extent, transfer the commuter vehicle parking problem to a different adjacent area
should the area under consideration be designated permit parking
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first
publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2023.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on .
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
MAYOR
___________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY RECORDER Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
(SEAL)
Date: _________________________
Bill No. _______ of 2023
Published: ______________________.
Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney
August 24, 2023
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 11, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT:Amendment to the Residential Parking Permit Program Ordinance
STAFF CONTACT:Jon Larsen, Transportation Division Director, jon.larsen@slcgov.com
801.535.6630
DOCUMENT TYPE:Ordinance amendment
RECOMMENDATION: Pass an ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT:There could be a nominal increase in revenue due to an increase in
participation in the Residential Parking Permit program.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:As the Central Ninth neighborhood continues to grow, it has
exacerbated a long-standing parking issue that impacts residents in the historic single-family
homes on Jefferson Street and Washington Street. Because there is not designated park and ride
parking for the 900 South TRAX station, transit riders will often park on street in the
neighborhood. There is also spillover parking demand from nearby businesses that end up on
Jefferson Street and Washington Street. There is evidence of support to create a residential
parking permit program for these two streets, but it isn’t allowed under the current ordinance,
which requires eight continuous block faces. The proposed text changes would allow for the
creation of a residential parking permit program for this neighborhood, with minimal impact on
the program function elsewhere in the City.
The ordinance change would not automatically create a residential parking permit program in the
Central Ninth area; it would simply allow for it to be a possibility. The normal process for
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 14, 2023 10:50 MDT)08/14/2023
08/14/2023
creating a residential parking permit zone would still need to be followed, likely resulting in a
series of robust discussions with the community about how to balance the needs of the many
stakeholders.
PUBLIC PROCESS: There have been multiple discussions with residents of the Central Ninth
Neighborhood who would be most impacted by and benefit the most from this change. This issue
was also discussed at the June 8, 2023 Central Ninth Community Council meeting.
EXHIBITS:
1) Proposed Residential Parking Permit Program amendment text
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2023 2
3
(Ordinance amending Section 12.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code 4
pertaining to area designation criteria for the City Parking Permit Program) 5
6
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.64 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Parking Permit Program) 7
authorizes a program and implementing procedural system by which residents and businesses within 8
qualifying areas may receive preferential treatment when competing with commuter vehicles for 9
available on street parking; and 10
WHEREAS, Section 12.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code sets forth general criteria, specific 11
factors and threshold technical criteria for the transportation engineer to consider when designating an 12
area as a city permit parking area; and 13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”) Transportation Division has become 14
aware of areas within Salt Lake City wherein residents and businesses experience a severe shortage 15
of street parking due to high commuter vehicle parking as intended to be addressed by the City 16
Parking Permit Program, but which fail to meet the criteria set forth in Section 12.64.040; and 17
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the area designation criteria 18
are necessary to ensure all areas within Salt Lake City that satisfy the purpose of the City Parking 19
Program as set forth in Section 12.64.010 (Purpose) of the Salt Lake City Code can be properly 20
designated as Parking Permit Areas, as defined in Section 12.64.020 (Definitions). 21
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 22
SECTION 1. Amending Section 12.64.040. Section 12.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code 23
shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 24
12.64.040: AREA DESIGNATION; CRITERIA: 25
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
A. General Criteria: An area shall be deemed eligible for consideration as a city permit parking area 26
if the transportation engineer determines, after evaluation of the surveys and traffic studies prepared 27
at the direction of the parking permit coordinator, that the qualified area is adversely affected by 28
commuter vehicles for any extended period(s) during the day or night, on weekends or holidays. 29
B. Specific Factors: In determining alleged adverse effects upon an area, the transportation 30
engineer shall analyze and evaluate factors which include, but are not limited to, the following: 31
1. The extent of the desire and perception of need by the residents for permit parking as 32
evidenced by receipt of verified petitions and ballots as required herein; 33
2. The extent to which legal on street parking spaces are occupied by motor vehicles during any 34
given time period; and 35
3. The extent to which vehicles parking in the area during the period proposed for parking 36
regulations are commuter vehicles rather than resident vehicles. 37
C. Threshold Technical Criteria: The transportation engineer may, upon recommendation of the 38
parking permit coordinator, and pursuant to the provisions hereunder, consider for designation as a 39
city permit parking area, an area whose streets (or portions thereof) qualify by satisfying the 40
following eligibility criteria: 41
1. Seventy percent (70%) or more of the parking capacity is generally occupied; 42
2. Such occupancy continues for any consecutive four (4) hour period and such occupancy rate 43
occurs at least four (4) days per week during at least a nine (9) month period per year. If the 44
recommendation is for designation of a seasonal city permit area, the occupancy occurs over a period 45
of more than two (2) months and fewer than nine (9) months; 46
3. Twenty five percent (25%) of the vehicles occupying the on street spaces are other than area 47
vehicles; 48
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
4. The requesting area consists of curb space fronting a minimum of eight (8) standard block 49
faces geographically located within the proposed permit area; provided that, if fewer than eight (8) 50
standard block faces are impacted, then the transportation engineer shall have discretion to waive the 51
requirement of this Subsection (C)(4) if the proposed permit area is impacted by one of the 52
following: (a) hospital or medical buildings; (b) university or college buildings; or (c) a TRAX 53
station; and; 54
5. The parking permit coordinator agrees that implementing the proposed permit area will not, 55
to a significant extent, transfer the commuter vehicle parking problem to a different adjacent area 56
should the area under consideration be designated permit parking 57
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first 58
publication. 59
60
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2023. 61
62
63
CHAIRPERSON 64
ATTEST: 65
66
______________________________ 67
CITY RECORDER 68
69
70
Transmitted to Mayor on . 71
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 72
73
74
75
MAYOR 76
77
___________________________ 78
CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM 79
(SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office 80
81
Date: 82 August 11, 2023
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Bill No. ________ of 2023 83
Published: ______________. _______________________________ 84
Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney85
86
_______________________
ara Montoya Senior City A
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY24
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: September 19, 2023
RE: Budget Amendment Number 2 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024
Budget Amendment Number Two includes 28 proposed amendments, $41,675,718 in revenues and $42,576,118 in
expenditures of which $233,050 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to six funds. Additionally,
the transmittal indicates there is an increase of eight FTE’s. Five of the eight FTEs are being requested in Items A-1
& E-3 - State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant for FY2024 ($3,107,201). The Council will be holding a
public hearing for this grant on September 19th, the same night as the Budget Amendment No. 2 public hearing.
Fund Balance
If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 13.96% which is
$4,263,736 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. Note: this figure includes both
General Fund and Funding our Future fund balances. The projected Fund Balance does not include unused
FY2023 budgets that drop to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year. The General Fund typically sees $2 million
to $3 million drop to Fund Balance annually, which would increase the fund balance percentage. It also does not
include actual revenues through the end of the last fiscal year. The comprehensive annual financial audit will
confirm the actual Fund Balance through the end of FY2023. The annual audit is typically completed in December.
This updated 13.96% combined Fund Balance is higher than estimated during the annual budget deliberations in
June and Budget Amendment #1 last month due to finance department clarification on best practices for what to
include or not include in Fund Balance calculations. The revised estimate did not impact the Funding Our Future
portion of Fund Balance which remains at 14.51% which is $791,501 above the 13% minimum target.
Two Straw Poll Requests
The Administration is requesting straw polls for two items due to impending reimbursement deadlines: E-1 TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Capacity Building Grant Adult Education Program for $1,229,681, and
E-2 TANF Capacity Building Grant – Youth Development $1,391,672.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
Project Timeline:
Set Date: September 19, 2023
1st Briefing: September 19, 2023
Public Hearing: October 3, 2023
2nd Briefing: October 3, 2023 (if needed)
Potential Action: October 17, 2023
Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments
Council staff has provided the following list of new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal
year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that
some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may
not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2025
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item A-1: Homeless
General Fund
Reallocation Cost
Share for State
Homeless Mitigation
Grant
$53,544
0.5 FTE Community
Development
Grant Specialist for
Homelessness Engagement and
Response Team (HEART)
This position is proposed to be half funded
from the State Homeless Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant and half by the General Fund
for FY2024. The $107,088 reflects the fully
loaded annual cost for the FTE.
#2
Item A-5: Create a
Public Lands Planning
& Design Division $11,139
Reclassify an existing FTE to a
higher pay grade and director of
new division. Request position
be appointed in a future budget
opening.
Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape
architect positions and associated operating
budget ($543,144) from the Engineering
Division (Public Services Department) to this
new division in the Public Lands Department.
#2
A-6 Sorenson
Janitorial and County
Contract - Senior
Community Programs
Manager
Budget Neutral
(see note to the
right)
1 Senior Community Programs
Manager
This item requires amending an existing
interlocal agreement with the County. At the
time of publishing this report, staff is checking
whether the amendment could result in
additional funding needs to maintain current
levels of service. The item might not be budget
neutral depending on the agreement changes.
#2
A-7: Economic
Development Project
Manager Position $122,000
1 Economic Development Project
Manager
Would be focused on the creation of Special
Assessment Areas or SAAs for business
districts and renewal every three to five years.
#2 A-9: Know Your
Neighbor Program
Expenses
$6,500
Program expenses were inadvertently left out
of the last annual budget
#2 A-10: Love Your
Block Program
Expenses
$55,750
Program expenses were inadvertently left out
of the last annual budget
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2025
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item E-3: Homeless
Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant
Award
$3,107,201
13 Existing FTEs:
- 2 Police sergeants
- 10 police officers
- 1 Business & community
liaison
4.5 New FTEs:
- 1 Sequential Intercept Case
Manager in the Justice Court
- 0.5 Grant Specialist in CAN
(half grant funded and half by
the General Fund in item above)
- 1 Police sergeant
- 2 police officers
Admin expects to apply for grant funding
annually to cover these costs. General Fund
would not need to cover costs if the State grant
is awarded to the City to fully cover the costs.
Note: Justice Court FTE is part of the City’s
contribution towards implementation of the
“Miami Model” of diversion out of the
homelessness system.
#2
G-1: Greater Salt Lake
Area Clean Energy
and Air Roadmap
Coordinator Position $482,915
(funding is to
cover four years
of new FTE)
1 Coordinator
Four years of salary and benefits. The position
would be responsible for facilitating the
sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners,
managing consultants, assisting with
community engagement, coordinating
stakeholder and public engagement activities
and presentations, and tracking task
completion and achievement.
TOTALS $3,356,134 21 FTEs of which 8 are New Does not include the cost of item G-1
Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments
The Administration indicates that there are no revenue projection updates yet for FY2024.
Fund Balance Chart
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for Budget
Amendment #2. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 13.96%. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment
totaling $41,675,718 in revenue and $42,576,118 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in six funds, with eight increases in FTEs. The proposal
includes 27 initiatives for Council review and a potential Council-added item.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached to the transmittal. The
Administration requests that 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
Impact Fees Update
The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as
of 7/20/23 and has taken into account impact fees appropriated by the Council on August 15 as part of the FY2024
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds
during all of FY2024 and FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated in October
2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $273,684 More than two years away -
Parks $14,064,637 More than two years away -
Police $1,402,656 More than two years away -
Transportation $6,064,485 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items
Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items.
A-1: 50% Cost Share for a New FTE Community Development Grant Specialist in the Housing
Stability Division (Budget Neutral – Shifting $44,620 in the General Fund from Street
Ambassador Program to New FTE)
See item E-3 for the FY2024 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant write-up which is proposed to fund
50% of the new FTE
The Administration is requesting a new FTE Community Development Grant Specialist to improve contract
management of City funding for homeless services. The new FTE is 50% eligible for the state homeless grant
funding which reflects the proportion of work related to the State grant. The other half of the position would be
funded from the General Fund. This item proposes to shift $44,620 in the General Fund’s for Street Ambassador
to instead go to the new FTE. An equivalent $44,620 from the State grant would go to the Street Ambassador
program to maintain current service levels. The total $1,384,101 funding for the Street Ambassador program
would remain unchanged. The Downtown Alliance is aware of and supports this proposed funding source change.
The total $89,240 for the new FTE would cover 10 months. If the State grant is not available next fiscal year, then
the next annual budget would need $107,088 to cover the fully loaded annual cost (salary and benefits).
A-2: U.S. Treasury Emergency Rent Assistance Program Funding ($2,339,009 to Misc. Grants
Fund)
In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023 the Council appropriated $2 million for rental assistance distributed in
partnership with the State through the Utah Rent Relief portal. The State has since closed the portal and gradually
ended the program. At the briefing, the Council stated a preference to also use the remaining funding from the
Treasury for direct rental assistance. The funding could be awarded to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as
the sole source provider. A potential advantage of this approach is simpler tracking and compliance reporting to
the federal government. Another option is an open and competitive process for interested organizations to apply.
The Council could request the Administration (the mayor and/or an advisory board) make funding
recommendations based on the applications and then the Council would decide final funding awards.
Eligible expenses per federal guidance are security deposits, rent, past due rent, utilities, past due utilities, and
some other housing related costs such as application fees. September 30, 2025 is the deadline to spend these
funds or return them to the U.S. Treasury. Federal guidance requires the funds be awarded to recipients
negatively impacted by covid, recipients are limited to 18 months of rental assistance total, and the application
process must be open to all eligible households. The City has received and distributed $20,867,592 through the
U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rent Assistance Program. The Treasury reallocated funding from low performing to
high performing jurisdictions like Salt Lake City. Earlier this year, the Administration requested additional
funding and the Treasury released another $339,009 in addition to the $2 million the City has yet to budget for
use. No additional funding is anticipated to be made available by the Treasury through this program.
Policy Question:
➢Housing Authority Sole Source Provider Approach or Open and Competitive Process? The Council may
wish to discuss with the Administration the pros and cons of the two approaches or discuss other options
before selecting how to distribute the funds.
A-3: Liberty Park Basketball Court Donation from Utah Jazz ($100,000 to CIP Fund)
In FY2022 CIP, the Council approved $99,680 for a constituent application to resurface the basketball court in the
center of Liberty Park and replace the two basketball hoops. The court has deteriorated to an extent where resurfacing
is no longer a recommended option. The Utah Jazz offered a $100,000 donation to reconstruct the court in honor of
their 50th anniversary season. The total project budget of nearly $200,000 would also allow fencing and seating to be
installed. The Utah Jazz logo would be included on the court.
A-4: Rescope Miller Park Trail ADA Access Improvements and Historic Structure Preservation
(Budget Neutral in the CIP Fund)
See Attachment 1 for the Miller Park Engagement Report June 2023
In FY2024 CIP, the Council approved $425,000 for a constituent application Miller Park trail ADA access
improvements and historic structure preservation. This item would rescope the remaining $365,012. This proposal
would not close any informal or “social” trails that exist in the park. The original goals of the project included
expanding ADA accessibility, eliminating hazardous steep trail sections, protecting, and restoring historic structures
such as the Works Progress Administration walls, and installing a walking bridge. The Public Lands Department hired
a consultant who obtained geotechnical and structural engineers, who determined that the recommended projects in
the original scope would not fulfill the goals stated, and instead recommended projects that would fulfill the stated
goals. The Department is requesting a rescope to use the remaining funds on the new projects recommended by the
engineers.
Attachment 1 includes a summary of engagement for this item. Some of the organizations that were included in that
process were the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the City’s Risk Management
Attorney, a national trail-building firm, American Trails, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Mayor’s ADA
coordinator, and the Disability and Accessibility Commission. While some stakeholders expressed support for the
department’s proposed way forward, other stakeholders prefer to find ways to make the original scope work.
The Department provided the below list of projects (#1 being the highest priority) based on the results of public
engagement. Rescoped funds would first be used for project #1 and then proceed down the list until funding runs out.
If projects could be done more efficiently in tandem, then they might not strictly follow the priority order.
1. Repairing the historic crib walls to increase wall and trail stability
2. Stabilize exposed wall foundation with soil nails and cover foundation where feasible, and to prevent erosion with
adjacent properties
3. Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek, and replace crib wall on creek side to reduce
concentrated drainage
4. Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near the entrance on 900 South and on the east side of
the creek, and other accessibility improvements as there are efficiencies with other projects
5. Improve cross slope near Bonneview Drive Entrance and explore adding stairs and a handrail
6. Reconstruct existing stairs to improve safety
7.Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive
A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division (Transfer $543,144 and Four FTEs from the
Engineering Division)
Staff note: Council and Administrative Staff are working on additional clarification on this item.
New information may be available for the briefing on Tuesday. The following write-up is based on
the transmittal originally sent to the Council, but a revised/clarified proposal may be forthcoming:
The Administration is proposing to create a new division in the Public Lands Department. The request has three parts:
1. Creating the Planning & Design Division
2. Transfer four existing landscape architect FTEs from the Engineering Division in the Public Services Department
to the new division in Public Lands
a. The four FTEs are one Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34), two Landscape Architect IIIs (Grade 30),
and one Landscape Architect II (Grade 27)
b. The landscape architects would join two project managers currently in the Public Lands Department.
3. Reclassify an existing Planning Manager FTE in Public Lands to be the director of the new division at a higher pay
grade (from 33 to 34 and then 35 in the next annual budget) and as a merit, non-appointed position. The
Administration intends to request this position be appointed in the next annual budget. Vacancy savings would be
used to cover the increased compensation for the new division director. The next annual budget would need to
include $12,113 for the position.
The Department stated the need for this new division is caused by the increase in the number and complexity of
capital improvement projects for parks, trails, and open spaces from the voter-approved parks bond (first issuance is
item D-5 in this budget amendment), the 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond, annual CIP funding, and a growing number
of grants and donations.
Closer coordination and operational savings are potential benefits of the FTE transfer is that the positions planning
and designing new capital assets would work in the same department as the employees responsible for maintenance of
the assets. The Public Lands Department would be responsible for all planning, prioritization, funding, public and
stakeholder engagement, design, consultant management, overall project management, and, ultimately, on-going
maintenance of every project.
Policy questions:
➢Timely Completion of Capital Projects – The Council may wish to ask the Administration are existing
resources and system sufficient to deploy capital projects in a timely manner and meet the policy goal of
completing CIP projects within three years?
➢Merit vs Appointed Policy Guidance for Division Directors – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration whether to provide police guidance on the employment status (merit vs appointed) for
division directors. Appointed positions are as such to give the Mayor maximum flexibility to implement
his/her policy goals, which means merit positions have employment protections that appointed positions do
not. Most division directors in the City are appointed but there are a few in a merit status. It’s unclear why
there is a mix, although it is likely due to historical practices and evolving policy goals. Staff is clarifying with
HR. Department directors and deputy directors are appointed. Legally a merit employee cannot be forced into
an appointed status. For this reason, it’s easier to make a position appointed before hiring the employee.
Historically, the City has provided increased compensation to appointed positions in recognition that certain
employment rights available to merit positions are unavailable to appointed positions. Some options might be
placing policy guidance into the annual compensation ordinance for non-represented employees and/or in
City Code.
➢Amending City Code to Create New Division – The Council may wish to ask the Attorney’s Office to clarify
whether Section 2.08.130 Administrative Organization of the Public Lands Department needs to be amended
to formally create the new division. The section currently lists the four divisions of the Public Lands
Department: Parks, Golf, Trails & Natural Lands, and Urban Forestry. The Budget Amendment #2 transmittal
did not include an ordinance amendment.
➢Parks Bond Reimburse General Fund for Landscape Architect Work – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to explore whether the Parks Bond could reimburse the General Fund for eligible work on
bond project implementation by the landscape architects. The first issuance of the bond includes reimbursing
the General Fund for two planner positions work on bond projects in the Public Lands Department and a
senior project manager in Engineering (currently vacant).
New Project Delivery Process
See Attachment for a graphic of the Double Diamond project delivery process
The Public Lands Department and the Engineering Division shared the following information about two tenets of the
new project delivery process that is being developed.
(1) “One Project Manager: Currently, every public lands project has two project managers, with tasks divided
between at least the Engineering Division’s PLACES Team (landscape architects) and the Public Lands
Department’s Planning Team (planners). Project ownership and accountability have been unclear. This requested
structural change and the new project delivery process will help rectify that by allowing the Public Lands
Department to identify the best project manager for each project (whether a landscape architect or a planner).
They will lead each project from start to finish and ultimately manage the staff and consultants that will assist
during each phase. This will improve accountability, predictability, and equitable outcomes.”
(2) “Double Diamond: The new project delivery process is based on the “double diamond” design process model.
It encourages public engagement in the most impactful phases of the project, preventing feedback from being
collected too early or too late. It allows for sufficient time for everyone involved in each project to “diverge”, or
engage in expansive, creative thinking, and the development of several design alternatives. But it also requires
projects to “converge” (at least twice), to synthesize and to move forward once enough information has been
collected. Ultimately, the project manager will lead projects from start to finish and depend on project team
members for their expertise (e.g., construction managers, designers, civic engagement specialists, etc.). Specifics
of the Public Lands Department’s process can be shared with the Council once it has been refined by all project
managers within the next few months.”
A-6: New FTE Senior Community Programs Manager (Budget Neutral – Shifting $113,798 from
County Contract for Sorenson Center Services to New Position)
The Administration is requesting a new FTE senior community programs manager at pay grade 26 in the Youth and
Family Division of the Community and Neighborhood Department. The total budget for County contracted services at
the Sorenson center will be reduced from $1,014,800 to $901,002. The difference of $113,798 would pay for the new
FTE. The City Council and County Council would need to amend the existing interlocal agreement to reflect this new
budget. The County has requested that the City take on child care and custodial services at the Sorenson Campus. The
new FTE will help maintain existing levels of services for childcare functions. The Public Services Department expects
to contract with a third party for cleaning and maintenance at existing frequencies at the same or lower cost.
In March of 2018, the City and County entered an interlocal agreement (ILA) that defines the responsibilities of the
respective entities for programming, operation, and maintenance of the Sorenson Unity Center. The facility is owned
by the City, and the City leads educational and community-based programming while the County leads recreational
programming. The City is responsible for utilities, security, and maintenance of the facility and the County is
responsible for custodial services. Currently, all parties agree that it would be more efficient if the ILA is amended so
that responsibility for certain programming and custodial services be transferred from the County to the City. As such,
this is a revenue neutral budget request that will rescope the Sorenson budget and facilitate an amendment to the ILA
to modify terms relating to childcare programming and custodial responsibilities.
A-7: New FTE Economic Development Project Manager to Facilitate Special Assessment Areas (SAAs)
($128,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting a new FTE project manager at pay grade 29 in the Economic Development
Department. The position would facilitate creation of SAAs for business districts and renewal of SAAs every three to
five years. The position may also assist with other business districts support efforts managed by the Economic
Development Department. The City’s only current SAA is the Central Business Improvement Area which is authorized
until April 2025. The City is currently exploring the creation of an SAA in the Sugar House Business District. The
Council also funded $60,000 in the last annual budget for a study of a potential SAA in the Granary District. The new
position would facilitate these two new potential SAAs and do outreach to other business districts that may be
interested in exploring SAAs too.
The Administration stated that the Economic Development Department would be the lead for the potential creation
and renewal of SAAs. Initial facilitation of discussions with property owners would be handled by the new FTE and the
required consultant study of boundaries and assessment methods (note: consulting studies for future SAAs may
require additional budget). Then responsibility could be transferred to another department such as Engineering for
public infrastructure improvement SAAs. SAAs are a flexible financing tool where property owners agree to tax
themselves in exchange for collective benefits. SAAs are allowed to address several types of activity under state law
including economic promotion (like the current Central Business Improvement Area), public infrastructure
improvements, enhanced maintenance or operation services, environmental remediation, and utilities.
State law has many requirements for creating an SAA. There are approximately 50 steps that can take a year to
complete based on the last renewal of the Central Business Improvement Area. It should be noted that an SAA cannot
be formed without the support of 60% of the property owners, and that the last SAA the City attempted to implement
along North Temple did not meet that threshold (the General Fund covered those improvements). The Attorney’s
Office, Finance Department, and sometimes Engineering Division also have important roles for the creation and
renewal of SAAs. The Finance Department has an ongoing role in the administration of funds for an SAA (not just
creation and renewal every three to five years) including annual invoices, payments, tracking, and collections. Some of
the steps to authorize an SAA include the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of Equalization
Appointment, a second public hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor, contract
award facilitation and ongoing contract management.
Policy questions:
➢One-time vs Ongoing Workload between Departments Supporting SAAs – The Council may want to ask the
Administration are existing resources and systems sufficient to handle the ongoing workload in the Finance
Department for administering SAAs compared to the one-time workload in other departments for creating
and renewing SAAs every three to five years? Is the potentially increasing number of SAAs in the City
anticipated to need additional resources?
➢Policy Guidance for SAAs – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether policy guidance
would be helpful to identify SAAs and activities the City supports (promotion, infrastructure, utilities, etc.),
preferred terms, and best practices.
A-8: Central Business Improvement Area Assessment Funds to the Downtown Alliance ($664,294
from Special Assessment Fund)
This is a legally required financial true up, that would transfer one-time funds from remaining cash balances to the
Downtown Alliance as the contract holder for the Central Business Improvement Area (a type of SAA downtown
renewed every three years since 1991). The funds accrued over multiple years from late payments by property owners
in previous three-year cycles of the downtown SAA dating from 2000 to 2018. It’s important to note that the City
passthrough payments of property owner assessments were made to the contract holder as required in prior years.
Some of the funds may also have been a result of greater than expected property owner assessments such as higher
collection rates. Financial true ups for 2019 and after will be handled in a future budget opening.
Policy Question:
➢Resources to Provide More Frequent SAA Financial True-ups – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration what resources and/or system changes could help provide more frequent SAA financial true-
ups to prevent a similar situation from happening again.
A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expenses ($6,500 from General Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your
Neighbor Program. During the last annual budget these expenses were presented to the Council but inadvertently not
included in the Mayor’s recommended budget. The ongoing expenses are:
- $2,000 for Dues & Publications – Volunteer Sign-up Platform, Canvas
- $2,000 for Language Services, Transportation, Child Care, Brand Development
- $1,500 for Printed Materials, Advertising, and Promotional Items/Swag
- $500 for Food/Refreshments
- $500 for Material and Supplies
A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses ($55,750 from General Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your
Neighbor Program. During the last annual budget these expenses were presented to the Council but inadvertently not
included in the Mayor’s recommended budget. The ongoing expenses are:
- $25,000 for Mini-Grants
- $12,000 for Neighborhood Cleanup Trailer
- $6,000 for Training
- $3,000 for Food/Refreshments
- $2,500 for Materials & Supplies
- $2,000 for Equipment and Tools
- $2,000 for Specialty Contracts, Dues and Publications
- $1,500 for Printing and Promotion
- $1,000 for Phones/Other
- $750 for Uniforms
A-11: Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY 2023- 2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-
Represented Employees (Budget Neutral)
Note that the transmittal includes a separate ordinance to amend the annual compensation plan for non-
represented employees. The votes on Budget Amendment #2 and amending the compensation plan will be listed
separately on a Council formal meeting agenda.
The Administration provided the below summary of some changes to the plan. These changes will impact the
Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay specifically and will also
make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of the changes will have impacts generally
throughout the City.
- Revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay
Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees eligible
to receive Snowfighter Pay. In the original redlined copy of the Plan transmitted to City Council, comments stated the
specific amounts included in these subsections would be matched and added after the new rates negotiated and
adopted in the new AFSCME MOU were known. There wasn’t enough time to update the specific amounts in the Plan
between adoption of the annual budget and the conclusion of negotiations and ratification of a new agreement with
AFSCME. This also applied to additional items listed below.
- Revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours,
Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for
AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Meal Allowance.
- Revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) – New rates
indicated correct rounding errors discovered in calculation of range minimums, midpoints, and maximums for
salaried employees. Corrected rates match pay range information loaded for salaried employees in Workday
without fiscal impact.
- Revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) – Corrects pay levels shown for certain
job titles to match those included in the plan originally transmitted to City Council. The latest copy of the Appointed
Pay Plan intended only to show the addition of the new Safety & Security Director for Public Services, but
inadvertently included incorrect pay level changes for Justice Court Judges and the Justice Court Administrator.
- Revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2023-2024”) – Specific edits include
adjustments to employer contributions required for employees covered under the Tier 1 – Firefighter Retirement
System. Notice of these changes was not received from URS until after this Plan was originally transmitted to City
Council.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Emergency Demolition Fund Reset ($65,472 from Special Revenue Fund)
This request is to reset the 'Emergency Demolition Fund' back to its original budget of $200,000 The fund has
been working as intended and paid for the demolition of homes affected by fire on Major Street. The property
owner has reimbursed the city for the cost of demolition.
D-2: 300 North Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Passthrough ($500,000 from Union Pacific to the CIP
Fund)
Engineering is ready to bill Union Pacific for their agreed upon contribution of $500,000 towards the 300 N
pedestrian bridge project. Under the terms of the agreement, this contribution will be paid to the City. Since this
contribution was accounted for as a funding source for the project, this budget amendment records the incoming
revenue from Union Pacific's contribution and records the expense as the funds will be used as payment to the
contractor.
D-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
D-4: RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Miscellaneous Grants ($6,476,014 to Misc. Grants)
Funding was transferred in the FY2024 annual budget to the RDA but is now being returned to Misc Grants to better
track according to federal guidelines. Note that the Administration’s transmittal inadvertently listed $6.4 million even.
The dollar amount has been updated to match the funding transfer from the last annual budget.
D-5: General Obligation Series 2023 Bonds ($24,885,893 from the First Bond Issuance to the CIP
Fund)
In November 2022, voters authorized the issuance of up to $85 million in general obligation bonds to fund eight
Parks, Trails, and Open Space projects. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023 were sold in August 2023 as the
first issuance of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and
the expenditure budget to pay for renovation of the park projects associated with the bonds.
There will be eleven project funds in Cost Center 10508 to which bond proceeds will be allocated.
•One allocation will be $9,000,0000 for the Glendale Regional Park (1200 West 1700 South) project.
•The second allocation will be $2,000,000 for Liberty Park Playground (600 East 900 South) project.
•The third allocation will be $850,000 for Allen Park (1900 South).
•The fourth allocation will be $5,000,000 for Folsom Trail Completion & Landscaping projects.
•The fifth will be $600,000 for the Fleet Block Park project.
•The sixth allocation will be $500,000 for the Fairmont Park (1040 East Sugarmont Drive) project.
•The seventh allocation will be $1,050,000 for Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trail, or Open Spaces (various
Locations with at least one in each Council District) projects.
•The eighth allocation will be $600,000 for the Jordan River Corridor (various locations) project.
•There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Contingencies/Program Management that will be allocated
$3,332,000.
•There will also be a unique Fund for Art Allowance that will be allocated $294,000.
•There will be an allocation for the bond's cost of issuance. This allocation will receive $225,893.25.
•There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Salaries, Benefits and Operational costs for 3 FTE's for 3 years. This
allocation will receive $1,434,000 that is slated to be reimbursed to the General Fund. The timing and actual
amounts of these reimbursements will be according to tracking of permitted expenses.
Policy Question:
➢Reimbursing the General Fund for FY2023 Costs – Note that this funding does not reimburse the General
Fund for fronting the $302,600 in FY2023 to hire the three FTEs dedicated to implementing the bond
projects. The Council may wish to request that the Administration explore the option for the bond to
reimburse the General Fund for those FY2023 expenses. It’s worth noting that one of the three positions, a
senior project manager in Engineering, has not been filled nine months after it was authorized and funded.
D-6: RV Enforcement Team Budget to Non-departmental for Transfer to IMS and Fleet ($45,800 from
Non-departmental)
In Budget Amendment #1, funds were redirected from the Compliance Mitigation team funding to be transferred to
IMS and Fleet for various related one-time costs. The funds were moved from Compliance but were not moved to
Non-departmental to be transferred to IMS and Fleet. This amendment adds that budget to Non-departmental for the
transfer to happen. Funding for the FTEs will remain in the Public Services Department.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability ($1,229,681 from Misc. Grants)
The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item because of upcoming reimbursement deadlines
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self-
sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the
TANF program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026.
E-2: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development ($1,391,672 from Misc. Grants)
The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item because of upcoming reimbursement deadlines
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self-
sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the
TANF program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026.
E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 ($3,107,201 to the Misc. Grants Fund)
This item is to recognize the annual State grant award in the amount of $3,107,201 for eligible costs associated with
homeless resource centers within the City. This is a formula grant subject to annual appropriations by the State
Legislature. The City was not required to apply but submitted proposed uses and was awarded by the State. This grant
requires no local matching funds. The total award is $357,201 more than last year. The Administration provided the
below details of the five new FTEs proposed to be paid by the State grant. At the time of publishing this report, it
appears that 13 existing FTEs would continue to be paid from the State grant (two police sergeants, 10 police officers,
and a business & community liaison).
Five New FTEs
- Job Title: Sequential Intercept Case Manager
o Pay grade: 26
o Job descriptions is pending but is expected to be based on the existing Homeless Strategies Outreach
Coordinator
o Annual fully loaded cost: $107,088
o Mitigation grant covers 100% of effort for 10 months
o This position will work to implement the Sequential Intercept model (Miami model) with the Salt Lake
City Justice Court. The case manager will coordinate access to community resources with high utilizers of
the Justice Court.
- Job Title: HEART Grant Program Specialist
o Pay grade: 26
o Job descriptions is pending but is expected to be based on the existing Grant Specialist
o Annual fully loaded cost: $107,088
o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 50% of the cost of this position. General funds are sought to cover
the other 50% (see item A-1 in this budget amendment), which is offset by increasing Mitigation award to
the Downtown Alliance for the Expanded Ambassador Program.
o This position will manage all aspects of contracting, invoicing, reporting, performance monitoring, and
will serve as liaison for all grantees of City homeless services general funds, as well as the State Office of
Homeless Services and Mitigation subawardees. This work is currently spread out among several
members of the HEART team, and the team's ability to monitor contractors for performance is very
limited.
- Job Title: Police Officer
o Pay grade: 25
o Annual fully loaded cost: $117,854
o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 100% of the cost of this position.
o This position will increase police services staffing and call response at the Homeless Resource Centers and
surrounding areas. The total police staffing on this grant will be 15.
- Job Title: Sergeant
o Pay grade: 29
o Annual fully loaded cost: $184,995
o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 100% of the cost of this position.
o This position will increase police services staffing and call response at the Homeless Resource Centers and
surrounding areas. The total police staffing on this grant will be 15.
Policy Questions:
➢Grant Briefing and Additional Details – The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to learn more and discuss
the annual Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant. The FY2023 grant was $2.75 million of which $2.2
million was ongoing for 13 FTEs. The FY2024 grant is $3,107,201. At the time of publishing this report, staff
was trying to clarify how the $272,322 used for one-time expenses in the FY2023 grant is proposed to be used
in the FY2024 grant such as for new vehicles, equipment, and other one-time supplies.
➢Homeless Services Funding Needs vs Available Funding – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
whether any excess funding related to homeless resource centers and homeless services exists, and how the
funding need compares to available funding.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Grant Consent Agenda
G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Grant ($1 million from Misc. Grants)
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $1,000,000
for the purpose of developing a comprehensive, economy-wide climate mitigation plan or update an existing plan
in collaboration with air pollution control districts, large and small municipalities statewide and tribal
governments that will support actions to reduce greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants and to conduct
meaningful engagement with low income and disadvantaged communities. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) agrees to pay for 100% of all approved budget period costs incurred up to the $1,000,000 award. 1
New FTE: Four years of salary and fringe benefits for one FTE. The position would be responsible for facilitating
the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement,
coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and
milestone achievement. A Public Hearing was held on July 11,2023.
G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands ($50,000 from Misc.
Grants)
The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public
Lands an extra $50,000 in funding for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees,
garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. Since the
City did not apply for this funding, this item appeared on the September 5, 2023 Consent Agenda during the
Council’s formal meeting.
G-3: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands ($150,000 from Misc.
Grants)
The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public
Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and
other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. The Public Hearing
was held May 16,2023.
G-4: State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation ($150,000 from Misc. Grants)
The Division of Outdoor Recreation is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing
navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South
to 2400 North. No match is required. The Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023.
G-5: Backman Community Open Space ($200,000 from Misc. Grants)
Salt Lake City's Department of Public Lands will improve the open space adjacent to Backman Elementary. The
design will likely include intentional landscaping and safety improvements, multiple nature playground amenities,
watchable wildlife areas, an outdoor gathering area and permaculture garden and/or similar amenities. This open
space area is covered with thick, invasive vegetation and remains virtually unused by the surrounding community.
The current conditions create safety concerns for families whose children use the existing trail and bridge to walk
to school. An analysis by the University of Utah of census block data shows that this natural area could provide
children and their families greater access to nature than any other single natural open space in the city, making
the site an unprecedented public asset for hundreds of local children and families in the City's Rose Park
neighborhood and users of the Jordan River Parkway by improving a blighted section of the trail. 50% match is
required. The Public Hearing was held May 16, 2023.
G-6: Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants ($92,846 from Misc. Grants)
Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office was awarded $92,846 for a two-year grant to pay partial salary for a victim
advocate. This grant does not require any new positions as the victim advocate was partially paid for the last two
years by a previous VOCA award. The Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023. The other portion of the Victim
Advocate's salary will be used to satisfy the 25% match.
G-7: YouthCity Summer Food Service Program - Utah State Board of Education ($11,000 from Misc.
Grants)
This grant will be used to pay for snacks for the Youth & Family locations throughout the City. No FTEs are paid
for by the grant. Employee staff time is being used as a match. The Public Hearing was held September 5, 2023.
Section I: Council-Added Items
I-1: Placeholder - Additional Funding for Sanctioned Camping ($TBD)
The Council may wish to hold further discussions regarding the potential need for additional one-time funding for
the pilot sanctioned campground, related public safety, and cleaning expenses. Staff is working with the
Administration to identify potential sources should additional funding be necessary. Given that this project will
need to move quickly, and that it is an important policy goal for the Mayor and Council to demonstrate the
viability of this idea, the Council could choose to appropriate a dollar amount (for example $1 million) to an
account that is subject to final Council release of funds, but available as needed on a more immediate basis. The
Council appropriated one-time $500,000 as part of the FY2024 annual budget into a holding account for a
sanctioned campground.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Miller Park Engagement Report June 2023
2. Double Diamond Project Delivery Process Graphic
ACRONYMS
AFSCME – American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods
CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund
EMS – Emergency Medical Services
EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERAP – Emergency Rental Assistance Program
FTE – Full Time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
FOF – Funding Our Future
IMS – Information Management Services
Misc. – Miscellaneous
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
RFP – Request for Proposals
SAA – Special Assessment Area
TANF – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
TBD – To Be Determined
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
VOCA – Victims of Crime Act
Miller Park Engagement
Trail Access Improvement & Historic Preservation
June 2023
1
Table of Contents
Background………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Engagement Approach………………………………………………………………. 3
Survey Results………………………………………………………………………….. 4
In-Person Engagement Results………………………………………………….. 9
Common Themes in Open Comments………………………………………… 12
Assessment of Original CIP Request…………………………………………… 14
Next Steps……………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Appendix A: Information about the Proposed Projects………………… 21
Appendix B: Engagement Materials…………………………………..………. 25
2
Background
In FY 2018-2019, a constituent submitted a Capital Improvement Project application and
received funding for Miller Park to accomplish the following two goals: preserve the historic
structures and improve the accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park.
To achieve these goals, the application originally proposed the following three projects:
restoration of a trail alignment that was re-routed to a higher elevation in 2014, installation of a
walking bridge over Red Butte Creek, and stabilization of the historic WPA walls. Upon the
hiring of a consultant, Salt Lake City obtained geotechnical and structural engineering reports
that recommended projects to fulfill the stated goals of preserving historic structures and
improving trail accessibility. With the new information gathered, the three originally proposed
projects were deemed infeasible as they could not accomplish the stated goals. Therefore, based
on the new information and recommendations from the engineering reports, 12 new projects
were proposed to fulfill the two original goals to a greater extent. These projects include
improvements in the following areas:
• Trail Slope Improvement Projects: Projects add access amenities like handrails and
stairs. These projects also aim to level out the trail slope and protect the wall foundation.
• Accessibility Improvement Projects: Adds access amenities like handrails and ramps to
entrances and stairways along the trail.
• Wall Foundation Protection Projects: Projects to preserve historic walls by covering
exposed foundations and adding stabilization.
• Manage Structural Loads on Historic WPA walls: Projects will remove the weight being
placed on walls to extend their lifespan and remove stress.
• Trail Protection: Projects will improve the infrastructure of the trails and address erosion
and access issues, including retaining wall repairs.
3
Engagement Approach
The goals of this engagement effort were as follows:
➢ Identify which projects the public prioritize.
➢ Identify concerns and gather feedback.
➢ Inform the public about the proposed projects, how they were selected, and how to
access the survey, focusing a majority of engagement efforts on the Yalecrest
neighborhood, immediate neighbors, and park users.
An online survey and tabling events were held to accomplish the engagement goals. In
addition, the City mailed notices of the survey opening to approximately 3 39 residents
adjacent to the park and canvassed the adjacent residents to inform them of the survey. The
survey was available from February through March 2023. A total of 169 survey responses
were recorded through the online survey and approximately 30 individuals participated in
the in-person tabling sessions. Project information and the survey were distributed through
the following channels:
➢ A project page on the Public Lands website was developed with project information, in-
person engagement opportunities, a survey link, and project manager contact
information.
➢ A presentation was made at the March 9th Yalecrest Neighborhood Council meeting
informing attendees of the survey and providing information on the project process and
content of the survey.
➢ 339 mailers with a QR code and information about the survey were sent out to
households near Miller Park.
➢ Survey information was promoted on SLC Public Lands’ social media accounts such as
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, as well as the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council
Webpage.
➢ Yard signs with survey QR codes were posted at the park and in the Yalecrest
neighborhood.
➢ Door-to-door canvassing was conducted in the Yalecrest neighborhood to inform nearby
residents how to complete the survey.
➢ Three in-person tabling sessions were held: one at Rowland Hall and two at the
Anderson-Foothill Library on separate days. Individuals had the opportunity to learn
about proposed projects and vote on their high-priority projects.
➢ Emailed survey information to Tracy Aviary, Preservation Utah, Seven Canyons Trust,
Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Utah Open Lands, and Mayor’s Office of Equity
& Inclusion to distribute.
4
Survey Results
Question 1
Survey respondents were first asked, “Based on the goals of the Miller Park CIP application,
which goal would you like prioritized?” The two goals, again, are to preserve the historic
structures and improve the accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park. Results
showed there are about an equal number of respondents that either want to solely prioritize
historic structures or view the two CIP goals equally important. There were fewer responses
favoring only prioritizing improvements to make the trail system more accessible. The pie chart
(Figure 1) shows the results of how people responded.
Figure 1: Goal Prioritization (Note: the number of responses to this question was 160).
Preserve historic
structures
37.87%
Improve accessibility of
the trail system
19.53%
Equally
important
37.28%
Based on the goals of the Miller Park CIP application, which
goal would you like prioritized
5
Questions 2-4
Participants were then asked to select and rank three of the five proposed project themes. The
survey provided respondents with a drop-down option for the listed project themes. This section
of the survey revealed that most respondents preferred to prioritize projects that focused on trail
improvements, which is different from the results of the previous question (see Figure 1). The
responses to this question also revealed that participants prefer projects that protect and make
further trail improvements rather than making the trail more accessible.
In the ranking section, where respondents were asked to select the proposed project theme they
most highly prioritize, trail protection projects were voted the highest, with 38.46% in favor. The
second most popular project theme was trail slope improvements with 24.85% in favor. Lastly,
21.89% of participants selected wall foundation projects as the third most important project
theme. These results are featured in Figure 2 below which shows the project themes and how
they were prioritized. It is important to note that wall foundation projects and projects to
manage structural loads on historic walls were closely ranked in each category with wall
foundation projects receiving slightly more votes.
Figure 2: Participants were asked to select three projects and rank them by priority. The chart
shows the results of how projects were ranked in each category.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Priority One Priority Two Priority Three
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
V
o
t
e
s
Question: Rank which projects you would like prioritized
Trail Slope Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Wall Foundation Protection
Manage Structural Loads on
Historic Walls
Trail Protection
6
Question 5
The comments responding to the survey question, “Do you have any recommendations for the
proposed projects?” reveal that people are concerned that if historic projects are not prioritized,
it will soon be too late to restore. However, many people also stated how parts of the trail are
dangerous to walk on, especially when it rains or snows. While people do want to see trail
improvements to ensure safety, there is concern that these improvements will take away from
the natural feel of the park and cause negative impacts on the environment. Throughout the
project selection, planning and design process, projects that maintain the natural feel of the park
will be prioritized. In addition, while minimizing negative impacts to the greatest extent
possible, the incorporating elements that enhance the natural environment, where possible, will
be a priority. Figure 3 shows other themes that were identified in the open comments for the
question, “Do you have any recommendations for the proposed projects?”.
Figure 3: Recommendations for Proposed Project. Total number of comments submitted was
54.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Improve maintenance
Other
Comments related to budget
Improve Safety
Concerns related to Erosion
Original CIP Project
Concerns about off-leash dogs
Historic Preservation
Improve Accessibility
No changes
Restore/preserve wildlife & environmental features
Trail Projects
Keep Natural
Number of times themes were mentioned in comments
Do you have any recommendations for the proposed projects?
7
Question 6
Figure 4 below shows the most common themes identified in the open comments for the
question, “Are there other projects you would like to see prioritized that were not identified?”.
Like the results in Figure 3, many participants expressed how they would like to see projects that
improve the vegetation and habitat of the park. Participants also commented on how they would
like to restore Miller Park as a bird refuge and believe that improving the environmental
conditions can help attract birds to the park. Additionally, comments expressed wanting to see
greater enforcement for off-leash dogs at the park.
Figure 4: Other Projects Proposed. Total number of comments submitted was 55.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Safety
Keep Natural
Signage
Trail Safety
Historic Preservation
Other
Focus on Maintenance
No changes
Trail Projects
Original CIP
Amenities
Creek Improvements
Mitigate Invasive Species
Irrigation
Birds
Dog Issues
Improve Revegetation/ Habitat
Number of times themes were mentioned in comments
Are there other projects you would like to see prioritized that
were not identified?
8
In-Person Engagement Results
The public was notified through the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council and Salt Lake City Public
Land’s website about in-person tabling sessions. Each proposed project had a printout
(Appendix A) with information that included the estimated project cost, the purpose of the
proposed project, and an image of the project site. Participants were asked to select which
projects they would like to see prioritized by adding a marble to a cup with the corresponding
project letter (e.g., “Project A”, “Project B”) on the proposed project printout, simulating the
same questions being asked in the survey. A total of 30 individuals participated in the tabling
events, 10 of whom were individuals that participated at the Anderson-Foothill library and 20 of
whom were students from Rowland Hall.
Collectively, results from the in-person engagement showed individuals preferred prioritizing
projects B, D, and G. Project B falls under trail protection projects and Project D is under trail
slope improvement projects, while Project G focuses on making accessibility improvements.
Projects B and D are in line with the online survey results that individuals would like to see
prioritized. Below, Figure 5 shows the voting results from all the in-person engagement sessions.
Figure 5: Prioritized Projects at Tabling Events (Note: total number of participants was 30)
However, participants at the Anderson-Foothill Library and participants from Rowland Hall
showed differences in the projects they would like prioritized. Potential reasons for this
difference could be due to age and familiarity with the park as participants from the library were
older and knew more about the history and progression of the park. Project H, which improves
accessibility of the park, received the highest number of votes for prioritization at the Anderson-
Foothill Library. Projects A, C, and E were the second priority, and all were ranked equally.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Project
B
Project
G
Project
D
Project
A
Project
E
Project
I
Project
K
Project
C
Project
L
Project
F
Project
H
Project
J
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
V
o
t
e
s
Proposed Projects
Prioritized Projects at Tabling Events
9
Project A focuses on trail protection while projects C and E aim to make trail slope
improvements. The bar chart, Figure 6 below, displays how the total number of participants at
the Anderson-Foothill Library voted to prioritize proposed projects.
Figure 6: Prioritized Projects at Anderson-Foothill Library. (Note: total number of
participants at the Anderson-Foothill Library on February 15 and 21, 2023 was 10)
In comparison, students at Rowland Hall prioritized Project B highest which focuses on trail
protection. Project G was the second most prioritized project which improves trail accessibility.
Lastly, Project D, which makes trail slope improvements was the third prioritized project. Figure
7 below shows the voting results from the engagement at Rowland Hall.
Figure 7: Prioritized Projects at Rowland Hall (note: total number of participants at Rowland
Hall was 20 participants)
1
2
3
4
Project
H
Project
A
Project
C
Project
E
Project
K
Project
L
Project
B
Project
D
Project
F
Project
G
Project
I
Project
J
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
V
o
t
e
s
Proposed Projects
Prioritized Projects at Anderson-Foothill Library
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Project
B
Project
G
Project
D
Project
E
Project
I
Project
A
Project
K
Project
F
Project
J
Project
L
Project
C
Project
H
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
V
o
t
e
s
Proposed projects
Prioritized Projects at Rowland Hall
10
Common Themes in Open Comments
The following are themes identified in the open comments from the online survey and in-person
engagements, and the City’s response to each is in italics.
• Some comments communicated a community preference to see the lower trail by the
creek restored.
o Please see page 12, “Assessment of Original CIP” section for more information
on the lower trail alignment.
• Participants expressed they would like to preserve the natural feel and look of the park
and are concerned that some of the proposed projects such as the stairs, will cause
negative impacts on the wildlife, and vegetation, and accelerate erosion.
o Public Lands has prioritized projects that minimize the addition of significant
infrastructure that will impact the natural feel of the park.
• Participants see a need for proper irrigation systems to be installed and for trees to be
planted once the irrigation system is in place.
o Public Lands acknowledges the need for improvement of irrigation throughout
the park. While irrigation replacement is not an eligible project (see original
goals) for this scope of work, the City also believes that, as trail improvements
are made, associated irrigation may be addressed, as well.
• Participants would like to see projects that help attract birds to Miller Park and restore
water levels in the river.
o Public Lands is very supportive of projects contributing to wildlife and stream
health. While those types of projects are not eligible projects within this scope of
work (see original goals), Public Lands will continue to work with the
community to identify other sources of funding to accomplish these goals.
• Some comments expressed how parts of the trail are dangerous to walk, especially
during the winter or rainy seasons, and would like it if the park was safe to walk on year-
round.
o Trail improvement projects that address hazards and safety have been
prioritized based on public engagement.
• While some participants may see the benefit of the trail slope improvement projects, they
and others have expressed that they would not like these improvements to be made with
cement or loose gravel and suggested using wood chips instead.
o Public Lands acknowledges these comments and will engage the community
further during the detailed design of the projects regarding trail materials.
• Survey respondents noted that there need to be more restrictions for off-leash dogs, or
that off-leash dogs be prohibited altogether.
o Public Lands acknowledges this concern in the park (and others like it) and will
continue to work with the community to address these needs. However,
addressing restrictions for dog regulations is not eligible within this scope of
work and funding (see original goals).
• Participants also expressed how they would not like to see the buttress in Project B
extend into the trail and believe the buttress will not be effective in supporting the weight
placed on the wall.
o If this project is pursued within this scope of work and funding source, Public
Lands will ensure that adequate trail clearance and access are provided along
11
with improvements to the buttress. Public Lands will consult structural
engineers and experts throughout the process to ensure effective and
structurally sound improvements.
• There are some concerns that some of the proposed projects will encroach on private
property.
o Public Lands will do all necessary due diligence prior to any physical
improvements on public property and will not pursue any projects that occur
outside of the park’s boundaries.
Main Takeaways
Based on the results from the online survey and in-person engagement, trail slope improvement
projects and trail protection projects have been consistently prioritized. Project that have
minimize negative environmental impacts on the park and maintain the park’s character and
purpose will be prioritized. Additionally, projects that both serve to improve trail safety and
preserve historic structures will be prioritized so long as they do not impede on private property
or extend into natural spaces.
12
Assessment of Original CIP Request
Throughout this project’s engagement process (including the most recent engagement activities
in 2023 outlined in this report), interest in the original proposal to re-align the original, lower
trail that was along the creek prior to 2014, was of particular interest. While the geotechnical
and structural reports noted the infeasibility of the re-creation of this trail and that specific
project’s inability to fulfill either of the goals of the original proposal, the City consult ed with
various experts to confirm these findings and solidify Salt Lake City Public Lands’
recommendation to no longer pursue this particular project. The following are additional
considerations that make the relocation of the trail to the original, pre-2014 alignment
infeasible:
- Flood control measures: the proximity of the lower trail alignment to Red Butte Creek
poses potential for the trail to flood, and poses potential dangerous situations for trail
users (Salt Lake City Public Lands, Salt Lake City Public Utilities).
- Ecological health: erosion control and creek/creekbank health could be improved
through revegetating the bank (including the original alignment) with native vegetation
(Salt Lake City Public Lands, Trails and Natural Lands).
- Risk assessment: The high priority projects for the City Attorney’s Office in relation to
risk are included within the twelve proposed projects below. The priority areas for Risk
related to the types of claims most filed include crib wall repairs, retaining wall repairs
and erosion mitigation along the creek, and reducing trip hazards on the trail by
ensuring irrigation and water meters are level with the ground (Salt Lake City Attorney’s
Office, Risk Manager).
- Trail sustainability: A sustainable trail would not be possible given the original trail
alignment’s proximity to the creek. The minimum regulatory width of an accessible trail
(36”) would require the concrete bulwark downstream of the culvert to be extended
approximately 30” at the existing height for an appropriate gradient. This amount of fill
within the floodplain could constrain flood flows and induce stream bed and bank scour
and degrade trout habitat. Additionally, a retaining wall would have to be installed
downstream to create the level grade of minimum regulatory width required. This would
reduce flood storage outside of the main channel and could induce similar scour. This
would be very costly and impact the natural resources negatively (American Trails
Association).
- ADA Access: The lower, creek-side trail alignment has many areas that do not meet
technical width requirements, but the current, higher trail alignment does meet or
exceed the minimum width requirements. The entrance to the lower trail section has a
running slope of 15%, which is higher than the technical requirements for slope, whereas
the highest possible grade cannot exceed 12%. Most of the post-2014, upper trail already
meets slope requirements. Those segments that do not will be made compliant as part of
the other twelve project recommendations, including covering the exposed rock wall
foundation in project C. Most of the upper trail tread already consists of crusher
fines/decomposed granite that is preferable to bare dirt (for accessibility purposes and to
avoid deterioration and erosion). Additionally, the potential recommended project
improvements related to the upper trail will make a majority of the park accessible by a
trail that complies with trail accessibility guidelines. The remaining parts of the park
trails are either un-sanctioned trails or have stairs or access points with a slope outside
13
of the technical requirements that could be altered during this project anyway (Salt Lake
City Mayor’s Office, ADA Coordinator).
- Historic Preservation: It is not believed that moving the trail away from the walls will
solve any preservation problems, and may have the potential to exacerbate issues with
the historic walls by moving routine maintenance and inspection away from them (State
Historic Preservation Office, State Historic Preservation Officer).
14
Next Steps
In the open comments section of the online survey, and during the in-person events, it is evident
that improving vegetation, and habitat and keeping Miller Park a natural area is a priority for
the community. This funding source is specifically allocated for access improvements and
historic preservation, so it is not able to be used for naturalization and restoration projects.
However, these comments will be considered as other funding becomes available or is able to be
completed in other capacities. (i.e., through the Trails & Natural Lands team’s regular
operations and maintenance in the park).
Additionally, many of the open comments expressed concerns about increasing the amount of
formalized infrastructure in the park and reducing the natural feel and intent of the space.
Because of this, Public Lands will consciously minimize additional infrastructure, such as
handrails and impervious surfaces, to the greatest extent possible as projects move forward
through the design and construction processes.
Finally, other comments received in the survey were not relevant to these projects specifically
but pertained to the overall management of the park. These comments will be considered by
Public Lands and will be passed along to the City Council.
Upon thorough analysis of the results of the public engagement, the projects have been
prioritized in the following order (beginning on page 14).
Please note that not all projects will be able to be completed with current funding. Projects will
be prioritized from top to bottom until the current project budget, $367,000, is depleted. All
projects will go through a detailed design process prior to construction which will include
property surveying, utility assessment, types of materials that will be used, other design
processes, and additional public engagement. If there are efficiencies gained by completing
multiple projects or project elements at once, those will be considered in the detailed design
process.
15
1. Project A: Repairs and replaces crib walls to provide stability.
Justification: This project is prioritized as
first for three reasons. First, “Preserve
historic structures” was the top goal ranked
by the community engagement process, a
goal which this project would achieve.
Second, it also falls under a “Trail
Protection” project, which was ranked as
the highest priority through the online
survey. Finally, it ranked as one of the top
five project priorities through the in-person
engagement. Additionally, many of the
open comments emphasized the need for
trail projects that have minimal impact on
the natural feel of the space, which this
project accomplishes.
Likely to be funded with current
budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Preserve Historic Structures
Trail Protection
2. Project K: Stabilizes exposed wall foundation with soil nails and covers
foundation where feasible.
Justification: This project fulfills the
highest priority goal identified in the public
engagement, “Preserve historic structures”
and is considered a “Wall Foundation
Protection” project which was identified as
the second highest priority theme after
projects A and B, falling within the “Trail
Protection” category. Finally, open
comments in the online survey emphasized
the importance within the community of
preserving the historic walls, and keeping
the park’s natural feel. This project will
protect the walls, and maintain the current
natural look and feel of the park.
Likely to be funded with current
budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Preserve Historic Structures
Wall Foundation Protection
16
3. Project L: Covers exposed wall foundation to prevent erosion with adjacent
properties.
Justification: This project fulfills the
highest priority goal identified in the public
engagement, “Preserve historic structures”
and is considered a “Wall Foundation
Protection” project which was identified as
the second highest prioritized theme after
projects A and B, falling within the “Trail
Protection” category. Open comments in
the online survey emphasized the
importance within the community of
preserving the historic walls.
Likely to be funded with current
budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Preserve Historic Structures
Wall Foundation Protection
4. Project B: Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek.
Replaces crib wall on creek side to reduce concentrated drainage.
Justification: This project falls under a
“Trail Protection” project, which was
ranked as the highest priority through the
online survey, and fulfills the goal to
preserve historic structures. However, from
an assessment by the State Historic
Preservation Office, the timber walls are
less historically significant than the stone
walls, hence the lower priority than other
wall protection projects. Finally, it ranked
as the top improvement project coming out
of the in-person tabling events. Finally,
projects prioritizing historic preservation
was a consistent theme in the open
comments which were considered during
project prioritization, which would be
accomplished with the replacement of the
concrete crib wall.
Likely to be funded with current
budget
Goals it fulfills:
Preserves Historic Structures
Trail Protection
17
5. Project D: Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near
the entrance on 900 South.
Justification: Project D is a “Trail Slope
Improvement Project” which ranked
highest as a second priority in the online
survey, and was the highest rated trail
slope improvement project throughout the
tabling events. For the online survey, the
total count for “Wall Foundation
Protection” projects listed as a priority one
or two was higher than “Trail Slope
Improvement Improvements,” which
resulted in those projects being prioritized
over Project D. Project D is also a high
priority to minimize safety risks associated
with access, resulting in high prioritization
within the trail slope improvement project
category. Based on the open comments, the
addition of the handrails may be
reconsidered during design to minimize
additional infrastructure within the park.
Project D is also expected to have a positive
impact towards protecting the wall
foundations.
Potentially funded with current
project budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Trail Slope Improvement
6. Project C: Covers exposed rock wall foundation and corrects steep cross slope on
east side of creek.
Justification: Project C is a “Trail Slope
Improvement Project” which ranked
highest as a second priority in the online
survey. Project C will additionally protect
the wall foundations, which was a high
priority in both the online and in-person
surveys. Finally, Project C is also a high
priority to minimize safety risks associated
with access by mitigating the steep cross
slopes.
Potentially funded with current
project budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Trail Slope Improvement
18
7. Project E: Correct cross slope near Bonneview Drive entrance, and add stairs and
handrail.
Justification: Project E is a “Trail Slope
Improvement Project” which ranked
highest as a second priority in the online
survey. Project E is also a high priority to
minimize safety risks associated with
access by mitigating the steep cross slopes.
Finally, Project E will set the groundwork
for improving wheelchair access from
Bonneview Drive and will lead in to
accomplishing Project H if funding allows.
Slope improvements within this project will
be prioritized over the construction of the
stairs and rails. Additional feasibility
assessment and engagement will be needed
to install stairs and handrails.
Potentially funded with current
project budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Trail Slope Improvement
8. Project G: Reconstruct stairs to make steps even and add handrail.
Justification: Project G is lower on the
priority list because “Accessibility
Improvement Projects” were not prioritized
highly by the public in the online survey.
However, it was the second highest
prioritized project at the in-person event,
so it is prioritized higher than all other
access improvement projects proposed.
Additionally, Project G would mitigate
safety concerns with the current stairs, and
would improve year-round access which
was a repeated concern in the open
comments of the online survey.
Less likely to be funded with current
budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Accessibility Improvement
19
9. Project H: Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive
Justification: Project H is lower on the
priority list because “Accessibility
Improvement Projects” were not prioritized
highly by the public in the online survey.
Additionally, in order to improve
wheelchair access to the park, making the
project impactful, other cross slope
projects, such as Project C, D and E, would
be required prior in order for people be
able to navigate the trail. However, if this
project may be incorporated with a higher-
priority project, it may be considered
earlier in the process to increase access to
the park.
Less likely to be funded with current
budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Accessibility Improvement
10. Project I, J and F: Remove concrete wall on 900 South entrance, remove non -
native trees upon historic wall, and construct new stairs and handrails on east
side of creek.
Justification: It is very unlikely that
funding will allow the City to explore these
low-priority projects. Additionally, due to
concerns relayed through the public
engagement process by the community,
additional feasibility studies and
community engagement would be required
to move forward with these projects.
Therefore, the City at this time will not be
moving forward with exploration of these
three potential projects.
The current budget is likely
insufficient to construct these
projects.
Goals it fulfills:
Preserve Historic Structures
Accessibility Improvements
20
Appendix A: Information about Proposed Projects
Figure A1 to Figure A6 are the documents used to display at tabling events to inform
participants about the proposed projects.
Figure A1: Instructions and project description.
21
Figure A2: Description of proposed trail protection projects.
Figure A3: Description of proposed trail slope improvement projects.
22
Figure A4: Description of proposed accessibility improvement projects.
Figure A5: Description of proposed projects to remove weight on historic walls.
23
Figure A6: Description of proposed projects to protect wall foundation
24
Appendix B: Engagement Materials
Image 1: The image below was used to create the yard signs, mailers, and flyers for
canvassing.
25
Image 2: Project Website
26
Image 3: Post used for social media.
27
Attachment 2 – Double Diamond Project Delivery Graphic
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: _______________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 12, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #2-Revised
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Hunt (801) 535-7926 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY24 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $0.00 $187,250.00
CIP FUND $25,485,893.25 $25,485,893.25
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND $62,416.00 $65,472.00
IMS FUND $6,000.00 $6,000.00
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND $0.00 $664,293.70
MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $16,121,409.00 $16,121,409.00
TOTAL $41,675,718.25 $42,576,117.95
Alejandro Sanchez (Sep 12, 2023 16:08 MDT)
Lisa Shaffer (Sep 12, 2023 16:18 MDT)09/12/2023
09/12/2023
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY24 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for FY24.
Because of this budget amendment’s timing, there are no updates for Y24 projections available.
The City has begun closing out the FY23 and will provide updates to Council as the audit
progresses.
Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast
Amended Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 -
Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 -
Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 -
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 -
Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 -
Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 -
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 -
Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 -
Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 -
Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 -
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 -
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 -
Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 -
Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 -
Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 -
ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 -
Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 -
Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#2.
Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 13.96%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 97,374,345 110,507,097
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 57,903,398 65,498,855
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%14.76%14.74%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 7,595,457 55,645,652 63,241,109
Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%26.45%26.78%14.51%14.19%14.23%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (754,483) (754,483)
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - (204,200) (204,200)
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - -
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - -
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - (233,050) (233,050)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - - -
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - -
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - -
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (12,219,731) (12,219,731) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - -
Change in Revenue - - - - - -
Change in Expense
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 94,030,495 107,163,247 7,595,457 54,453,919 62,049,376
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.51%25.04%14.51%13.89%13.96%
Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2024 BudgetFY2023 Budget Projected
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $41,675,718.25 in revenue and
$42,576,117.95 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in six funds, with eight increases
in FTEs. The proposal includes 27 initiatives for Council review.
Among the amendments is a proposed ordinance change that would amend the FY 2023-2024
Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees. These changes will impact the
Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay
specifically and will make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of
the changes will have impacts generally throughout the City. Further details on the changes are
contained in the amendment documents.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2023
(Second amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending
June 30, 2024.
In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2023.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
___ _______
Jaysen Oldroyd
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for
State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF - (44,620.00)Ongoing -
1 Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for
State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF - 44,620.00 Ongoing 0.50
2 Treasury ERAP 2 Additional Allocations Misc Grants 2,339,009.00 2,339,009.00 One-time -
3 Liberty Park Basketball Court Utah Jazz Donation CIP 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time -
4 Scope Change for Miller Park Trail Access
Improvements & Historic Structures Preservation CIP - - One-time -
5 Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division GF - (543,144.00)Ongoing (4.00)
5 Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division GF - 543,144.00 Ongoing 4.00
6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior
Community Programs Manager GF - (113,798.00)Ongoing -
6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior
Community Programs Manager GF - 110,798.00 Ongoing 1.00
6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior
Community Programs Manager GF - 3,000.00 One-time -
6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior
Community Programs Manager IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 One-time -
7 Economic Development Project Manager Position GF - 122,000.00 Ongoing 1.00
7 Economic Development Project Manager Position GF - 3,000.00 One-time -
7 Economic Development Project Manager Position IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 One-time -
8 SAA Funds to the Downtown Alliance Spec Assessment - 664,293.70 One-time -
9 Know your Neighbor Program Expenses GF - 6,500.00 Ongoing -
10 Love Your Block Program Expenses GF - 55,750.00 Ongoing -
11
Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY z2023-2024
Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented
Employees
NA - - - - Ongoing -
1 Emergency Demolition Fund Reset Special Rev 62,416.00 65,472.00 One-time -
2 300 N Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Pass-through CIP 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time -
3 Withdrawn prior to transmittal
4 RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Misc Grants Misc Grants 6,400,000.00 6,400,000.00 One-time -
5 GO 2023 Parks Bond CIP 24,885,893.25 24,885,893.25 One-time -
6 Budget to Non-Departmental Transfer for Transfer to
IMS and Fleet GF - 45,800.00 One-time
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1 TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability Misc Grants 1,229,681.00 1,229,681.00 Ongoing -
2 TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development Misc Grants 1,391,672.00 1,391,672.00 Ongoing -
3 State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 Misc Grants 3,107,201.00 3,107,201.00 Ongoing 4.50
-
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Consent Agenda #1
1 Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Misc Grants 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 Ongoing 1.00
2 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire
and State Lands
Misc Grants 50,000.00 50,000.00 One-time -
3 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire
and State Lands
Misc Grants 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time -
4 State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation Misc Grants 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time -
5 Backman Community Open Space Misc Grants 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time -
6 Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants 92,846.00 92,846.00 One-time -
7 Utah State Board of Education Misc Grants 11,000.00 11,000.00 One-time -
Total of Budget Amendment
Items
41,675,718.25 42,576,117.95 - - 8.00
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1:
General Fund GF - 233,050.00 - - 2.50
Special Revenue Fund Special Rev 62,416.00 65,472.00 - - -
CIP Fund CIP 25,485,893.25 25,485,893.25 - - -
IMS Fund IMS 6,000.00 6,000.00 - - -
Special Assessment Fund Spec Assessment - 664,293.70 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants 16,121,409.00 16,121,409.00 - - 5.50
Total of Budget Amendment Items 41,675,718.25 42,576,117.95 - - 8.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
2
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
Revenue FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
- Revenue BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 (754,483.23) - 447,760,434.77
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 - 1,700,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00
Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 25,240,459.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 32,145,769.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 36,269,357.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,121,409.00 25,041,326.00
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 32,341,586.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 (1,430,715.00) 25,485,893.25 54,254,934.25
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 (2,139,398.23) 41,675,718.25 - - - 1,663,167,771.02
3
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Expenditure FY 2023-24 Adopted
Budgetg - Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 233,050.00 448,952,168.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00
Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 46,960,543.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 38,717,171.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,121,409.00 25,041,326.00
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 34,894,979.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 55,412,179.25
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00
- Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 42,576,117.95 - - - 1,826,383,119.95
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
4
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share
for State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF ($44,620.00)
GF $44,620.00
Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Tony Milner
For questions, please include Tony Milner, Blake Thomas and Tammy Hunsaker
This Budget Amendment is requesting a shift in funding to allow the Housing Stability Division to recruit a Community
Development Grant Specialist FTE for the Homelessness Engagement and Response Team (HEART). The City sought to
fully cover the cost of this FTE with the State's FY24 Cities Mitigation Grant; however, since the position will fulfill
administrative duties, the State is only allowing a partial billing for this position based on the hours the position works o n
the Cities Mitigation Grant itself.
In order to provide holistic, active contract management for all recipients of City homeless services funds, City General
Funds are being sought to supplement the full cost of the position by moving award money from an existing City General
Fund grant recipient and backfilling that cost with Cities Mitigation Grant dollars.
This request is budget neutral to the City. The Downtown Alliance Street Ambassador program is set to receive both Cities
Mitigation Grant and City General Fund awards in FY24. This request seeks to move $44,620 from the Downtown
Alliance's FY24 Homeless Services General Fund award to Housing Stability staffing. An increase of $44,620 would be
added to the amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive from the Cities Mitigation Grant, which is an
allowable expense under the grant. The amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive will remain at its
total of $1,384,101; this request will only change the funding source a portion of the award comes from. General Fund
award to Housing Stability staffing. An increase of $44,620.00 has been added to the amount of funding the Street
Ambassador program will receive from Cities Mitigation, which is an allowable expense under the Mitigation grant. The
amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive will remain at its total of $1,384,101.00, this request will
only change the funding source a portion of the award come from.
This position would be a Grade 26 Community Development Grant Specialist. The annual cost for this position is
$107,088. This Budget Amendment contemplates covering the cost of 50% of the position's effort for 10 months or
$89,240. In summary, $44,620 for the position is requested to be moved from the Downtown Alliance's FY24 Street
Ambassador award to Housing Stability, and the remaining $44,620 will be funded by the City's FY24 Cities Mitigation
Grant from the State Office of Homeless Services is requested to be moved from the Downtown Alliance's F Y24 Street
Ambassador award to Housing Stability and the remaining $44,620.00 will be funded by SLC's FY24 Cities Mitigation
award from the State Office of Homeless Services.
A-2: Treasury ERAP 2 Additional Allocations Misc Grants $2,339,009.00
Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Tony Milner
For questions, please include Tony Milner, Blake Thomas and Tammy Hunsaker
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's additional allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act, Treasury
Emergency Rent Assistance Program 2 (ERAP 2) funds, in the amount of $2,339,009, for the purpose of assisting in the
stabilization and recovery of COVID-affected, low-income residential renters in Salt Lake City.
This budget amendment is separate from previous Council-approved City ERAP allocations: ERAP 1 Initial Award
($6,067,033), ERAP 1 Additional Allocation ($3,000,000), ERAP 1 Additional Allocation ($5,000,000), ERAP 2 Initial
Award ($4,800,559.40), and ERAP 2 Additional Allocation ($2,000,000).
Past ERAP 1 & 2 funds were disbursed in partnership with the State Department of Workforce Services through the unified
Utah Rent Relief portal. The Utah Rent Relief portal closed in March 2023 after ERAP funds at the State level were
exhausted and will not open to new applicants.
At the time Council last reviewed remaining ERAP 2 funds in March 2023, Council partially approved $2,000,000 for
rental assistance through the Utah Rent Relief portal and requested additional information regarding eligible uses for the
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
remaining funds and directed the administration to explore the potential for using these funds for direct client rental
assistance.
Treasury defines direct client rental assistance as: deposits, rent, utilities, rent arrears, utility arrears, and oth er housing
related costs (e.g. applications fees).
The administration is seeking direction from Council regarding the preferred process for disbursing these funds to a sole
source provider or through public competitive process that would receive applicati ons from multiple providers.
Note: All ERAP 2 funds must be obligated by September 30, 2025.
A-3: Liberty Park Basketball Court Utah Jazz
Donation CIP $100,000.00
Department: Public Lands-Trails & Natural Lands Prepared By: Makaylah Maponga
For questions, please include Makaylah Maponga, Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans
Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to allocate a $100,000 donation from the Utah Jazz to the Liberty Park
Basketball Court project PRJ-230295. This project had significant funding constraints due to the failed condition of the
court. With this donation, Public Lands will be able to fully execute the project which will completely reconstruct the court
as well as install additional amenities to promote the court as a community gathering space.
The Liberty Basketball Court project was funded as a Constituent CIP project cost center 83 -22405 in FY2021-22 for
resurfacing. After initial evaluation of the court, it was determined that the cracks were too significant, and the court
needed complete reconstruction. Public Lands initially reached out to the Utah Jazz to partner on this project in the fall o f
2022. The Jazz followed up in Spring 2023 with interest in donating funds to the reconstruction in honor of their 50th
anniversary season. With this donation, Public Lands is able to cover the funding deficit and expand the scope to include
the addition of fencing and new seating areas. This is in line with the constituent's vision for the court as a host location for
an annual community tournament. This project is projected to be completed in Fall 2023. This project is projected to be
completed in Fall 2023. Public Lands will be recognizing the donation by including the Jazz Logo on the final court.
Public Lands has done due diligence and finds no reason to reject this donation proposal and specifically allocate the
funding to the Liberty Park Basketball Court project.
A-4: Scope Change for Miller Park Trail Access
Improvements & Historic Structures Preservation
CIP $0.00
Department: Public Lands-Trails & Natural Lands Prepared By: Kat Maus
For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Kat Maus and Gregg Evans
The Public Lands Department is requesting a scope change for the remaining $365,012.40 in the CIP cost center 83-18048
(PRJ-230184) (CC30004) to amend the project implementation list to accomplish proposed goals. This proposal to revise
the Miller Park capital project and associated funds do not close any informal or "social" trails that may exist. In FY 2017 -
18, a constituent submitted an application for funding to address the following goals at Miller Park: preserve the historic
structures, such as the WPA masonry walls, foot bridge, and stairways constructed during the Great Depression; and
improve accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park. To achieve these goals, the constituent proposed three
projects: restore a trail alignment (creekside) that was rerouted in 2014, install a bridge over Red Butte Creek, and stabili ze
the WPA walls. Public Lands hired a consultant who obtained geotechnical and structural engineers, who determine d that
the recommended projects in the original proposal would not fulfill the goals stated, and instead recommended projects
that would fulfill the stated goals. Public Lands is requesting a scope change for the remaining funds to remove the original
three projects proposed from the scope of work, and add the new projects recommended by the engineers. Public Lands
engaged extensively with community organizations and subject -matter experts to confirm the projects recommended in
the new scope, and confirm that the originally-proposed projects would not in fact fulfill the stated goals, including
Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the City's Risk Management Attorney, a national trail -
building firm, American Trails, the State's Historic Preservation Officer, and the Mayor's Office ADA Coordinator and
Disability and Accessibility Commission. In addition, Public Lands conducted several periods of public engagement in
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
2021 and 2023 to determine the community's priorities for the new proposed projects. Please see the attached report for
the full synopsis and overview of the engagement and project recommendations.
While the budget is not expected to be able to complete all twelve projects, Public Lands is proposing starting from the
highest-priority recommended project, and working through the list (top-down) until the funding has been spent. The full
description of the prioritized list of recommended projects and justification for selection is included in the engagement
report. Anticipated projects, beginning with the highest priority, to be completed include:
1. Repairing the historic crib walls to increase wall and trail stability
2. Stabilize exposed wall foundation with soil nails and cover foundation where feasible, and to prevent erosion with
adjacent properties
3. Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek, and replace crib wall on creek side to reduce concentrated
drainage
4. Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near the entrance on 900 South and on the east side of the
creek, and other accessibility improvements as there are efficiencies with other projects
5. Improve cross slope near Bonneview Drive Entrance, and explore adding stairs and a handrail.
6. Reconstruct existing stairs to improve safety
7. Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive
Completing these projects would make nearly 75% of the park accessible to wheelchair access, far exceeding the ADA
requirements for natural areas, and would protect a majority of the historic wall s for years into the future. Some projects
may be completed out of order if there are efficiencies with other projects.
A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design
Division
GF ($543,144.00)
GF $543,144.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker
For questions, please include Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans
This cost-neutral budget amendment request will transfer the landscape architecture design and project management
functions from the Engineering Division to the Public Lands Department.
This request is three-fold:
1. Create a new Planning & Design Division within the Public Lands Department.
2. Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape architect positions and associated operating budget ($543,144) from the
Engineering Division (Public Services Department) to this new division within the Public Lands Department. The FTEs
include: one Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34), two Landscape Architect IIIs (Grade 30), and one Landscape
Architect II (Grade 27).
3. Reclassify the Public Lands Department's Planning Manager position (Grade 33) as the Planning & Design Division
Director (Grade 34; merit, non-appointed). This position's appointment will be requested with the general budget request
in the following fiscal year (FY 24/25).
Past and Current Realities:
- In the past, the City's Public Lands Department and Engineering Division (Public Services Department) managed $1M
to $2M in parks, trails, and open space projects each year. They are now fortunate to be tasked with delivering nearly
$200M in new projects from various funding sources (i.e., Sales Tax Revenue Bond, GO Bond, CIP, and ot hers) over the
next 10 years.
- Currently, each of the City's 100+ parks, trails, and open space projects essentially has two project managers. Their
responsibilities overlap significantly. This requested change and new process would help rectify that.
Solutions:
- Our departments propose that the currently separate teams become one Planning & Design Division within the Public
Lands Department.
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
- The Public Lands Department would be responsible for all planning, prioritization, funding, public and st akeholder
engagement, design, consultant management, overall project management, and, ultimately, on-going maintenance of every
project.
- The Engineering Division of the Public Services Department would be responsible for the construction and contractor
management, and many of the most technical details of each project. Even this work will still be overseen by each project's
manager.
- These staffing changes will be combined with a new project delivery process (drafted by staff and leadership from bot h
departments) as well as even stronger, more effective coordination for each public lands project between the new Public
Lands Planning & Design Division and the Engineering Division.
A-6: Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract -
Senior Community Programs Manager
GF ($113,798.00)
GF $110,798.00
GF $3,000.00
IMS $3,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tammy Hunsaker / Kim Thomas
For questions, please include Tammy Hunsaker, Blake Thomas, Kim Thomas and Brent Beck
In March of 2018, the City and County entered into an interlocal agreement (ILA) that defines the responsibilities of the
respective entities for programming, operation, and maintenance of the Sorenson Unity Center. The facility is owned by
the City, and the City leads educational and community-based programming while the County leads recreational
programming. The City is responsible for utilities, security, and maintenance of the facility and t he County is responsible
for custodial services. Currently, all parties agree that it would be more efficient if the ILA is amended so that responsibi lity
for certain programming and custodial services be transferred from the County to the City. As such, t his is a revenue
neutral budget request that will rescope the Sorenson budget and facilitate an amendment to the ILA to modify terms
relating to child care programming and custodial responsibilities. If the budget rescope is approved, County and City staff
will finalize a draft amendment to the ILA and will coordinate an adoption process pursuant to state and city code.
Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract current budget $1,014,800, reduced by the FTE $901,002 – Note: this budget
will be used to pay both the County contract and for custodial services procured by Public Services. The split between the
two is currently unknown right now, but the total will not exceed this budget amount.
Senior Community Programs Manager FTE, grade E26: $113,798 fully loaded
A-7: Economic Development Project Manager
Position
GF $122,000.00
GF $3,000.00
IMS $3,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jolynn Walz
For questions, please include Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jacob Maxwell, Jolynn Walz
Since the creation of the Department of Economic Development (DED), the Division of Business Development has seen a
significant increase in program administration. This increase comes from the transfer of existing programs (i.e., the
Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) and Special Assessment Areas (SAAs)) and being charged with the creation of
new programs for the business community such as the Construction Mitigation Grant Pro gram and the Outdoor Dining
Grant Program.
Currently, DED manages the Special Assessment Area (SAA) in the Central Business Improvement District (Downtown
SAA) and is administering the creation of a second SAA in Sugarhouse. Phase 1 of the Sugarhouse SA A creation has
extended to almost two-years, and completion of the due diligence is expected to finalize in 2024. The second phase of the
Sugarhouse SAA will entail extensive administrative work required by state statute that governs the SAA process that
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
includes: the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of Equalization Appointment, a second public
hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor, contract award facilitation and ongoing
contract management.
In 2023, DED received a request from property owners in the Granary District to begin the due diligence investigatory
process to establish a third SAA. Salt Lake City Council has allocated funding for the consultant to conduct the due
diligence work for the Granary SAA. DED is charged with this initial phase that requires management of the consultant
(that provides the valuation numbers and tax scenarios) and due diligence reporting to the City Council.
In addition to the creation of two more SAAs, Sugarhouse and the Granary District, DED every three years is required to
manage the renewal of the Central Business Improvement District SAA (Downtown). The steps in renewal process are
similar to the process listed above to create an SAA (the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of
Equalization Appointment, a second public hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor,
contract award facilitation and ongoing contract management). Should additional areas be approved for assessment, and
the renewal of the contract for each SAA is every 3 to 5 years which is required by state statute; the demands of managing
the SAAs will require significant administration and full-time support.
In addition to the management of the Special Assessment Areas in the City, this position would support Salt Lake City’s
commercial corridors that host formal and informal business communities. The manager would work with the business
communities and corridors on outreach and engagement to create new districts while also providing ongoing support to
existing districts. Examples of these include the Midtown District, Granary District Alliance, River District Business
Alliance, and North Temple Community Improvement Group. To s upport these efforts, DED will partner with the RDA to
provide a community grants program that would make funds available to support emerging business districts and thus
increase their chance of success and long-term viability. This work would translate to more vibrant, active, and thriving
business districts/commercial corridors in Salt Lake City.
The impact of this position to further bolster Salt Lake City’s business and commercial corridors would benefit the City’s
residents and visitors while also contributing to the tax base. The Special Assessment Area is an important economic
development tool that can transform a neighborhood by bolstering business development, improving a commercial area’s
quality of life, and has proven to increase the commercial property values. As the City continues to grow, there will be
further opportunities and interest for various types of business district support. This will ultimately lead to more dynamic
neighborhoods and destinations for residents and visitors to enjoy.
A-8: SAA Funds to the Downtown Alliance Spec Assessment $664,293.70
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson
Remaining cash balances in previous SAAs which are now being remitted back to the Downtown Alliance.
A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expeses GF $6,500.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Sandee Moore / Tracy Patillo
For questions, please include Sandee Moore and Tracy Patillo
The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your
Neighbor Program.
During the FY24 Budget Development and Budget Presentations, the Know Your Neighbor Program was presented to the
City Council with the total required expenses. Ho wever, the expenses were inadvertently not recognized on the FY24
presented Key Changes.
A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses GF $55,750.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Sandee Moore / Tracy Patillo
For questions, please include Sandee Moore and Tracy Patillo
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Love Your Block
Program.
During the FY24 Budget Development and Budget Presentations, the Love Your Block Program was presented to the City
Council with the total required expenses. However, the expenses were inadvertently not recognized on the FY24 presented
Key Changes.
A-11: Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY 2023-
2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-
Represented Employees
NA No Budgetary Impact
Department: Human Resources Prepared By: David Salazar / Jonathan
Pappasideris
For question, please include David Salazar and Jonathan Pappasideris
The ordinance is attached to the transmittal. Further details on the reasons for the change are listed below.
- Revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay
Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees
eligible to receive Snowfighter Pay. (NOTE: In the original redlined copy of the Plan transmitted to City
Council, comments alerted city council the specific amounts included in these subsections would be matched and
added after the new rates negotiated and adopted in th e new AFSCME MOU were known.)
- Revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours,
Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) - Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for
AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Meal Allowance. (NOTE: In the original redlined copy of the Plan
transmitted to City Council, comments alerted city council the specific amounts included in these subsections
would be matched and added after the new rates negotiated and adopted in the new AFSCME MOU were known.)
- Revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) - New rates
indicated correct rounding errors discovered in calculation of range minimums, midpoints, and maximums f or
salaried employees. Corrected rates match pay range information loaded for salaried employees in Workday
without fiscal impact.
- Revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) - Corrects pay levels shown for certain
job titles to match those included in the Plan originally transmitted to City Council. The latest copy of the
Appointed Pay Plan transmitted to city council intended only to show addition of the new Safety & Security
Director for Public Services, but inadvertently included incorrect pay level changes for Justice Court Judges and
Justice Court Administrator.
- Revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2022 -2023”) – Specific edits include
adjustments to employer contributions required for employees covered under the Tier 1 – Firefighter Retirement
System. Notice of these changes was not received from URS until after this Plan was originally transmitted to City
Council.
These changes will impact the Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay
specifically and will also make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of the changes will have
impacts generally throughout the City.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Emergency Demolition Fund Reset Special Rev $65,472.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For questions, please include Clint Rasmussen
This request is to reset the 'Emergency Demolition Fund' back to its orig inal budget of $200,000 The fund has been
working as intended and paid for the demolition of homes affected by fire on Major Street. The property owner has
reimbursed the city for the cost of demolition.
D-2: 300 N Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Pass-
through CIP $500,000.00
Department: Public Services-Engineering Prepared By: JP Goates / Josh Willie
For question, please include JP Goates, Josh Willie Jorge Chamorro
Engineering is ready to bill Union Pacific for their agreed upon contribution of $500,000 towards the 300 N pedestrian
bridge project. Under the terms of the agreement, this contribution will be paid to the City.
Since this contribution was accounted for as a funding source for the project, this budget amendment records the incoming
revenue from the Union Pacific's contribution and records the expense as the funds will be used as payment to the
contractor.
D-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
D-4: RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Miscellaneous
Grants Misc Grants $6,400,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson
Funding was transferred to the RDA but is now being returned to Misc Grants to better track according to federal
guidelines.
D-5: General Obligation Series 2023 Bonds CIP $24,885,893.25
Department: Finance-Treasurer Prepared By: Gaby Ewell / Marina Scott
For questions, please include Gaby Ewell, Marina Scott and Samantha Kenney
In November 2022, voters authorized the issuance of up to $85 million in general obligation bonds to fund eight Parks,
Trails and Open Space projects. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023 were sold in August 2023 as the first issuance
of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure
budget to pay for renovation of the park projects associated with the bonds.
There will be eleven project funds in Cost Center 10508 to which bond proceeds will be allocated.
• One allocation will be $9,000,0000 for the Glendale Regional Park (1200 West 1700 South) project.
• The second allocation will be $2,000,000 for Liberty Park Playground (600 East 900 South) project.
• The third allocation will be $850,000 for Allen Park (1900 South).
• The fourth allocation will be $5,000,000 for Folsom Trail Conpletion & Landscaping projects.
• The fifth will be $600,000 for the Fleet Block Park project.
• The sixth allocation will be $500,000 for the Fairmont Park (1040 East Sugarmont Drive ) project.
• The seventh allocation will be $1,050,000 for Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trail, or Open Spaces (various
locations) projects.
• The eighth allocation will be $600,000 for the Jordan River Corridor (various locations) project.
• There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Contingencies/Program Management that will be allocated $3,332,000.
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
• There will also be a unique Fund for Art Allowance that will be allocated $294,000.
• There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Salaries, Benefits and Operational costs for 3 FTE's for 3 years. This
allocation will receive $1,434,000 that is slated to be reimbursed to the general fund. These reimbursements will
be according to tracking of permitted expenses.
• Finally, there will an allocation for the bond's cost of issuance. This allocation will receive $225,893.25.
D-6: Budget to Non-Departmental Transfer for
Transfer to IMS and Fleet GF $45,800.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier
For question, please include Mary Beth Thompson and Randy Hillier
In budget amendment #1 funds were redirected from the Compliance Mitigation Team funding to be transferred to IMS
and Fleet for various Fleet and IMS related costs. The funds were moved from Compliance but were not moved to Non-
Departmental to be transferred to IMS and Fleet. This amendment adds that budget to Non-Departmental for the transfer
to happen appropriately.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial
Capability
Misc Grants $1,229,681.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
For question, please include Amy Dorsey
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self-
sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF
program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026.
The Administration is requesting that the Council conduct a straw poll due to impending
reimbursement deadlines.
E-2: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth
Development
Misc Grants $1,391,672.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
For question, please include Amy Dorsey
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self-
sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF
program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026.
The Administration is requesting that the Council conduct a straw poll due to impending
reimbursement deadlines.
E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 Misc Grants $3,107,201.00
Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Michelle Hoon
For question, please include Amy Dorsey and Michelle Hoon
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $3,107,201 for the
purpose of deferring costs associated with having an eligible homeless shelter within the City. This is a formula grant the
City was not required to apply, but was awarded by the State.
This grant requires no match and would require thr ee new positions in the Police Department. One new position would be
funded in CAN. This potition would be half funded by the grant , and half funded by the general fund. The FTE for this
position is associated with item A-1 of the amendment that contains the general fund half of the funding. Finally, the grant
will fund one new position in the Justice Court.
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
9
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air
Roadmap
Misc Grants $1,000,000.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $1,000,000 for the
purpose of developing a comprehensive, economy-wide climate mitigation plan or update an existing plan in collaboration
with air pollution control districts, large and small municipalities statewide and tribal governments that will support
actions to reduce greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants and to conduct meaningful engagement with low income
and disadvantaged communities.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees to pay for 100% of all approved budget period costs incurred up to
the $1,000,000 award.
1 New FTE: Four years of salary and fringe benefits for one FTE. The position would be responsible for facilitating the
sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinatin g
stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and milestone achievement.
Public Hearing was held on July 11,2023
G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry
Fire and State Lands
Misc Grants $50,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands a
$50,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from
the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required.
G-3: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry
Fire and State Lands
Misc Grants $150,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands a
$150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from
the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required.
G-4: State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation Misc Grants $150,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
The Division of Outdoor Recreation is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational
hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No
match is required.
G-5: Backman Community Open Space Misc Grants $200,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
Salt Lake City's (City) Department of Public Lands will improve the open space adjacent to Backman Elementary. The
design will likely include intentional landscaping and safety improvements, multiple nature playground amenities,
watchable wildlife areas, an outdoor gathering area and permaculture garden and/or similar amenities. This open space
area is covered with thick, invasive vegetation and remains virtually unused by the surrounding community. The current
conditions create safety concerns for families whose children use the existing trail and bridge to walk to school. An analysis
by the University of Utah of census block data shows that this natural area could provide children and their families greater
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
10
access to nature than any other single natural open space in the city, making the site an unprecedented public asset for
hundreds of local children and families in the City's Rose Park neighborhood and users of the Jordan River Parkway by
improving a blighted section of the trail. 50% match is required.
Public hearing was held on May 16,2023.
G-6: Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants $92,846.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office was awarded $92,846 for a two-year grant to pay partial salary for a victim advocate.
This grant does not require any new positions as the victim advocate was partially paid for the last two years by a previous
VOCA award.
Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023.
The other portion of the Victim Advocate's salary will be used to satisfy the 25% match.
G-7: Utah State Board of Education Misc Grants $11,000.00
Department: CAN – Youth & Family Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
This grant will be used to pay for snacks for the Youth & Family locations throughout the City. No FTEs are paid for by the
grant. Employee staff time is being used as a match.
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees - Summary Confidential
Data pulled 07/20/2023
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D
24,774,312$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$
202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$
202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$
202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$
202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$
202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$
202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$
202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$
Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
FY
2
0
2
4
FY
2
0
2
5
FY
2
0
2
6
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Police Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
A
Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Fire Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Fire Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Fire Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fire Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00
IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B
IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$
Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00
Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Parks Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$
Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$
RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$
FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$
900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$
Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ 678$ 299,322$
Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$
Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$
Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$
RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$
Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$
Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$
Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$
Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$
Streets Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Street Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Street Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$
500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 11,746$ 29,734$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$
200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$
700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$
1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$
Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$
Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8484002
24,774,312$
8484003
8484005
16,793,487$
6,304,485$
$273,684
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
8484001
1,402,656$
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(Amending the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees)
An ordinance amending the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-
Represented Employees.
PREAMBLE
The City Council, in Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29B of 2023, approved the FY 2023-
2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City
Corporation. However, the City Council, in order to meet the operational needs of Salt Lake City
Corporation, wishes to amend the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-
Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation by:
i) revising Subsection II (“Employee Compensation for Fiscal Year
2023”) of Section II (“Employee Wages, Salaries & Benefits”) to
increase employee base pay and elected official salaries by an
additional half-percent;
ii) revising Subsection IV(B)(2) (“Wage Differentials & Additional
Pay; Standby Pay; Standby for Police Sergeants”) of Section III
(“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) to reduce the
amount of straight time compensation from two hours per twelve-
hour period to thirty (30) minutes per twelve-hour period;
iii) revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III
(“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) to provide a
pay differential equal to fifteen percent of an eligible employee’s
regular weekly base pay;
iv) revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal
Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay
Allowances”) to increase the meal allowance amount from $10.00
to $15.00;
v) removing Subsection I(E) (“Holidays; Holiday Exceptions”) of
Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”);
2
vi) revising Subsection III(B) (“Sick and Other Related Leave or
Personal Leave; Plan ‘B’”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation &
Leave Accrual”) to provide that eligible employees shall receive
personal leave hours on November 1 of each calendar year and
clarify how such hours may be used and converted;
vii) revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General
Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) to reflect the correct pay rates and
rectify rounding error;
viii) revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) to
reflect changes to certain job titles and grades and to add the new
appointed position of “Safety & Security Director” in the Public
Services Department;
ix) revising Appendix C (“Elected Officials Salary Schedule”) to
reflect the correct annual salary amount;
x) revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY
2022-2023”) to reflect required changes; and
xi) making other technical and conforming changes.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to approve the attached
amended FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt
Lake City Corporation. Three copies of the attached amended FY 2023-2024 Annual
Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation shall be
maintained in the City Recorder’s Office for public inspection.
SECTION 2. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. Subsection II (“Employee
Compensation for Fiscal Year 2023”) of Section II (“Employee Wages, Salaries & Benefits”) is
hereby amended to increase employee base pay and elected official salaries by an additional half-
percent.
SECTION 3. STANDBY PAY FOR POLICE SERGEANTS. Subsection IV(B)(2)
(“Wage Differentials & Additional Pay; Standby Pay; Standby for Police Sergeants”) of Section
3
III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby amended to reduce the amount
of straight time compensation from two hours per twelve-hour period to thirty (30) minutes per
twelve-hour period.
SECTION 4. SNOWFIGHTER PAY. Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section
III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby amended to provide a pay
differential equal to fifteen percent of an eligible employee’s regular weekly base pay.
SECTION 5. MEAL ALLOWANCE. Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal
Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby
amended to increase the meal allowance amount from $10.00 to $15.00.
SECTION 6. HOLIDAY EXCEPTIONS. Subsection I(E) (“Holidays; Holiday
Exceptions”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”) is hereby removed.
SECTION 7. PLAN “B.” Subsection III(B) (“Sick and Other Related Leave or Personal
Leave; Plan ‘B’”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”) is hereby amended to
provide that eligible employees shall receive personal leave hours on November 1 of each
calendar year and clarify how such hours may be used and converted.
SECTION 8. GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN. Appendix A (“Salt Lake City
Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) is hereby amended to reflect the correct pay
rates and rectify rounding error.
SECTION 9. APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT. Appendix B
(“Appointed Employees by Department”) is hereby amended to reflect changes to certain job
titles and grades and to add the new appointed position of “Safety & Security Director” in the
Public Services Department.
4
SECTION 10. ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARY SCHEDULE. Appendix C (“Elected
Officials Salary Schedule”) is hereby amended to reflect the correct annual salary amount.
SECTION 11. UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. Appendix D (“Utah
State Retirement Contributions FY 2022-2023”) is hereby amended to reflect required changes.
SECTION 12. OTHER REVISIONS. The FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan
for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation is hereby amended to reflect
other technical and conforming changes.
SECTION 13. APPLICATION. The attached amended FY 2023-2024 Annual
Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation shall not
apply to non-represented employees of Salt Lake City Corporation whose employment
terminated prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________,
2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _____Approved. _____Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
5
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _____ of 2023.
Published: ____________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved as to Form
Date: _______________
By: ____________________
Jonathan Pappasideris
Division Chief
Senior City Attorney
August 29, 2023
Jonathan Pappasideris
ANNUAL COMPENSATON PLAN
FOR NON-REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES
FY2023-2024
i
FY 2024 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Table of Contents
EFFECTIVE DATE ....................................................................................................................................... 1
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN ................................................................................................ 1
AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR ................................................................................................................. 1
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS .................................................................................................................... 1
MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF PROVISIONS ........................................... 1
SECTION I: DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 2
SUBSECTION I - DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................. 2
SECTION II: EMPLOYEE WAGES, SALARIES & BENEFITS ............................................................ 2
SUBSECTION I - COMPENSATION PROGRAM & SALARY SCHEDULES ....................................... 2
A. Determination ................................................................................................................................... 2
B. Salary Schedules ............................................................................................................................... 2
C. Other Compensation ......................................................................................................................... 3
SUBSECTION II - EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 ..................................... 3
SUBSECTION III - EMPLOYEE INSURANCE ........................................................................................ 3
SUBSECTION IV - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ................................................................................ 3
SUBSECTION V - SOCIAL SECURITY EXCEPTION FOR POLICE & FIRE ....................................... 4
SUBSECTION VI - RETIREMENT ............................................................................................................ 4
SECTION III: WORK HOURS, OVERTIME & OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES ................................. 4
SUBSECTION I – WORK HOURS ............................................................................................................. 4
SUBSECTION II- OVERTIME COMPENSATION ................................................................................... 4
SUBSECTION III - LONGEVITY PAY ..................................................................................................... 5
SUBSECTION IV - WAGE DIFFERENTIALS & ADDITIONAL PAY ................................................... 6
SUBSECTION V - EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY ........................................................................ 9
SUBSECTION VI – OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES .................................................................................. 9
SUBSECTION VII - SEVERANCE BENEFIT ......................................................................................... 11
SECTION IV: HOLIDAY, VACATION & LEAVE ACCRUAL ............................................................ 13
SUBSECTION I – HOLIDAYS ................................................................................................................. 13
SUBSECTION II - VACATION LEAVE .................................................................................................. 14
SUBSECTION III - SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE ....................... 17
A. Plan “A ” ............................................................................................................................................ 17
1. Sick Leave .......................................................................................................................................... 17
ii
2. Hospitalization Leave ......................................................................................................................... 19
3. Dependent Leave ................................................................................................................................ 20
4. Career Incentive Leave, Plan “A” ........................................................................................................... 21
5. Retirement Benefit, Plan “A” ................................................................................................................. 21
B. Plan “B” .................................................................................................................................................. 21
SUBSECTION IV - PARENTAL LEAVE ................................................................................................ 24
SUBSECTION V - BEREAVEMENT LEAVE ......................................................................................... 25
SUBSECTION VI - MILITARY LEAVE .................................................................................................. 26
SUBSECTION VII - JURY LEAVE & COURT APPEARANCES .......................................................... 26
SUBSECTION VIII - INJURY LEAVE (SWORN POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES ONLY)............ 27
SUBSECTION IX - ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE ................................................................. 28
SUBSECTION X - EMERGENCY LEAVE .............................................................................................. 28
APPENDIX A – GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN (GEPP) ............................................................. 29
APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT ....................................................... 31
APPENDIX C – ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE .......................................................... 34
APPENDIX D- UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2021-2022 ............................. 35
DISCLAIMER
City employment is subject to City ordinances, policies, practices and
procedures as well as state law, federal law, and constitutional limitations on
the City as a governmental entity. The policies, procedures, and practices of
the City and its departments and workgroups do not limit, affect, or alter any
legal or constitutional rights the City or its employees may have.
The City’s policies, procedures, and practices do not create any contractual
rights, either express or implied, or any other obligation or liability on the
City. The City also expressly reserves the right to amend or change its
policies, procedures, and practices at any time, with or without notice, and to
amend or change its ordinances, with the notice required by law.
1
FY 2024 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES
of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this plan shall be effective commencing June 25, 2023, unless otherwise noted.
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN
This plan applies to all full -time city employees. This plan does not apply to employees classified
as: seasonal, hourly, temporary, part-time or those covered by a memorandum of understanding.
AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR
Employees covered by this compensation plan may be appointed, classified, and advanced under
rules and regulations promulgated by the mayor within budget limitations established by the city
council.
Furthermore, the mayor may authorize leave not specified in this compensation plan to provide
for operational flexibility, so long as the additional leave does not exceed the equivalent of eight
hours of leave per employee, per year. However, with the exception of a benefit created or
expanded pursuant to Section IV, Subsection X (“Emergency Leave”), the mayor may not
otherwise create a new benefit or expand an existing benefit for employees covered by this
compensation plan if doing so will result in a direct, measurable cost. A direct, measurable cost
includes a circumstance where the total cost of the new benefit or expansion of an existing benefit
exceeds appropriated funds. Further, city council input and approval is required if the creation of
a new benefit has policy implications or is already addressed in this compensation plan.
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
All provisions in this compensation plan are subject to the appropriation of funds by the city
council.
MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF PROVISIONS
If a local emergency is declared, any provision in this compensation plan may be temporarily
modified, suspended, or revoked for the duration (or any portion thereof) of the period of local
emergency, if so authorized by the mayor and/or city council .
2
SECTION I: DEFINITIONS
SECTION II: EMPLOYEE WAGES, SALARIES & BENEFITS
SUBSECTION I - COMPENSATION PROGRAM & SALARY SCHEDULES
The city’s compensation system and program, in conjunction with this plan, is intended to
attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel necessary to effectively meet public service
demands.
A. Determination
1. The mayor shall develop policies and guidelines for the administration of the
pay plans.
2. To the degree that funds permit, employees shall be paid compensation that:
a. Is commensurate with the skills and abilities required of the position;
b. Achieves equal pay for equal work;
c. Attains comparability and is competitive with the compensation paid
by other public and/or private employers with whom the city compares
and/or competes for personnel recruitment and retention.
3. To the extent possible, market surveys shall be used to assess and evaluate the
city’s competitiveness with a cross section of organizations with whom the city
competes for personnel recruitment and retention. This may include one or more of
the following:
a. Compensation surveys, including actual pay and other cash
allowances paid to employees.
b. Benefits surveys, including paid leave, group insurance plans,
retirement, and other employer-provided and voluntary benefits.
c. Regular review of the city’s compensation plans and pay structures to
ensure salary ranges and regular pay practices provide for job growth and
encourage employee productivity.
B. Salary Schedules
1. All Employees covered under this plan (except for those designated as
“Elected Officials”) shall be paid base wages or salaries according to the General
Employee Pay Plan attached as Appendix “A.” Wages and salaries shall not be less
than the established range minimum or higher than the range maximum, unless
otherwise approved by the mayor or mayor’s designee.
3
2. Appointed Employees: The specific pay level assignments for Appointed
Employees are shown in Appendix “B.”
3. Elected Officials: Elected officials shall be paid annual compensation according
to schedule attached as Appendix "C."
C. Other Compensation
The mayor or the city council may distribute appropriated monies to city employees as
discretionary retention incentives or retirement contributions, or special lump sum
supplemental payments. Retention incentives or special lump sum payments are subject
to the mayor’s or city council’s approval.
SUBSECTION II - EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024
For employees covered under this plan, the city will increase each employee’s base pay by five
percent. Salaries for elected officials will, also, be increased by five percent.
The city’s living wage for regular, full-time employees is set and shall be no less than $15.11 per
hour.
SUBSECTION III - EMPLOYEE INSURANCE
The city will make available group medical, health and flex savings plans, dental, life, accidental
death & dismemberment, long-term disability insurance, voluntary benefits and an employee
assistance program (EAP) to all eligible employees and their eligible spouse, adult designee,
dependents and dependents of adult designee pursuant to city policy.
A. Employer-Paid Contributions. Effective July 1, 2023, the city’s contribution toward
the total premium for group medical will be 95% for the high -deductible Summit Star
Plan. For employees enrolled in the high-deductible Summit Star Plan, the city will also
contribute a one-time total of $750 into a qualified health savings account (HSA) or a
Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) for those enrolled for single coverage and
$1,500 for those enrolled for double or family coverage per plan year. Health savings
account or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) contributions will be pro-rated for
any employee hired after July 1, 2023.
B. 501(c) (9) Post-Employment Health Reimbursement Account. The city will
contribute $24.30 per bi-weekly pay period into each employee’s Post Employment
Health Reimbursement Account. For any year in which there are 27 pay periods, no
such contribution will be made in the 27th pay period.
SUBSECTION IV - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
The city will provide workers’ compensation coverage to employees as required by applicable
law.
4
SUBSECTION V - SOCIAL SECURITY EXCEPTION FOR POLICE & FIRE
All sworn employees in the Police and Fire departments covered under this plan are exempt from the
provisions of the federal Social Security System unless determined otherwise by the city or
required by applicable law.
SUBSECTION VI - RETIREMENT
A. Retirement Programs. The city hereby adopts the Utah State Retirement System for
providing retirement benefits to employees covered by the plan. The city may permit or
require the participation of employees in its retirement program(s) under terms and
conditions established by the mayor and consistent with applicable law. Such programs
may include:
1. The Utah State Public Employees (Contributory and Non-Contributory);
Public Safety Retirement Systems; or, the Utah Firefighters Retirement System; or,
2. Deferred compensation programs.
B. The 2023-2024 fiscal year retirement contribution rates for employees, including
elected officials, are shown in Appendix “D.”
SECTION III: WORK HOURS, OVERTIME & OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES
SUBSECTION I – WORK HOURS
A. The city’s standard work week begins Sunday at 12:00am and ends the following
Saturday at 11:59pm. Alternatives to the standard work week may be authorized and
adopted for specific work groups, such as:
1. The standard work schedule for combat Fire Battalion Chiefs, which
includes two consecutive 24-hour shifts immediately followed by 96 hours off.
SUBSECTION II- OVERTIME COMPENSATION
A. Overtime Compensation. The city will pay non-exempt employees overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA. The city will pay overtime hours at 1 ½ times
the employee’s regular hourly rate or, at the employee’s request and with their
department director’s approval, provide compensatory time off at a rate of 1½ hours for
each overtime hour in lieu of overtime compensation.
1. Employees may accrue compensatory time up to a maximum amount as
determined by their department director.
5
2. The city may elect at any time to pay an employee for any or all accrued
compensatory hours.
3. The city will includ e only actual hours worked and holiday leave hours when
calculating overtime.
4. When used, personal leave and compensatory time will not be included in
the calculation of overtime.
5. The city will pay out all accrued compensatory hours whenever an
employee’s status or position changes from FLSA non-exempt to exempt.
B. Labor Costs— Declared Emergency— Overtime Compensation for FLSA Exempt
Employees. The city may pay exempt employees overtime pay for any hours worked
over forty (40) hours in a workweek at a rate equivalent to their regular base hourly rate
of pay during periods of emergency. The city shall only make such payment when all of
the following conditions occur:
1. The mayor or the city council has issued a “Proclamation of Local Emergency”
or the city responds to an extraordinary emergency; and,
2. Exempt employees are required to work over forty (40) hours for one or more
workweek(s) during the emergency period: and,
3. The mayor and/or the city council approve the use of available funds to cover
the overtime payments.
The city shall distribute any overtime payments consistently with a pre-defined standard
that treats all exempt employees equitably. Hours worked under a declared or
extraordinary emergency must be paid hours and cannot be accrued as compensatory
time.
SUBSECTION III - LONGEVITY PAY
A. Eligibility. With the exception of elected officials, the city will pay a monthly
longevity benefit to full-time employees based on the most recent date an employee
began full -time employment as follows:
1. Employees who have completed six (6) consecutive years of employment with
the city will receive $50;
2. Employees who have completed ten (10) consecutive years of employment with
the city will receive $75;
3. Employees who have completed sixteen (16) full years of employment wit h the
city will receive $100; and,
6
4. Employees who have completed twenty (20) full years of employment with the
city will receive $125.
B. Pension Base Pay. Longevity pay will be included in base pay for purposes of
pension contributions.
C. Longevity While on an Unpaid Leave of Absence. Employees do not earn or receive
longevity payments while on an unpaid leave of absence. When an employee returns
from an approved unpaid leave of absence, longevity payments will resume.
SUBSECTION IV - WAGE DIFFERENTIALS & ADDITIONAL PAY
Eligible employees receive certain wage differentials as follows:
A. Call Back and Call Out Pay. Non-exempt employees will be paid Call Back or Call
Out pay based upon department director approval and the following guidelines:
1. Call Back Pay: Non-sworn, non-exempt employees who have been released
from normally scheduled work and standby periods, and who are directed by an
appropriate department head or designated representative to return to work prior to
their next scheduled normal duty shift, will be paid for a minimum of three (3)
hours straight-time pay and, in addition, will be guaranteed a minimum four (4)
hours work at straight-time pay.
2. Call Out Pay for Police Sergeants. Sergeants who have been released from their
scheduled work shifts and have been directed by an appropriate division head or
designated representative to perform work without at least 24 hours advance notice
or scheduling, shall be compensated as follows:
a. Sergeants who are directed to report to work shall receive a minimum of
four (4) hours compensation at one and one -half times their hourly wage
rate, or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours
worked, whichever is greater.
b. Sergeants who are assigned to day shift, and who are directed to perform
work within eight (8) hours prior to the beginning of their regularly
scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours compensation at
one and one-half times their hourly wage rate, or one and one-half times
their hourly wage rate for actual hours worked, whichever is greater.
c. Sergeants who are assigned to afternoon or graveyard shifts, and who are
directed to perform work within eight (8) hours following the end of their
regularly scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours
compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate, or one and
one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual
hours worked, whichever is greater.
7
B. Standby Pay : Non-exempt employees are eligible to receive Standby pay based
upon the following guidelines.
1. Standby for Non-Sworn Employees: Non-exempt, non-sworn employees
who have been released from normally scheduled work but have not been released
from standby status will be paid either two (2) hours of straight time pay for each 24
hour period of limited standby status; or two (2) hours straight time pay for each 12-
hour period of standby status if they are Department of Airports or Public Utilities
Department employees.
a. First Call to Work. An eligible employee who is directed to return to his
or her normal work site during an assigned Standby period by a department
head or designated representative without advanced notice or scheduling will
be paid a guaranteed minimum of four (4) hours, which may include any
combination of hours worked and/or non-worked straight-time pay.
b. Additional Calls to Work. An eligible employee will be paid an
additional guaranteed minimum of two (2) hours, which may include any
combination of hours worked and/or non-worked straight-time pay, for each
additional occasion he or she is called to work during the same twenty-four
(24) or twelve (12) hour standby period.
c. Exclusion for Snow Fighters. Any employee on standby as a member of
the Snow Fighter Corps shall not receive standby/on-call pay or shift
differential when on standby or called back to fight snow.
2. Standby for Police Sergeants: Police Sergeants directed by their division
commander or designee to keep themselves available for city service during
otherwise off-duty hours shall be compensated 30 minutes of straight time for each
12-hour period of standby status. This compensation shall be in addition to any
callout pay or pay for time worked the employee may receive during the standby
period.
C. Extra-Duty Shifts for Police Sergeants. "Extra-duty shifts" are defined as scheduled
or unscheduled hours worked other than the sergeant's normally scheduled work shifts.
"Extra-duty shifts" do not include extension or carry over of the sergeant's normally
scheduled work shift.
1. Any sergeant required by the city to work extra-duty shifts shall receive a
minimum of three (3) hours compensation at one and one -half times their regular
base hourly rate, or time worked paid at one and one-half times their regular hourly
base wage rate, whichever is greater.
D. Shift Allowance, not including Police Sergeants & Lieutenants. Only non- exempt
employees who perform afternoon/ swing or evening shift work are eligible to receive a
shift allowance.
8
1. The city will include all shift allowance when computing overtime. An
employee who receives Snow Fighter Corps differential pay is not eligible to also
receive shift allowance.
2. Day Shift: No allowance will be paid for work hours which are part of a regular
day shift.
3. Eligible Hours: For each non-day shift hour worked between the hours of 6:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the city will pay an eligible non-exempt employee a differential
of $1.00 per hour.
E. Shift Differential for Police Sergeants & Lieutenants: The city will pay Police
sergeants & lieutenants shift differentials according to the shift actually worked. Actual
shift differential rates are determined as follows:
1. Day Shift: No differential pay for hours worked during day shift, which begins
at 0500 hours until 1159 hours.
2. Swing Shift: A differential of 2.5% in addition to the regular day rate shall be
paid for swing shift, which begins at 1200 hours until 1759 hours.
3. Graveyard Shift: A differential of 5.0% in addition to the regular day rate shall
be paid for graveyard shift, which begins at 1800 hours until 0459 hours.
F. K-9 Squad Allowance: Police sergeants assigned to the K-9 squad will be
compensated as follows:
1. Police sergeants shall be allowed ten (10) hours per month to care for the
police service dog. Such hours shall be counted as part of the Police sergeant's
regular work shift(s).
2. Police sergeants shall be provided ten (10) hours per month while off duty,
at the rate of one-and-one-half (1 ½) times their wage rate, to care for the police
service dog. No more than ten (10) hours per month shall be spent off duty to
care for the police service dog unless authorized by the Police Chief or designee.
G. Acting/Working out of Classification. A department head may elect to grant
additional compensation to an employee for work performed on a temporary basis,
whether in an acting capacity or otherwise, beyond the employee’s regular job
classification for any period lasting 20 or more working days. Unless approved by the
mayor or mayor’s designee, acting pay shall be limited to no more than 90 calendar days
from the start date and paid separately from regular earnings on each employee’s wage
statement. Compensation adjustments may be retroactive to the start date of the
temporary job assignmen t. Exceptions may be approved by the mayor or mayor’s
designee.
1. Acting pay shall be excluded when calculating any leave payouts, including
vacation, holiday, and personal leave.
9
H. Snowfighter Pay. The city will pay employees designated by the department head,
or designee, as members of the Snow Fighter Corps a pay differential equal to 15% of
an eligible employee’s regular weekly base pay for work related to snow removal. This
pay shall be separate from regular earnings on each employee’s wage statement.
SUBSECTION V - EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY
A. Education Incentives. The mayor may adopt programs to promote employee
education and training, provided that all compensation incentives are authorized within
appropriate budget limitations established by the city council.
1. Police Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains are eligible for a $500 per year job-
related training allowance.
2. Fire Battalion/Division Chiefs are eligible for incentive pay following
completion of degree requirements at a fully accredited college or university and
submission of evidence of a diploma. The city will pay monthly allowances
according to the educational degree held, as follows:
Doctorate………….. $100.00
Masters………..…... $75.00
SUBSECTION VI – OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES
A. Meal Allowance. When approved by management, employees may receive meal
allowances in the amount of $15.00 when an employee works two or more hours
consecutive to their normally scheduled shift. Employees may also be eligible to
receive $15.00 for each additional four-hour consecutive period of work which is in
addition to the normally scheduled work shift.
1. Fire and police department employees shall be provided with adequate food
and drink to maintain safety and performance during emergencies or extraordinary
circumstances.
B. Business Expenses. City policy shall govern the authorization of employee
advancement or reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred while
performing city business. Advance payment or reimbursement for expenses shall be
approved only when the amounts are documen ted and within the budget limitations
established by the city council.
C. Automobiles
1. The mayor may authorize, subject to the conditions provided in city policy, an
employee to utilize a city vehicle on a take-home basis and may require an
employee to reimburse the city for a portion of the take -home vehicle cost as
provided in city ordinance.
10
2. Employees who are authorized to use privately-owned automobiles for
official city business will be reimbursed for the operation expenses at the rate
specif ied in city policy.
3. The city will provide a car allowance to department directors, the mayor’s
chief of staff, the mayor’s chief administrative officer, up to three additional employees
in the mayor’s office, and the city council Executive Director at a rate not to exceed
$400 per month. A car allowance may be paid to specific appointed employees at a
rate not to exceed $400 per month as recommended by the mayor and approved by
the city council.
D. Uniform Allowance. The city will provide employees who are required to wear
uniforms in the performance of their duties a monthly uniform allowance as follows:
1. Non-sworn Police and Fire Department employees—$65.00
2. Watershed Management Division employees—$65.00
3. Fire: Battalion Chiefs will be provided with uniforms and other job -related
safety equipment, as needed. Employees may select uniforms and related
equipment from an approved list. The total allowance provided shall be $600 per
year, or the amount received by firefighter employees, whichever is greater.
Appointed employees shall be provided uniforms or uniform allowances to the
extent stated in Fire department policy.
a. Dangerous or contaminated safety equipment shall be cleaned,
repaired, or replaced by the Fire department.
4. Police: Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in uniform assignments,
as determined by their bureau commander, will be enrolled in the department’s
quartermaster system.
a. The quartermaster system will operate as follows:
i. Necessary uniform and equipment items, including patrol uniforms,
detective uniforms, duty gear, footwear, cold- weather gear, headwear,
etc. will be provided to Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains by the
department’s quartermaster pursuant to department policy.
ii. A full inventory of items that the quartermaster will provide to Police
sergeants, lieutenants and captains within the quartermaster system and
the manner in which they will be distributed will be stated in department
policy.
iii. Police sergeants, lieutenants and captains in the quartermaster system
will be paid the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100) each fiscal year for
the purpose of independently purchasing any incidental uniform item or
11
equipment not provided by the quartermaster system. Payment will be
made each year on the first day of the pay-period that includes August
15.
b. The city will provide for the cleaning of uniforms as described in Police
department policy.
c. Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in plainclothes assignments,
as determined by their bureau commander, are provided a clothing and
cleaning allowance totaling $39.00 per pay period. Sergeants, lieutenants,
and captains who are transferred back to a uniform assignment will return to
the quartermaster system upon transfer.
d. Uniforms or uniform allowances for appointed Police employees will be
provided to the extent stated in Police department policy.
E. Allowances for Certified Golf Teaching Professionals. The mayor may, within
budgeted appropriations and as business needs indicate, authorize golf lesson revenue
sharing between the city and employees recognized as Certified Golf Teaching
Professionals as defined in the Golf Division’s Golf Lesson Revenue Policy. Payment
to an employee for lesson revenue generated shall be reduced by: 1) a ten (10%) percent
administrative fee to be retained by the Golf division, and 2) the employee’s payroll tax
withholding requirements in accordance with applicable law.
F. Other Allowances. The mayor or the city council may, within budgeted
appropriations, authorize the payment of other allowances in extraordinary
circumstances (as determined by the mayor or the city council).
SUBSECTION VII - SEVERANCE BENEFIT
Subject to availability of funds, any current appointed employee who is not retained, not
terminated for cause and who is separated from city employment involuntarily shall receive
severance benefits based upon their respective appointment date.
A. Severance benefits shall be calculated using the employee’s salary rate in effect on
the employee’s date of termination. Receipt of severance benefits is contingent upon
execution of a release of all claims approved by the city attorney’s office.
1. Employees appointed on or after January 1, 1989 and before January 1, 2000
shall receive a severance benefit equal to one months’ base salary for each
continuous year of city employment in an appointed status before January 1, 2000.
Severance shall be calculat ed on a pro-rata basis for a total benefit of up to a
maximum of six m onths.
2. Current department heads, along with the mayor’s chief of staff and the
executive director of the city council office, appointed on or after January 1, 2000
shall receive a severance benefit equal to two month’s base salary after one full year
of continuous city employment in an appointed status; four months’ base salary
12
after two full years of continuous city employment in an appointed status; or, six
months’ base salary after three full years or more of continuous city employment in
an appointed status.
3. Current appointed employees who are not department heads, and who were
appointed on or after January 1, 2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to one
week’s base salary for each year of continuous city employment in an appointed
status, calculated on a pro-rata basis, for a total benefit of up to a maximum of six
weeks.
B. Leave Payout: Appointed employees with leave hour account balances under Plan A
or Plan B shall, in addition to the severance benefit provided, receive a severance
benefit equal to the “retirement benefit” value provided under the leave plan of which
they are a participant (either Plan A or Plan B), if separation is involuntary and not for
cause.
C. Not Eligible for Benefit. An appointed employee is ineligible to be paid severance
benefits under the following circumstances:
1. An employee who, at the time of termination of employment, has been
convicted, indicted, charged or is under active criminal investigation concerning a
public offense involving a felony or moral turpitude. This provision shall not
restrict the award of full severance benefits should such employee subsequently be
found not guilty of such charge or if the charges are otherwise dismissed.
2. An employee who has been terminated or asked for a resignation by the
mayor or department director under bona fide charges of nonfeasance, misfeasance
or malfeasance in office.
3. An employee who fails to execute a Release of All Claims approved by the
city attorney’s office, where required as stipulated above.
4. An employee who is hired into another position in the city prior to their
separation date.
In the event an employee is hired into another position in the city after their
separation date and prior to the expiration of the period of time for which the
severance benefit was provided, the employee is required to reimburse the City (on
a pro-rata basis) for that portion of the severance benefit covering the period of time
between the date of rehire and the expiration of the period of time for which the
severance benefit was provided.
13
SECTION IV: HOLIDAY, VACATION & LEAVE ACCRUAL
Benefits-eligible employees shall receive pay for holidays, vacation and other leave as provided in
this section. Employees do not earn or receive holiday and vacation benefits while on unpaid
leave of absence. However, employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to
the restoration of such leave benefits, as r equired by applicable law.
SUBSECTION I – HOLIDAYS
A. The following days are recognized and observed as holidays for covered employees.
Eligible employees will receive pay for non-worked holidays equal to their regular rate
of pay times the total number of hours which make a regularly scheduled shift. Except
as otherwise noted in this subsection, an employee may not bank a worked holiday.
1. New Year's Day, the first day of January.
2. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Human Rights Day), the third Monday of
January.
3. President's Day, the third Monday in February.
4. Memorial Day, the last Monday of May.
5. Juneteenth National Freedom Day, June 19
a. If June 19 is on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the
holiday will be observed on the immediately preceding Monday. If June 19
is on a Saturday or Sunday, the holiday will be observed on the immediately
following Monday.
6. Independence Day, July 4.
7. Pioneer Day, July 24.
8. Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
9. Veteran's Day, November 11.
10. Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
11. The Friday after Thanksgiving Day
12. Christmas Day, December 25.
13. One personal holiday per calendar year, taken upon request of an employee
and as approved by a supervisor.
14
B. When any holiday listed above falls on a Sunday, the following business day is
considered a holiday. When any holiday listed above falls on a Saturday, the preceding
business day is considered a holiday. In addition to the above, any day may be
designated as a holiday by proclamation of the mayor or the city council.
C. All holiday hours, including personal holidays, must be used in no less than regular
full day or shift increments.
1. A Fire battalion/division chief may be allowed to use a holiday in less than a
full shift increment only when converting from a “support” to “operations” work
schedule results in the creation of a half-shift.
D. No employee will receive more than the equivalent of one workday or a regular
scheduled shift as holiday pay for a single holiday. Employees must either work or be in
an authorized paid leave status a working day before and a working day after the
holiday to qualify for holiday pay.
1. An employee who is off work and in a paid status covered by short-term
disability or parental leave receives regular pay as a benefit and, therefore, is not
entitled to bank a holiday while off work.
E. Police Sergeant, Lieutenant, & Captain Holiday Hours Worked: When a day
designated as a holiday falls on a scheduled workday, a Police sergeant, lieutenant, or
captain may elect to take the day off work, subject to the approval of their supervisor, or
receive their regular wages for such days worked and designate an alternate day off
work to celebrate the holiday. For a Police sergeant whose assignment requires staffing
on either the graveyard shift prior to, or the day and afternoon shift on Thanksgiving
Day or Christmas Day, all hours worked will be compensated at a rate of one-and-one-
half (1 ½) times the employee’s regular base wage rate.
F. Police Sergeant, Lieutenant, & Captain Accrued Holiday Leave Payout: Police
sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who retire or separate from city employment for any
reason shall be compensated for any holiday time accrued and unused during the
preceding 12 months. Employees will not be compensated for any unused holiday time
accrued before the 12 months preceding the employee’s retirement or separation.
1. Any Police sergeant, lieutenant, or captain who is transferred or promoted to
a higher-level position within the department, including Deputy Chief, Assistant
Chief, or Police Chief, or to a position in another city department will be paid out at
their current base pay rate for any holiday time accrued and unused during the
preceding 12 months.
SUBSECTION II - VACATION LEAVE
The city will pay eligible employees their regular salaries during vacation periods earned and
taken in accordance with the following provisions. Except as provided for expressly in either city
policy or this plan, vacation leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the total
15
number of hours for which an employee is regularly compensated during a work week or a pay
period.
Vacation hours may be used on the first day of the pay period following the period in which the
vacation hours are accrued.
A. Full-Time employees and appointed employees (except for those noted in
paragraphs B and C of this subsection) accrue vacation leave based upon years of city
service as follows:
Years of Hours of Vacation Accrued
City Service Per Bi-Weekly Pay Period
0 to end of year 3 3.73
4 to end of year 6 4.42
7 to end of year 9 4.81
10 to end of year 12 5.54
13 to end of year 15 6.15
16 to end of year 19 6.77
20 or more 7.69
B. Department directors, the mayor’s chief of staff, the mayor’s chief administrative
officer, up to two additional senior positions in the mayor’s office as specified by the
mayor, the executive director of the city council, and justice court judges will accrue
7.69 hours each bi-weekly pay period.
C. Fire battalion chiefs in the Operations division of the Fire department will accrue
vacation leave according to the following schedule:
Years of Accrued Hours of Vacation
City Service Per Pay Period
0 to end of year 3 5.54
4 to end of year 6 6.46
7 to end of year 9 7.38
10 to end of year 12 8.31
16
13 to end of year 14 9.23
15 to end of year 19 10.15
20 or more 11.54
D. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods, no vacation leave hours will be
awarded in the 27th pay period.
E. Years of city service are based on the most recent date the person became a full-
time salaried employee.
F. Full-time employees re-hired by the city are eligible to receive prior service credit
for previous full-time city employment and time worked with other public jurisdictions
without a break in service. Prior service credit is applicable for vacation accrual, personal
leave accrual, short-term disability benefits, layoff, and awarding of employee service
awards and service certificates only. Prior service credit does not apply to longevity
pay.
G. Full-time and appointed employees (except those listed in Paragraph B of this
subsection) may accumulate vacations, according to the length of their full-time years
of city Service, up to the following maximum limits:
Up to and including 9 years Up to 30 days/ 15 shifts/ 240 hours
After 9 years Up to 35 days/ 17.5 shifts/ 280 hours
After 14 years Up to 40 days/ 20 shifts/ 320 hours
For purposes of this subsection, "days" means "8-hour" days and “shifts” means
“24-hour” combat shifts.
H. Department directors and those included in Paragraph B of this subsection may
accumulate up to 320 hours of vacation without regard to their years of employment
with the city.
I. Any vacation accrued beyond the allowable maximums, including any Plan A sick
leave hours converted to vacation, will be deemed forfeited unless used before the end
of the pay period in which an employee’s designated longevity date occurs. However,
in the case of an employee’s return from an unpaid military leave of absence, leave
hours may be restored according to requirements under applicable law.
J. Vacation Payout at Termination: An employee separating from employment may not
exhaust more than 80 hours of any combination of accrued vacation, personal leave, or banked
(holiday or vacation) leave prior to their last day of employment. Employees shall be paid at
their base hourly rate for any unused accrued vacation leave time following termination
of employment, including retirement.
17
K. Vacation Allowance: As a recruiting incentive, the mayor or t he city council may
provide a one-time allowance of up to 120 hours of vacation leave.
SUBSECTION III - SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE
Benefits in this section are for the purpose of income replacement for employees during
absence from work due to illness, accident, or personal reasons. Some of these absences
may qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Although the city
requires use of accrued paid leave prior to taking unpaid FMLA leave, employees will be
allowed to reserve up to 80 hours of non-lapsing leave as a contingency for future use by
submitting a written request to Human Resources. Employees are not eligible to earn or
receive leave benefits while on an unpaid leave of absence.
However, employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to the
restoration of such leave benefits, as provided by applicable law.
Employees hired on or after November 16, 1997 receive personal leave benefits under Plan
B. All other employees receive personal leave benefits pursuant to the plan they participated
in as of November 15, 1998. Employees hired before November 16, 1997 shall receive
personal leave benefits under Plan B if they elected to do so during any city - established
election period occurring in 1998 or later.
A. Plan “A ”
1. Sick Leave
a. Sick leave is provided for full-time employees under Plan “A” as
insurance against loss of income when an employee is unable to perform
assigned duties because of illness or injury. The mayor may e stablish rules
governing the interfacing of sick leave and workers’ compensation benefits
and avoiding, to the extent allowable by law, duplicative payments.
b. Each full-time employee accrues sick leave at a rate of 4.62 hours per
pay period. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods, no sick
leave hours will be awarded in the 27th pay period. Authorized and unused
sick leave may be accumulated from year to year, subject to the limitations
of this plan.
1. Sick Leave Accrual for Fire Battalion Chiefs – Each covered
employee shall be entitled to 15 days of sick leave each calendar year,
except for members of the Operations division who shall be entitled to
7.5 shifts of sick leave each calendar year. The City shall credit a
covered employee’s sick leave account in a lump sum (either 15 days
or7.5 shifts) during the first month of each calendar year. Authorized
and unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year subject to
the limitations of this plan.
c. Under this Plan “A,” Full-Time employees who have accumulated
18
240 hours of sick leave may choose to convert up to 64 hours of the sick
leave earned and unused during any given year to vacation. Any sick leave
used during the calendar year reduces the allowable conversion by an equal
amount.
1. Sick Leave Conversion for Fire Battalion Chiefs – Fire Battalion
Chiefs who have accumulated 15 shifts (for Operations employees), or
240 hours (for non-Operations employees) may choose to convert a
portion of the year sick leave grant from any given year to vacation, as
follows—
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Used During Previous Calendar
Year (Operations Only)
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Available for Conversion
(Operations Only)
No shifts used 5 shifts
One shift used 4 shifts
Two shifts used 3 shifts
Three shifts used 2 shifts
Four shifts used 1 shift
Five or more shifts used No shifts
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Used During Previous Calendar
Year (Support Only)
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Available for Conversion
(Support Only)
No days used 9 days
One day used 8 days
Two days used 7 days
Three days used 6 days
Four days used 5 days
Five or more days used 0 days
d. Conversion at the maximum allowable hours will be made unless the
employee elects otherwise. Any election by an employee for no conversion,
or to convert less than the maximum allowable sick leave hours to vacation
time, must be made by notifying the employee’s department timekeeper or
the city payroll administrator, in writing, not later than the second pay period
of the new calendar year (or the November vacation draw for Fire Battalion
Chiefs). Otherwise, the opportunity to waive conversion or elect conversion
other than the maximum allowable amount will be deemed waived for that
calendar year. In no event may sick leave days be converted from other than
the current year's sick leave allocation.
e. Any sick leave hours, properly converted to vacation benefits as
above described, must be taken before any other vacation hours to which the
employee is entitled; however, in no event is an employee, upon the
employee’s separation from employment, entitled to any pay or
compensation for any sick leave converted to vacation. An employee
19
forfeits any sick leave converted to vacation remaining unused at the date of
separation from employment.
f. Sick Leave Benefits Upon Layoff. Employees who are subject to
layoff because of lack of work or lack of funds will be paid at 100% of their
hourly base wage rate as of the date of termination for each accumulated
unused sick leave hour.
2. Hospitalization Leave
a. Hospitalization leave is provided for full-time employees under Plan
“A,” in addition to sick leave authorized hereunder, as insuran ce against loss
of income when an employee is unable to perform assigned duties because of
scheduled surgical procedures, urgent medical treatment, or hospital
inpatient admission.
b. Employees are entitled to 30 days of hospitalization leave each
calendar year. Hospitalization leave does not accumulate from year to year.
Employees may not convert hospitalization leave to vacation or any other
leave, nor may they convert hospitalization leave to any additional benefit at
time of retirement.
c. Employees who are unable to perform their duties during a shift due
to preparations (such as fasting, rest, or ingestion of medicine), for a
scheduled surgical procedure, may report the absence from the affected shift
as hospitalization leave, with the prior approval of their division head or
supervisor.
d. An employee who must receive urgent medical treatment at a
hospital, emergency room, or acute care facility, and who is regularly
scheduled for work or unable to perform their duties during a shift (or work
day) due to urgent medical treatment, may re port the absence from the
affected shift as hospitalization leave. Similarly, an employee who is absent
from work while on approved leave is also allowed to claim hospitalization
leave.
1. An employee who wishes to claim hospitalization leave is responsible
to report the receipt of urgent medical treatment to the employee’s
division head or supervisor as soon as practical.
2. For purposes of use of hospitalization leave, urgent medical
treatment includes at-home care directed by a physician immediately
after the urgent medical treatment and within the affected shift.
e. Employees who, because they are admitted as an inpatient to a
hospital for medical treatment, are unable to perform their duties, may report
the absence from duty while in the hospital as hospitalization leave.
20
f. Medical treatment consisting exclusively or primarily of post -injury
rehabilitation or therapy treatment, whether conducted in a hospital or other
medical facility, shall not be counted as hospitalization leave.
g. An employee requesting hospitalization leave under this section may
be required to provide verification of treatment or care from a competent
medical practitioner.
3. Dependent Leave
a. Under Plan “A,” dependent leave may be requested by a full-time
employee for the following reasons:
1. Becoming a parent through birth or adoption of a child.
2. Placement of a foster child in the employee’s home.
3. Due to the care of the employee’s child, spouse, spouse’s child, adult
designee, adult designee’s unmarried child under age 26, or parent with
a serious health condition.
b. Under Plan “A,” dependent leave may also be requested by a full-
time employee to care for an employee’s child, spouse, spouse’s child, adult
designee, an adult designee’s unmarried child under age 26, or a parent who
is ill or injured but who does not have a serious health condition.
c. The following provisions apply to the use of dependent leave by a
full- time employee:
1. Dependent leave may be granted with pay on a straight time basis.
2. If an employee has available unused sick leave, sick leave may be
used as dependent leave.
3. An employee is required to give notice of the need to take dependent
leave, including the expected duration of leave, to his or her supervisor
as soon as possible.
4. Upon request of a supervisor, an employee will be required to
provide a copy of a birth certificate or evidence of child placement for
adoption, or a letter from the attending physician in the event of
hospitalization, injury, or illness of a child, spouse, spouse’s child, adult
designee, adult designee’s child, or parent within five calendar days
following a return from leave.
5. An employee’s sick leave shall be reduced by the number of hours
21
taken by an employee as dependent leave.
4. Career Incentive Leave, Plan “A”
Full-Time employees, who have been in continuous full-time employment with the
city for more than 20 years, and who have accumulated to their credit 1500 or more
sick leave hours, may make a one-time election to convert up to 160 hours of sick
leave into 80 hours of paid Career Incentive Leave . Career Incentive Leave must
be taken prior to retirement. Sick leave hours converted to Career Incentive Leave
will not be eligible for a cash payout upon termination or retirement even though
the employee has unused Career Incentive Leave hours available. This leave can
be used for any reason. Requests for Career Incentive Leave must be submitted in
writing to the appropriate department director and be approved subject to the
department’s business needs (e.g., work schedules and workloads).
5. Retirement Benefit, Plan “A”
a. Employees who meet the eligibility requirements of the Utah State
Retirement System and who retire from the city will be paid at their base
hourly rate for 50% of their accumulated sick leave hours balance based on
the schedule below:
Retirement Month 50% sick leave will be:
January 1st – June 30th Contributed to 501(c)9 Health Reimbursement
Account Plan
(premium-only account) July 1st – December 31st Cash to retiree
B. Plan “B”
1. . Under Plan “B,” paid personal leave is provided for employees as insurance
against loss of income when an employee needs to be absent from work because of
illness or injury, to care for a dependent, or for any other emergency or personal
reason. Each eligible employee will receive personal leave on November 1st of each
calendar year. P e r s o n a l l e a v e h o u r s a r e i n e l i g i b l e t o b e
u s e d t o e x c e e d t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f w o r k h o u r s f o r
w h i c h a n e m p l o y e e i s r e g u l a r l y c o m p e n s a t e d d u r i n g a
w o r k w e e k o r a p a y p e r i o d. Where the leave is not related to the
employee’s own illness or disability—or an event that qualifies under the FMLA—
a personal leave request is subject to supervisory approval based on the operational
requirements of the city and any policies regarding the use of such leave adopted by
the department in which the employee works. Accrued personal leave hours may be
used on the same day the hours are received.
2. Each full-time employee under Plan “B” is awarded personal leave hours based
on the following schedule:
22
Months of
Consecutive Hours of
City Service Personal Leave
Less than 6 40
Less than 24 60
24 or more 80
Employees hired during the plan year are provided paid personal leave on a pro-
rated basis.
3. Not later than October 15th of each calendar year, employees covered by Plan
“B” may elect, by notifying their department timekeeper or the city payroll
administrator in writing, to:
a. Convert any unused personal leave hours availab le as of October 31st
to a lump sum payment equal to the following: For each converted hour, the
employee will be paid 50 percent of the employee’s regular hourly base
wage rate (not including acting pay) in effect on the date of conversion. In
no event will total pay hereunder exceed 40 hours of pay (80 hours at 50%);
or
b. Carryover to the next calendar year up to 80 unused personal leave
hours; or
c. Convert a portion of unused personal leave hours, to a lump sum
payment as provided in subparagraph (3)(a), above, and carry over a portion
as provided in subparagraph (3)(b), above.
4. Maximum Accrual. A maximum of 80 hours of personal leave may be carried
over to the next plan year. Any personal leave hours unused at the end of the plan
year in excess of 80 will be converted to a lump sum payment as provided in
subparagraph 3(a) above.
5. Termination Benefits. An employee separating from employment may not exhaust
more than 80 hours of any combination of accrued vacation, personal leave, or banked
(holiday or vacation) leave prior to their last day of employment. At termination of
employment for any reason, accumulated unused personal leave hours, minus any
adjustment necessary after calculating the “prorated amount,” shall be paid to the
employee at 50 percent of the regular hourly base wage rate (not including acting
pay) on the date of termination for each unused hour. For purposes of this
paragraph, “prorated amount” shall mean the amount of personal leave credited at
the beginning of the plan year, multiplied by the ratio of the number of pay periods
worked in the plan year (rounded to the end of the pay period which includes the
separation date) to 26 pay periods. If the employee, at the time of separation, has
23
used personal leave in excess of the prorated amount, the value of the excess
amount shall be reimbursed to the city and may be deducted f rom the employee’s
paycheck.
6. Conditions on Use of Personal Leave include:
a. Minimum use of personal leave, with supervisory approval, must be
in no less than quarter-hour increments.
b. Except in unforeseen circumstances, such as emergencies or the
employee’s inability to work due to illness or accident or an unforeseen
FMLA-qualifying event, an employee must provide their supervisor with
prior notice to allow time for the supervisor to make arrangements necessary
to cover the employee’s work.
c. For leave due to unforeseen circumstances, the employee must give
their supervisor as much prior notice as possible.
d. Except as provided for expressly in either city policy or this plan,
personal leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the
total number of hours for which an employee is regularly compensated
during a work week or a pay period.
7. Career Enhancement Leave, Plan “B”: A full-time employee covered under
this Plan “B” is eligible, after 15 years of full-time service with the city, to be
selected to receive up to two weeks of career enhancement leave. This one -time
leave benefit could be used for formal training, informal course of study, job-related
travel, internship, mentoring or other activity that could be of benefit to the city and
the employee’s career development. Selected employees will receive their full
regular salary during the leave. Request for this leave must be submitted in writing
to the appropriate department head, stating the purpose of the request and how the
leave is intended to benefit the city. The request must be approved by the
department head and by the Human Resources director (who will review the request
to ensure compliance with these guidelines).
8. Retirement/Layoff (RL) Benefit, Plan “B”
a. Full-Time employees currently covered under Plan “B” who were
hired before November 16, 1997, and who elected to be covered under Plan
“B,” shall have a retirement/layoff (RL) account equal to sixty percent of
their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on November 16,
1997, minus any hours withdrawn from that account since it was established.
b. Full-Time employees who were hired before November 16, 1997 and
who elected in 1998 to be covered under Plan “B,” shall have a
retirement/layoff (RL) account equal to fifty percent of their accumulated
unused sick leave hours available on November 14, 1998, minus any hours
withdrawn after the account is established.
24
c. Full-Time employees who were hired before November 16, 1997 and
who elected in 2007 or later during any period designated by the city to be
covered under Plan “B,” shall have a retirement /layoff (RL) account equal
to forty percent of their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on
the date that Plan B participation began, minus any hours withdrawn after
the account is established.
d. Payment of the RL Account.
1. All hours in an employee’s RL account shall be payable upon
retirement or as a result of layoff. In the case of layoff, 100% of R/L
hours shall be paid to the employee according to the employee’s base
hourly rate of pay on date of layoff. Any employee who quits, resigns, is
separated, or is terminated for cause is not eligible to receive payment
for RL account hours.
2. In cases of retirement, an eligible employee shall be paid at their base
hourly rate for 100% of their RL account balance based on the schedule
below:
Retirement Month 100% RL hours will be:
January 1st – June 30th Contributed to 501(c)9 Health Retirement
Account Plan
(premium-only account) July 1st – December 31st Cash to retiree
e. Hours may be withdrawn from the RL account to cover an
employee’s absence from work due to illness or injury, need to care for a
dependent, any emergency or to supplement Workers’ Compensation
benefits after all Personal Leave hours are exhausted. RL account hours,
when added to the employee’s workers’ compensation benefit, may not
exceed the employee’s regular net salary.
9. Short-Term Disability Insurance, Plan “B”: Protection against loss of income
when an employee is absent from work due to short -term disability shall be
provided to full-time employees covered under Plan “B” through short-term
disability insurance (SDI). There shall be no cost to the employee for SDI. SDI
shall be administered in accordance with the terms determined by the city.
SUBSECTION IV - PARENTAL LEAVE
A. Full-time employees who become parents through birth, adoption, or foster care
may take up to six consecutive weeks of paid parental leave to care for and bond with
the child. An employee may be allowed to take parental leave up to one year from the
date of a child’s birth or, in the case of adoption or foster care, the date a child is placed
in the employee’s home. Parental leave may be taken during a new employee’s
25
probationary period. The probationary period will be extended by an amount of time
equivalent to the parental leave taken.
B. Parental leave will run concurrently (during the same period of time) with FMLA
and SDI (if applicable). Parental leave is limited to six weeks per twelve-month period.
For employees approved for short-term disability, parental leave will make up the
difference between 100% pay and 66 2/3% pay (if applicable) for up to six weeks.
SUBSECTION V - BEREAVEMENT LEAVE
A. An employee who suffers the loss of an immediate family member including a(n):
current spouse, domestic partner, or adult designee; child, mother, father, brother, sister;
current father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law,
sister-in-law; grandparent; current step-grandfather, step-grandmother; grandchild, or
current step grandchild, stepchild, stepmoth er, stepfather, stepbrother or stepsister,
grandfather-in-law, grandmother-in-law; or, domestic partner’s or adult designee’s
relative as if the domestic partner or adult designee were the employee’s spouse is
eligible to be released from work for bereavement, including attendance at a funeral,
memorial service, or related event(s).
B. In the event of death of an immediate family member, the city will provide an
employee with up to five working days of paid leave for bereavement, including
attendance at a funeral, memorial service, or related event(s). The employee will be
permitted one additional day of bereavement leave if the employee attends a funeral,
memorial service or equivalent event that is held more than 150 miles from Salt Lake
City and the day following the memorial service or equivalent event is a regular
working shift.
C. In the event of death of a first-line extended relative of an employee, or of an
employee’s spouse, domestic partner, or adult designee’s relative as if the adult
designee were the employee’s spouse not covered in paragraph A above (such as an
uncle, aunt or cousin), the city will provide an employee with up to one work shift for
bereavement, including attendance at a funeral, memorial service, or related event(s).
The employee will be permitted one additional day of bereavement leave if the
employee attends a funeral, memorial service or equivalent event that is held more than
150 miles from S alt Lake City and the day following the memorial service or equivalent
event is a regular working shift.
D. In the event of death of a friend, an employee may be allowed to use vacation or
personal leave for time off to attend the funeral or memorial service, as approved by an
immediate supervisor.
E. In the event of death of any covered family member while an employee is on
vacation leave, an employee’s absence may be extended and authorized as bereavement
leave.
26
F. In the event of a miscarriage or stillbirth, the employee, employee’s spouse or
partner, or employee to be an adoptive parent, the city will provide an employee with
up to three working days of paid leave for bereavement.
SUBSECTION VI - MILITARY LEAVE
A. Leave of absence for employees who enter uniformed service. An employee who
enters the uniformed services of the United States, including the United States Army,
United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force,
commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United
States Coast Guard, or the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, is entitled
to be absent from his or her duties and servic e from the city, without pay, as required by
applicable l law. Leave will be granted in accordance with the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
B. Leave while on duty with the armed forces or Utah National Guard. An employee
who is or who becomes a member of the reserves of the federal armed forces, including
the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States
Air Force, and the United States Coast Guard, or an y unit of the Utah National Guard, is
allowed military leave for up to 15 working days per calendar year for time spent on
active or reserve duty. Military leave may be in addition to vacation leave and need not
be consecutive days of service. To be covered, an employee must provide
documentation demonstrating a duty requirement.
SUBSECTION VII - JURY LEAVE & COURT APPEARANCES
A. Jury Leave: An employee will be released from duty with full pay when, in
obedience to a subpoena or direction by proper authority, the employee is required to
either serve on a jury or appear as a witness for the United States, the state of Utah, or
other political subdivision.
1. Employees are entitled to retain statutory fees paid for service in a federal court,
state court, or city/county justice court.
2. On any day that an employee is required to report for service and is thereafter
excused from such service during his or her regular worki ng hours from the city, he
or she must forthwith return to and carry on his or her regular city employment.
Employees who fail to return to work after being excused from service for the day
are subject to discipline.
B. Court Appearances. A Police sergeant is eligible to receive compensation as a
witness subpoenaed by the city, the State of Utah, or the United States for a court or
administrative proceeding appearance as follows:
1. Appearances in court or administrative proceeding made while on-duty will be
compensated as normal hours worked.
27
2. In the event an appearance extends beyond the end of an employee's regularly
scheduled shift, time will be counted as normal work time for the purpose of
computing an employee's overtime compensation.
3. Employees are entitled to retain statutory witness fees paid for service in a
federal court, state court, or city/county justice court.
4. Appearances made while off-duty will be compensated as follows:
(a) The city will pay employees for two hours of preparation time plus
actual time spent in court or in an administrative hearing at one and one-half
times their regular hourly rate. Lunch periods granted are not considered
compensable time. Compensation for additional preparation time for any
subsequent appearance during the same day is allowed only when there is at
least two hours between the employee’s release time from a prior court or
administ rative proceeding and the start of the other.
(b) If the time spent in court or administrative proceeding extends into the
beginning of the employee's regularly scheduled work shift, time spent in
court or in administrative proceeding will be deemed ended at the time such
shift is scheduled to begin.
5. An employee is required to provide a copy of the subpoena, including the
beginning time and time released from the court or administrative hearing, with
initials of the prosecuting or another court representative within seven working days
following the appearance.
6. Any employee failing to appear in compliance with the terms of a formal notice
or subpoena may be subject to disciplinary action.
SUBSECTION VIII - INJURY LEAVE (SWORN POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES ONLY)
The city has established rules governing the administration of an injury leave program for sworn
public safety personnel under the following qualifications and restrictions:
A. The disability must have resulted from an injury arising out of the discharge of
official duties or while exercising some form of necessary job-related activity as
determined by the city;
B. The employee must be unable to return to work due to the injury, as verified by a
medical provider acceptable to the city;
C. The leave benefit may not exceed the value of the employee's net sala ry during the
period of absence due to the injury, less all amounts paid or credited to the employee as
workers’ compensation, Social Security, long-term disability or retirement benefits, or
any form of governmental relief whatsoever;
D. The value of benefits provided to employees under this injury leave program may
28
not exceed the total of $5,000 per employee per injury, unless approved in writing by
the employee’s department head after receiving an acceptable treatment plan and
consulting with the city’s risk manager;
E. The city's risk manager is principally responsible for the review of injury leave
claims, except that appeals from the decision of the city’s risk manager may be
reviewed by the Human Resources director, who may make recommendations to the
mayor for final decisions;
F. If an employee is eligible for workers’ compensation as provided by law and is not
receiving injury leave pursuant to this provision, an employee may elect to use either
accumulated sick leave or hours from the RL account, if applicable, and authorized
vacation time to supplement workers’ compensation. The total value of leave hours or
hours from an RL account combined with a workers’ compensation benefit may not
exceed an employee's regular net salary.
SUBSECTION IX - ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE
Additional leaves of absence may be requested in writing and granted as identified in policy
to an employee at the discretion of a department director.
SUBSECTION X - EMERGENCY LEAVE
The city may provide additional paid leave to employees if: i) the mayor has declared a
local emergency; and ii) the mayor and/or city council authorize and approve the use of
available funds for such purposes during the period of local emergency.
Emergency leave may also be provided as a form of income replacement for part -time
(hourly) and/or seasonal employees whose work hours are either red uced or discontinued
temporarily, so long as there is an expectation they will return to work after the emergency
period is ended.
29
APPENDIX A - SALT LAKE CITY COR PORATION
GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN (GEPP)
Effective June 25. 2023
GRADE MINIMUM CITY MARKET MAXIMUM
SEAX/HRLY $12.46 $70.00
10 $13.23 $17.28 $21.33
11 $13.87 $18.15 $22.42
12 $14.57 $19.21 $23.85
13 $15.31 $20.02 $24.72
14 $16.07 $20.94 $25.81
15 $16.86 $22.16 $27.45
16 $17.70 $23.45 $29.20
17 $18.60 $24.41 $30.21
18 $19.53 $25.94 $32.34
19 $20.50 $27.08 $33.66
20 $21.54 $28.24 $34.93
21 $21.72 $29.63 $37.54
22 $22.84 $31.15 $39.45
23 $23.97 $32.71 $41.44
24 $25.17 $34.33 $43.48
25 $26.42 $36.03 $45.64
26 $27.75 $37.85 $47.94
27 $29.12 $39.75 $50.38
28 $30.57 $41.76 $52.94
29 $32.12 $43.85 $55.58
30 $33.72 $46.04 $58.36
31 $35.41 $48.35 $61.29
32 $37.17 $50.75 $64.33
33 $39.04 $53.31 $67.57
34 $40.99 $55.97 $70.95
35 $43.03 $58.77 $74.50
36 $45.18 $61.71 $78.23
37 $47.45 $64.79 $82.12
38 $49.82 $68.03 $86.23
39 $52.32 $109.88
40 $54.93 $115.35
41 $57.68 $187.12
30
GRADE MINIMUM CITY MARKET MAXIMUM
SEAX/HRLY $25,924.08 $83,494.32
10 $27,518.40 $35,948.64 $44,357.04
11 $28,850.64 $37,739.52 $46,628.40
12 $30,313.92 $39,945.36 $49,598.64
13 $31,842.72 $41,627.04 $51,411.36
14 $33,415.20 $43,548.96 $53,682.72
15 $35,075.04 $46,082.40 $57,089.76
16 $36,822.24 $48,768.72 $60,737.04
17 $38,678.64 $50,756.16 $62,833.68
18 $40,622.40 $53,944.80 $67,267.20
19 $42,631.68 $56,325.36 $70,019.04
20 $44,793.84 $58,727.76 $72,661.68
21 $45,186.96 $61,632.48 $78,078.00
22 $47,502.00 $64,777.44 $82,052.88
23 $49,860.72 $68,031.60 $86,202.48
24 $52,350.48 $71,394.96 $90,439.44
25 $54,949.44 $74,954.88 $94,938.48
26 $57,723.12 $78,711.36 $99,721.44
27 $60,562.32 $82,686.24 $104,788.32
28 $63,576.24 $86,857.68 $110,117.28
29 $66,808.56 $91,203.84 $115,599.12
30 $70,128.24 $95,768.40 $121,386.72
31 $73,644.48 $100,573.20 $127,480.08
32 $77,313.60 $105,574.56 $133,813.68
33 $81,201.12 $110,881.68 $140,540.40
34 $85,263.36 $116,429.04 $147,572.88
35 $89,500.32 $122,216.64 $154,954.80
36 $93,977.52 $128,353.68 $162,708.00
37 $98,694.96 $134,752.80 $170,810.64
38 $103,630.80 $141,479.52 $179,350.08
39 $108,828.72 $228,555.60
40 $114,245.04 $239,934.24
41 $119,967.12 $389,210.64
Annual Rates
31
APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Effective June 25, 2023
911 BUREAU Job Title Grade
911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X
911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X
AIRPORT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X
DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X
DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X
DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X
DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ATTORNEY 041X
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X
CITY RECORDER 035X
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A*
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X
COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X
ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X
LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X
SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X
SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X
COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X
OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X
PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X
POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X
CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X
CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X
ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X
32
DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X
PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X
BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X
DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X
DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X
YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X
ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X
FINANCE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X
CITY TREASURER 039X
DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X
CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X
FIRE
FIRE CHIEF 041X
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X
ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X
HUMAN RESOURCES
CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X
DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X
CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X
TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X*
TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X*
TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X*
INFORMATION MGT SERVICES
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X
CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X
DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X
JUSTICE COURTS
JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X
JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X
MAYOR
CHIEF OF STAFF 041X
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X
DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X
SENIOR ADVISOR 039X
COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X
POLICY ADVISOR 029X
REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X
COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X
OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X
COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS
COORDINATOR 024X
33
COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X
CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X
POLICE
CHIEF OF POLICE 041X
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X
DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X
PUBLIC LANDS
PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X
GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
PUBLIC SERVICES
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X
CITY ENGINEER 039X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X
SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X
FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X
PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X
FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X
CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X
WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X
SUSTAINABILITY
SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X
SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X
WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay
plan may be added, removed or modified without approval of the City Council.
* Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member -elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the
Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full-time employees. Except for
leave time, benefits for city council members-elect are also equivalent to those provided to full-time employees.
34
APPENDIX C – ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE
Annual Salaries
Effective June 25, 2023
Mayor $168,067
Council Members $42,017
Except for leave time, benefits for the mayor and city council members are equivalent to those provided to
full-time employees.
35
APPENDIX D- UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2023-2024
Tier 1 Defined Benefit System
System Employee
Contribution Employer Contribution Total
Public Employees Contributory System 6.0% 13.96% 19.96%
Public Employees Noncontributory System 0 17.97% 17.97%
Public Safety Noncontributory System 0 46.71% 46.71%
Firefighters Retirement System 0 23.05% 23.05%
Tier 1 Post Retired
System
Post Retired Employment
After 6/30/10 – NO 401(k)
Amortization of UAAL*
Post Retired Employment Before
7/1/2010
Optional 401(k)
Public Employees Noncontributory System 6.11%
11.86%
Public Safety Noncontributory System 24.20% 22.51%
Firefighters Retirement System 0% n/a
Tier 2 Defined Benefit Hybrid System
Employee
Contribution
Employer
Contribution 401(k) Total
Public Employees Noncontributory System 0% 16.01% 0.18% 16.19%
Public Safety Noncontributory System
(for entry and two year pay steps only) 2.59% (city paid) 38.28% 6.00% 46.87%
Public Safety Noncontributory System
(for pay steps year four or more) 2.59% (city paid) 38.28% 0% 40.87%
Firefighters Retirement System 2.59% (city paid) 14.08% 0% 16.67%
Tier 2 Defined Contribution Only
Employee
Contribution
Employer
Contribution 401(k) Total
Public Employees Noncontributory System 0% 6.19% 10.00% 16.19%
Public Safety Noncontributory System
(for entry and two year pay steps only) 0% 24.28% 22.27% 46.55%
Public Safety Noncontributory System
(for pay steps year four or more) 0% 24.28% 14.00% 38.28%
Firefighters Retirement System 0% 0.08% 14.00% 14.08%
36
Executive Non-Legislative
Position Employer Contribution
Public Employees Noncontributory System
Department Heads, Mayor,
Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Chief
Administrative Officer, Up to Two
Additional Senior Executives in the
Mayor’s Office, Executive Director
for City Council
Normal contribution into Utah Retirement
System (URS)with 3% into 401(k)
– OR –
If Tier 1 and exempt from system or Tier II and
exempt from vesting, 401k contribution equal to
the applicable URS system contribution plus 3%
Public Safety Noncontributory System Department Head Same as above
Firefighters Retirement System Department Head Same as above
Council Members Elected with prior service in the Utah Retirement System
(Tier 1 Defined
Benefit)
System Employee
Contribution Employer Contribution Total
Public Employees Noncontributory System 0 17.97% 17.97%
If exempt… 0 10% base salary to 401(k) 10%
Council Members Elected After July 1, 2011 with no prior service in the Utah Retirement
System (may exempt from vesting)
Tier 2 Defined Contribution
Only
Employer 401K Total
6.19% 10% 16.19%
Tier 2 Defined Benefit Hybrid
System
Employer 401K Total
16.01% 0.18% 16.19%
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: _______________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: __________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 31, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #2
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Hunt (801) 535-7926 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY24 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $0.00 $187,250.00
CIP FUND $25,485,893.25 $25,485,893.25
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND $62,416.00 $65,472.00
IMS FUND $6,000.00 $6,000.00
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND $0.00 $664,293.70
MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $16,131,437.00 $16,131,437.00
TOTAL $41,685,746.25 $42,540,345.95
rachel otto (Aug 31, 2023 10:55 MDT)
Alejandro Sanchez (Aug 31, 2023 11:02 MDT)
08/31/2023
08/31/2023
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY24 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for FY24.
Because of this budget amendment’s timing, there are no updates for Y24 projections available.
The City has begun closing out the FY23 and will provide updates to Council as the audit
progresses.
Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast
Amended Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 -
Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 -
Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 -
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 -
Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 -
Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 -
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 -
Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 -
Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 -
Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 -
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 -
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 -
Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 -
Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 -
Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 -
ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance
Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 -
Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 -
Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#2.
Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 14.09%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 97,874,345 111,007,097
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 58,403,398 65,998,855
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%14.89%14.85%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 7,595,457 56,145,652 63,741,109
Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%26.45%26.78%14.51%14.32%14.34%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - (754,483) (754,483)
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - 204,200 204,200
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - (754,483)
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - 187,250 187,250
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - -
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - -
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - -
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - -
Change in Revenue - - - - - -
Change in Expense
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 94,530,495 107,163,247 7,595,457 55,782,619 62,623,593
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.64%25.04%14.51%14.22%14.09%
Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923
FY2024 BudgetFY2023 Budget Projected
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $41,685,746.25 in revenue and
$42,540,345.95 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in six funds, with nine increases
in FTEs. The proposal includes 26 initiatives for Council review.
Among the amendments is a proposed ordinance change that would amend the FY 2023-2024
Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees. These changes will impact the
Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay
specifically and will make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of
the changes will have impacts generally throughout the City. Further details on the changes are
contained in the amendment documents.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2023
(Second amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending
June 30, 2024.
In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2023.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
___ _______
Jaysen Oldroyd
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for
State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF - (44,620.00)Ongoing -
1 Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for
State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF - 44,620.00 Ongoing 1.00
2 Treasury ERAP 2 Additional Allocations Misc Grants 2,339,009.00 2,339,009.00 One-time -
3 Liberty Park Basketball Court Utah Jazz Donation CIP 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time -
4 Scope Change for Miller Park Trail Access
Improvements & Historic Structures Preservation CIP - - One-time -
5 Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division GF - (543,144.00)Ongoing (4.00)
5 Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division GF - 543,144.00 Ongoing 4.00
6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior
Community Programs Manager GF - (113,798.00)Ongoing -
6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior
Community Programs Manager GF - 110,798.00 Ongoing 1.00
6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior
Community Programs Manager GF - 3,000.00 One-time -
6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior
Community Programs Manager IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 One-time -
7 Economic Development Project Manager Position GF - 122,000.00 Ongoing 1.00
7 Economic Development Project Manager Position GF - 3,000.00 One-time -
7 Economic Development Project Manager Position IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 One-time -
8 SAA Funds to the Downtown Alliance Spec Assessment - 664,293.70 One-time -
9 Know your Neighbor Program Expenses GF - 6,500.00 One-time -
10 Love Your Block Program Expenses GF - 55,750.00 One-time -
11
Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY z2023-2024
Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented
Employees
NA - - - - Ongoing -
1 Emergency Demolition Fund Reset Special Rev 62,416.00 65,472.00 One-time -
2 300 N Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Pass-through CIP 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time -
3 Withdrawn prior to transmittal
4 RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Misc Grants Misc Grants 6,400,000.00 6,400,000.00 One-time -
5 GO 2023 Parks Bond CIP 24,885,893.25 24,885,893.25 One-time -
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1 TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability Misc Grants 1,229,681.00 1,229,681.00 Ongoing -
2 TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development Misc Grants 1,391,672.00 1,391,672.00 Ongoing -
3 State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 Misc Grants 3,107,201.00 3,107,201.00 Ongoing 5.00
4 Marathon Community Investment Fire Department Misc Grants 5,000.00 5,000.00 One-time -
5 Utah Department of Health & Human Services - EMS
Grant Misc Grants 8,014.00 8,014.00 One-time -
-
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Consent Agenda #1
1 Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Misc Grants 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 Ongoing 1.00
2 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire
and State Lands
Misc Grants 50,000.00 50,000.00 One-time -
3 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire
and State Lands
Misc Grants 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time -
4 State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation Misc Grants 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time -
5 Backman Community Open Space Misc Grants 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time -
6 Utah Department of Health & Human Services Misc Grants 8,014.00 8,014.00 One-time -
7 Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants 92,846.00 92,846.00 One-time -
Total of Budget Amendment
Items
41,685,746.25 42,540,345.95 - - 9.00
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1:
General Fund GF - 187,250.00 - - 3.00
Special Revenue Fund Special Rev 62,416.00 65,472.00 - - -
CIP Fund CIP 25,485,893.25 25,485,893.25 - - -
IMS Fund IMS 6,000.00 6,000.00 - - -
Special Assessment Fund Spec Assessment - 664,293.70 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants 16,131,437.00 16,131,437.00 - - 6.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 41,685,746.25 42,540,345.95 - - 9.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
2
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 (754,483.23) - 447,760,434.77
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 - 1,700,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00
Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 25,240,459.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 32,145,769.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 36,269,357.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,131,437.00 25,051,354.00
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 32,341,586.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 (1,430,715.00) 25,485,893.25 54,254,934.25
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 (2,139,398.23) 41,685,746.25 - - - 1,663,177,799.02
3
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 187,250.00 448,906,368.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00
Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 46,960,543.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 38,717,171.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,131,437.00 25,051,354.00
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 34,894,979.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 55,412,179.25
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00
- Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 42,540,345.95 - - - 1,826,347,347.95
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
4
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share
for State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF ($44,620.00)
GF $44,620.00
Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Tony Milner
For questions, please include Tony Milner, Blake Thomas and Tammy Hunsaker
This Budget Amendment is requesting a shift in funding to allow the Housing Stability Division to recruit a Community
Development Grant Specialist FTE for the Homelessness Engagement and Response Team (HEART). The City sought to
fully cover the cost of this FTE with the State's FY24 Cities Mitigation Grant; however, since the position will fulfill
administrative duties, the State is only allowing a partial billing for this position based on the hours the position works o n
the Cities Mitigation Grant itself.
In order to provide holistic, active contract management for all recipients of City homeless services funds, City General
Funds are being sought to supplement the full cost of the position by moving award money from an existing City General
Fund grant recipient and backfilling that cost with Cities Mitigation Grant dollars.
This request is budget neutral to the City. The Downtown Alliance Street Ambassador program is set to receive both Cities
Mitigation Grant and City General Fund awards in FY24. This request seeks to move $44,620 from the Downtown
Alliance's FY24 Homeless Services General Fund award to Housing Stability staffing. An increase of $44,620 would be
added to the amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive from the Cities Mitigation Grant, which is an
allowable expense under the grant. The amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive will remain at its
total of $1,384,101; this request will only change the funding source a portion of the award comes from. General Fund
award to Housing Stability staffing. An increase of $44,620.00 has been added to the amount of funding the Street
Ambassador program will receive from Cities Mitigation, which is an allowable expense under the Mitigation grant. The
amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive will remain at its total of $1,384,101.00, this request will
only change the funding source a portion of the award come from.
This position would be a Grade 26 Community Development Grant Specialist. The annual cost for this position is
$107,088. This Budget Amendment contemplates covering the cost of 50% of the position's effort for 10 months or
$89,240. In summary, $44,620 for the position is requested to be moved from the Downtown Alliance's FY24 Street
Ambassador award to Housing Stability, and the remaining $44,620 will be funded by the City's FY24 Cities Mitigation
Grant from the State Office of Homeless Services is requested to be moved from the Downtown Alliance's F Y24 Street
Ambassador award to Housing Stability and the remaining $44,620.00 will be funded by SLC's FY24 Cities Mitigation
award from the State Office of Homeless Services.
A-2: Treasury ERAP 2 Additional Allocations Misc Grants $2,339,009.00
Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Tony Milner
For questions, please include Tony Milner, Blake Thomas and Tammy Hunsaker
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's additional allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act, Treasury
Emergency Rent Assistance Program 2 (ERAP 2) funds, in the amount of $2,339,009, for the purpose of assisting in the
stabilization and recovery of COVID-affected, low-income residential renters in Salt Lake City.
This budget amendment is separate from previous Council-approved City ERAP allocations: ERAP 1 Initial Award
($6,067,033), ERAP 1 Additional Allocation ($3,000,000), ERAP 1 Additional Allocation ($5,000,000), ERAP 2 Initial
Award ($4,800,559.40), and ERAP 2 Additional Allocation ($2,000,000).
Past ERAP 1 & 2 funds were disbursed in partnership with the State Department of Workforce Services through the unified
Utah Rent Relief portal. The Utah Rent Relief portal closed in March 2023 after ERAP funds at the State level were
exhausted and will not open to new applicants.
At the time Council last reviewed remaining ERAP 2 funds in March 2023, Council partially approved $2,000,000 for
rental assistance through the Utah Rent Relief portal and requested additional information regarding eligible uses for the
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
remaining funds and directed the administration to explore the potential for using these funds for direct client rental
assistance.
Treasury defines direct client rental assistance as: deposits, rent, utilities, rent arrears, utility arrears, and oth er housing
related costs (e.g. applications fees).
The administration is seeking direction from Council regarding the preferred process for disbursing these funds to a sole
source provider or through public competitive process that would receive applicati ons from multiple providers.
Note: All ERAP 2 funds must be obligated by September 30, 2025.
A-3: Liberty Park Basketball Court Utah Jazz
Donation CIP $100,000.00
Department: Public Lands-Trails & Natural Lands Prepared By: Makaylah Maponga
For questions, please include Makaylah Maponga, Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans
Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to allocate a $100,000 donation from the Utah Jazz to the Liberty Park
Basketball Court project PRJ-230295. This project had significant funding constraints due to the failed condition of the
court. With this donation, Public Lands will be able to fully execute the project which will completely reconstruct the court
as well as install additional amenities to promote the court as a community gathering space.
The Liberty Basketball Court project was funded as a Constituent CIP project cost center 83 -22405 in FY2021-22 for
resurfacing. After initial evaluation of the court, it was determined that the cracks were too significant, and the court
needed complete reconstruction. Public Lands initially reached out to the Utah Jazz to partner on this project in the fall o f
2022. The Jazz followed up in Spring 2023 with interest in donating funds to the reconstruction in honor of their 50th
anniversary season. With this donation, Public Lands is able to cover the funding deficit and expand the scope to include
the addition of fencing and new seating areas. This is in line with the constituent's vision for the court as a host location for
an annual community tournament. This project is projected to be completed in Fall 2023. This project is projected to be
completed in Fall 2023. Public Lands will be recognizing the donation by including the Jazz Logo on the final court.
Public Lands has done due diligence and finds no reason to reject this donation proposal and specifically allocate the
funding to the Liberty Park Basketball Court project.
A-4: Scope Change for Miller Park Trail Access
Improvements & Historic Structures Preservation
CIP $0.00
Department: Public Lands-Trails & Natural Lands Prepared By: Kat Maus
For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Kat Maus and Gregg Evans
The Public Lands Department is requesting a scope change for the remaining $365,012.40 in the CIP cost center 83-18048
(PRJ-230184) (CC30004) to amend the project implementation list to accomplish proposed goals. This proposal to revise
the Miller Park capital project and associated funds do not close any informal or "social" trails that may exist. In FY 2017 -
18, a constituent submitted an application for funding to address the following goals at Miller Park: preserve the historic
structures, such as the WPA masonry walls, foot bridge, and stairways constructed during the Great Depression; and
improve accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park. To achieve these goals, the constituent proposed three
projects: restore a trail alignment (creekside) that was rerouted in 2014, install a bridge over Red Butte Creek, and stabilize
the WPA walls. Public Lands hired a consultant who obtained geotechnical and structural engineers, who determined that
the recommended projects in the original proposal would not fulfill the goals stated, and instead recommended projects
that would fulfill the stated goals. Public Lands is requesting a scope change for the remaining funds to remove the original
three projects proposed from the scope of work, and add the new projects recommended by the engineers. Public Lands
engaged extensively with community organizations and subject -matter experts to confirm the projects recommended in
the new scope, and confirm that the originally-proposed projects would not in fact fulfill the stated goals, including
Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the City's Risk Management Attorney, a national trail -
building firm, American Trails, the State's Historic Preservation Officer, and the Mayor's Office ADA Coordinator and
Disability and Accessibility Commission. In addition, Public Lands conducted several periods of public engagement in
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
2021 and 2023 to determine the community's priorities for the new proposed projects. Please see the attached report for
the full synopsis and overview of the engagement and project recommendations.
While the budget is not expected to be able to complete all twelve projects, Public Lands is proposing starting from the
highest-priority recommended project, and working through the list (top-down) until the funding has been spent. The full
description of the prioritized list of recommended projects and justification for selection is included in the engagement
report. Anticipated projects, beginning with the highest priority, t o be completed include:
1. Repairing the historic crib walls to increase wall and trail stability
2. Stabilize exposed wall foundation with soil nails and cover foundation where feasible, and to prevent erosion with
adjacent properties
3. Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek, and replace crib wall on creek side to reduce concentrated
drainage
4. Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near the entrance on 900 South and on the east side of the
creek, and other accessibility improvements as there are efficiencies with other projects
5. Improve cross slope near Bonneview Drive Entrance, and explore adding stairs and a handrail.
6. Reconstruct existing stairs to improve safety
7. Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive
Completing these projects would make nearly 75% of the park accessible to wheelchair access, far exceeding the ADA
requirements for natural areas, and would protect a majority of the historic walls for years into the future. Some pro jects
may be completed out of order if there are efficiencies with other projects.
A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design
Division
GF ($543,144.00)
GF $543,144.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker
For questions, please include Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans
This cost-neutral budget amendment request will transfer the landscape architecture design and project management
functions from the Engineering Division to the Public Lands Department.
This request is three-fold:
1. Create a new Planning & Design Division within the Public Lands Department.
2. Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape architect positions and associated operating budget ($543,144) from the
Engineering Division (Public Services Department) to this new division within the Public Lands Department. The FTEs
include: one Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34), two Landscape Architect IIIs (Grade 30), and one Landscape
Architect II (Grade 27).
3. Reclassify the Public Lands Department's Planning Manager position (Grade 33) as the Planning & Design Division
Director (Grade 34; merit, non-appointed). This position's appointment will be requested with the general budget request
in the following fiscal year (FY 24/25).
Past and Current Realities:
- In the past, the City's Public Lands Department and Engineering Division (Public Services Department) managed $1M
to $2M in parks, trails, and open space projects each year. They are now fortunate to be tasked with delivering nearly
$200M in new projects from various funding sources (i.e., Sales Tax Revenue Bond, GO Bond, CIP, and ot hers) over the
next 10 years.
- Currently, each of the City's 100+ parks, trails, and open space projects essentially has two project managers. Their
responsibilities overlap significantly. This requested change and new process would help rectify that.
Solutions:
- Our departments propose that the currently separate teams become one Planning & Design Division within the Public
Lands Department.
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
- The Public Lands Department would be responsible for all planning, prioritization, funding, public and st akeholder
engagement, design, consultant management, overall project management, and, ultimately, on-going maintenance of every
project.
- The Engineering Division of the Public Services Department would be responsible for the construction and contractor
management, and many of the most technical details of each project. Even this work will still be overseen by each project's
manager.
- These staffing changes will be combined with a new project delivery process (drafted by staff and leadership from bot h
departments) as well as even stronger, more effective coordination for each public lands project between the new Public
Lands Planning & Design Division and the Engineering Division.
A-6: Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract -
Senior Community Programs Manager
GF ($113,798.00)
GF $110,798.00
GF $3,000.00
IMS $3,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tammy Hunsaker / Kim Thomas
For questions, please include Tammy Hunsaker, Blake Thomas, Kim Thomas and Brent Beck
In March of 2018, the City and County entered into an interlocal agreement (ILA) that defines the responsibilities of the
respective entities for programming, operation, and maintenance of the Sorenson Unity Center. The facility is owned by
the City, and the City leads educational and community-based programming while the County leads recreational
programming. The City is responsible for utilities, security, and maintenance of the facility and t he County is responsible
for custodial services. Currently, all parties agree that it would be more efficient if the ILA is amended so that responsibi lity
for certain programming and custodial services be transferred from the County to the City. As such, t his is a revenue
neutral budget request that will rescope the Sorenson budget and facilitate an amendment to the ILA to modify terms
relating to child care programming and custodial responsibilities. If the budget rescope is approved, County and City staff
will finalize a draft amendment to the ILA and will coordinate an adoption process pursuant to state and city code.
Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract current budget $1,014,800, reduced by the FTE $901,002 – Note: this budget
will be used to pay both the County contract and for custodial services procured by Public Services. The split between the
two is currently unknown right now, but the total will not exceed this budget amount.
Senior Community Programs Manager FTE, grade E26: $113,798 fully loaded
A-7: Economic Development Project Manager
Position
GF $122,000.00
GF $3,000.00
IMS $3,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jolynn Walz
For questions, please include Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jacob Maxwell, Jolynn Walz
Since the creation of the Department of Economic Development (DED), the Division of Business Development has seen a
significant increase in program administration. This increase comes from the transfer of existing programs (i.e., the
Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) and Special Assessment Areas (SAAs)) and being charged with the creation of
new programs for the business community such as the Construction Mitigation Grant Pro gram and the Outdoor Dining
Grant Program.
Currently, DED manages the Special Assessment Area (SAA) in the Central Business Improvement District (Downtown
SAA) and is administering the creation of a second SAA in Sugarhouse. Phase 1 of the Sugarhouse SA A creation has
extended to almost two-years, and completion of the due diligence is expected to finalize in 2024. The second phase of the
Sugarhouse SAA will entail extensive administrative work required by state statute that governs the SAA process that
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
includes: the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of Equalization Appointment, a second public
hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor, contract award facilitation and ongoing
contract management.
In 2023, DED received a request from property owners in the Granary District to begin the due diligence investigatory
process to establish a third SAA. Salt Lake City Council has allocated funding for the consultant to conduct the due
diligence work for the Granary SAA. DED is charged with this initial phase that requires management of the consultant
(that provides the valuation numbers and tax scenarios) and due diligence reporting to the City Council.
In addition to the creation of two more SAAs, Sugarhouse and the Granary District, DED every three years is required to
manage the renewal of the Central Business Improvement District SAA (Downtown). The steps in renewal process are
similar to the process listed above to create an SAA (the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of
Equalization Appointment, a second public hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor,
contract award facilitation and ongoing contract management). Should additional areas be approved for assessment, and
the renewal of the contract for each SAA is every 3 to 5 years which is required by state statute; the demands of managing
the SAAs will require significant administration and full-time support.
In addition to the management of the Special Assessment Areas in the City, this position would support Salt Lake City’s
commercial corridors that host formal and informal business communities. The manager would work with the business
communities and corridors on outreach and engagement to create new districts while also providing ongoing support to
existing districts. Examples of these include the Midtown District, Granary District Alliance, River District Business
Alliance, and North Temple Community Improvement Group. To s upport these efforts, DED will partner with the RDA to
provide a community grants program that would make funds available to support emerging business districts and thus
increase their chance of success and long-term viability. This work would translate to more vibrant, active, and thriving
business districts/commercial corridors in Salt Lake City.
The impact of this position to further bolster Salt Lake City’s business and commercial corridors would benefit the City’s
residents and visitors while also contributing to the tax base. The Special Assessment Area is an important economic
development tool that can transform a neighborhood by bolstering business development, improving a commercial area’s
quality of life, and has proven to increase the commercial property values. As the City continues to grow, there will be
further opportunities and interest for various types of business district support. This will ultimately lead to more dynamic
neighborhoods and destinations for residents and visitors to enjoy.
A-8: SAA Funds to the Downtown Alliance Spec Assessment $664,293.70
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson
Remaining cash balances in previous SAAs which are now being remitted back to the Downtown Alliance.
A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expeses GF $6,500.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Sandee Moore / Tracy Patillo
For questions, please include Sandee Moore and Tracy Patillo
The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your
Neighbor Program.
During the FY24 Budget Development and Budget Presentations, the Know Your Neighbor Program was presented to the
City Council with the total required expenses. Ho wever, the expenses were inadvertently not recognized on the FY24
presented Key Changes.
A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses GF $55,750.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Sandee Moore / Tracy Patillo
For questions, please include Sandee Moore and Tracy Patillo
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Love Your Block
Program.
During the FY24 Budget Development and Budget Presentations, the Love Your Block Program was presented to the City
Council with the total required expenses. However, the expenses were inadvertently not recognized on the FY24 presented
Key Changes.
A-11: Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY 2023-
2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-
Represented Employees
NA No Budgetary Impact
Department: Human Resources Prepared By: David Salazar / Jonathan
Pappasideris
For question, please include David Salazar and Jonathan Pappasideris
The ordinance is attached to the transmittal. Further details on the reasons for the change are listed below.
- Revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay
Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees
eligible to receive Snowfighter Pay. (NOTE: In the original redlined copy of the Plan transmitted to City
Council, comments alerted city council the specific amounts included in these subsections would be matched and
added after the new rates negotiated and adopted in th e new AFSCME MOU were known.)
- Revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours,
Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) - Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for
AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Meal Allowance. (NOTE: In the original redlined copy of the Plan
transmitted to City Council, comments alerted city council the specific amounts included in these subsections
would be matched and added after the new rates negotiated and adopted in the new AFSCME MOU were known.)
- Revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) - New rates
indicated correct rounding errors discovered in calculation of range minimums, midpoints, and maximums f or
salaried employees. Corrected rates match pay range information loaded for salaried employees in Workday
without fiscal impact.
- Revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) - Corrects pay levels shown for certain
job titles to match those included in the Plan originally transmitted to City Council. The latest copy of the
Appointed Pay Plan transmitted to city council intended only to show addition of the new Safety & Security
Director for Public Services, but inadvertently included incorrect pay level changes for Justice Court Judges and
Justice Court Administrator.
- Revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2022 -2023”) – Specific edits include
adjustments to employer contributions required for employees covered under the Tier 1 – Firefighter Retirement
System. Notice of these changes was not received from URS until after this Plan was originally transmitted to City
Council.
These changes will impact the Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay
specifically and will also make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of the changes will have
impacts generally throughout the City.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Emergency Demolition Fund Reset Special Rev $65,472.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For questions, please include Clint Rasmussen
This request is to reset the 'Emergency Demolition Fund' back to its orig inal budget of $200,000 The fund has been
working as intended and paid for the demolition of homes affected by fire on Major Street. The property owner has
reimbursed the city for the cost of demolition.
D-2: 300 N Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Pass-
through CIP $500,000.00
Department: Public Services-Engineering Prepared By: JP Goates / Josh Willie
For question, please include JP Goates, Josh Willie Jorge Chamorro
Engineering is ready to bill Union Pacific for their agreed upon contribution of $500,000 towards the 300 N pedestrian
bridge project. Under the terms of the agreement, this contribution will be paid to the City.
Since this contribution was accounted for as a funding source for the project, this budget amendment records the incoming
revenue from the Union Pacific's contribution and records the expense as the funds will be used as payment to the
contractor.
D-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
D-4: RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Miscellaneous
Grants Misc Grants $6,400,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson
Funding was transferred to the RDA but is now being returned to Misc Grants to better track according to federal
guidelines.
D-5: General Obligation Series 2023 Bonds CIP $24,885,893.25
Department: Finance-Treasurer Prepared By: Gaby Ewell / Marina Scott
For questions, please include Gaby Ewell, Marina Scott and Samantha Kenney
In November 2022, voters authorized the issuance of up to $85 million in general obligation bonds to fund eight Parks,
Trails and Open Space projects. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023 were sold in August 2023 as the first issuance
of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure
budget to pay for renovation of the park projects associated with the bonds.
There will be eleven project funds in Cost Center 10508 to which bond proceeds will be allocated.
• One allocation will be $9,000,0000 for the Glendale Regional Park (1200 West 1700 South) project.
• The second allocation will be $2,000,000 for Liberty Park Playground (600 East 900 South) project.
• The third allocation will be $850,000 for Allen Park (1900 South).
• The fourth allocation will be $5,000,000 for Folsom Trail Conpletion & Landscaping projects.
• The fifth will be $600,000 for the Fleet Block Park project.
• The sixth allocation will be $500,000 for the Fairmont Park (1040 East Sugarmont Drive ) project.
• The seventh allocation will be $1,050,000 for Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trail, or Open Spaces (various
locations) projects.
• The eighth allocation will be $600,000 for the Jordan River Corridor (various locations) project.
• There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Contingencies/Program Management that will be allocated $3,332,000.
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
• There will also be a unique Fund for Art Allowance that will be allocated $294,000.
• There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Salaries, Benefits and Operational costs for 3 FTE's for 3 years. This
allocation will receive $1,434,000 that is slated to be reimbursed to the general fund. These reimbursements will
be according to tracking of permitted expenses.
• Finally, there will an allocation for the bond's cost of issuance. This allocation will receive $225,893.25.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial
Capability
Misc Grants $1,229,681.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
For question, please include Amy Dorsey
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self-
sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF
program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026.
The Administration is requesting that the Council conduct a straw poll due to impending
reimbursement deadlines.
E-2: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth
Development
Misc Grants $1,391,672.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
For question, please include Amy Dorsey
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self-
sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF
program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026.
The Administration is requesting that the Council conduct a straw poll due to impending
reimbursement deadlines.
E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 Misc Grants $3,107,201.00
Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Michelle Hoon
For question, please include Amy Dorsey and Michelle Hoon
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $3,107,201 for the
purpose of deferring costs associated with having an eligible homeless shelter within the City. This is a formula grant the
City was not required to apply, but was awarded by the State.
This grant requires no match and would require three new positions in the Police Department, one new position in CAN
(that would be half funded by the grant) and one new position in the Justice Court.
E-4: Marathon Community Investment Fire
Department
Misc Grants $5,000.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
For questions, please include Amy Dorsey, Clint Rasmussen
This grant will be used to pay for materials needed for the Fire Department's swift water rescue program. No FTE's are
associated with this grant.
E-5: Utah Department of Health & Human Services –
EMS Grant
Misc Grants $8,014.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
For questions, please include Amy Dorsey
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $8014 for the purpose
of reimbursements for expenditures related to the provision of Emergency Medical Services. No new FTEs.
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
9
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air
Roadmap
Misc Grants $1,000,000.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $1,000,000 for the
purpose of developing a comprehensive, economy-wide climate mitigation plan or update an existing plan in collaboration
with air pollution control districts, large and small municipalitie s statewide and tribal governments that will support
actions to reduce greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants and to conduct meaningful engagement with low income
and disadvantaged communities.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees to pay for 100% of all approved budget period costs incurred up to
the $1,000,000 award.
1 New FTE: Four years of salary and fringe benefits for one FTE. The position would be responsible for facilitating the
sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating
stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and milestone achievement.
Public Hearing was held on July 11,2023
G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry
Fire and State Lands
Misc Grants $50,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands a
$50,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from
the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required.
G-3: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry
Fire and State Lands
Misc Grants $150,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands a
$150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from
the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required.
G-4: State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation Misc Grants $150,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
The Division of Outdoor Recreation is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational
hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No
match is required.
G-5: Backman Community Open Space Misc Grants $200,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
Salt Lake City's (City) Department of Public Lands will improve the open space adjacent to Backman Elementary. The
design will likely include intentional landscaping and safety improvements, multiple nature playground amenities,
watchable wildlife areas, an outdoor gathering area and permaculture garden and/or similar amenities. This open space
area is covered with thick, invasive vegetation and remains virtually unused by the surrounding community. The current
conditions create safety concerns for families whose children use the existing trail and bridge to walk to school. An analysis
by the University of Utah of census block data shows that this natural area could provide children and their families greater
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
10
access to nature than any other single natural open space in the city, making the site an unprecedented public asset for
hundreds of local children and families in the City's Rose Park neighborhood and users of the Jordan River Parkway by
improving a blighted section of the trail. 50% match is required.
Public hearing was held on May 16,2023.
G-6: Utah Department of Health & Human Services Misc Grants $8,014.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
Utah Department of Health and Human Services is awarding the Salt Lake City Fire Department $8,014 for FY24. The
purpose of this grant is to award the annual EMS Per Capita grant funds. No match is required.
G-7: Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants $92,846.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office was awarded $92,846 for a two-year grant to pay partial salary for a victim advocate.
This grant does not require any new positions as the victim advocate was partially paid for the last two years by a previous
VOCA award.
Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023.
The other portion of the Victim Advocate's salary will be used to satisfy the 25% match.
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees - Summary Confidential
Data pulled 07/20/2023
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D
24,774,312$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$
202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$
202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$
202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$
202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$
202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$
202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$
202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$
Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
FY
2
0
2
4
FY
2
0
2
5
FY
2
0
2
6
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Police Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
A
Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Fire Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Fire Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Fire Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fire Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00
IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B
IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$
Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00
Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Parks Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$
Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$
RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$
FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$
900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$
Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ 678$ 299,322$
Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$
Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$
Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$
RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$
Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$
Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$
Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$
Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$
Streets Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Street Allocation YTD
Expenditures
Sum of Street Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$
500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 11,746$ 29,734$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$
200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$
700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$
1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$
Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$
Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8484002
24,774,312$
8484003
8484005
16,793,487$
6,304,485$
$273,684
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
8484001
1,402,656$
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(Amending the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees)
An ordinance amending the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-
Represented Employees.
PREAMBLE
The City Council, in Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29B of 2023, approved the FY 2023-
2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City
Corporation. However, the City Council, in order to meet the operational needs of Salt Lake City
Corporation, wishes to amend the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-
Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation by:
i) revising Subsection II (“Employee Compensation for Fiscal Year
2023”) of Section II (“Employee Wages, Salaries & Benefits”) to
increase employee base pay and elected official salaries by an
additional half-percent;
ii) revising Subsection IV(B)(2) (“Wage Differentials & Additional
Pay; Standby Pay; Standby for Police Sergeants”) of Section III
(“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) to reduce the
amount of straight time compensation from two hours per twelve-
hour period to thirty (30) minutes per twelve-hour period;
iii) revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III
(“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) to provide a
pay differential equal to fifteen percent of an eligible employee’s
regular weekly base pay;
iv) revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal
Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay
Allowances”) to increase the meal allowance amount from $10.00
to $15.00;
v) removing Subsection I(E) (“Holidays; Holiday Exceptions”) of
Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”);
2
vi) revising Subsection III(B) (“Sick and Other Related Leave or
Personal Leave; Plan ‘B’”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation &
Leave Accrual”) to provide that eligible employees shall receive
personal leave hours on November 1 of each calendar year and
clarify how such hours may be used and converted;
vii) revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General
Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) to reflect the correct pay rates and
rectify rounding error;
viii) revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) to
reflect changes to certain job titles and grades and to add the new
appointed position of “Safety & Security Director” in the Public
Services Department;
ix) revising Appendix C (“Elected Officials Salary Schedule”) to
reflect the correct annual salary amount;
x) revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY
2022-2023”) to reflect required changes; and
xi) making other technical and conforming changes.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to approve the attached
amended FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt
Lake City Corporation. Three copies of the attached amended FY 2023-2024 Annual
Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation shall be
maintained in the City Recorder’s Office for public inspection.
SECTION 2. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. Subsection II (“Employee
Compensation for Fiscal Year 2023”) of Section II (“Employee Wages, Salaries & Benefits”) is
hereby amended to increase employee base pay and elected official salaries by an additional half-
percent.
SECTION 3. STANDBY PAY FOR POLICE SERGEANTS. Subsection IV(B)(2)
(“Wage Differentials & Additional Pay; Standby Pay; Standby for Police Sergeants”) of Section
3
III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby amended to reduce the amount
of straight time compensation from two hours per twelve-hour period to thirty (30) minutes per
twelve-hour period.
SECTION 4. SNOWFIGHTER PAY. Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section
III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby amended to provide a pay
differential equal to fifteen percent of an eligible employee’s regular weekly base pay.
SECTION 5. MEAL ALLOWANCE. Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal
Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby
amended to increase the meal allowance amount from $10.00 to $15.00.
SECTION 6. HOLIDAY EXCEPTIONS. Subsection I(E) (“Holidays; Holiday
Exceptions”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”) is hereby removed.
SECTION 7. PLAN “B.” Subsection III(B) (“Sick and Other Related Leave or Personal
Leave; Plan ‘B’”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”) is hereby amended to
provide that eligible employees shall receive personal leave hours on November 1 of each
calendar year and clarify how such hours may be used and converted.
SECTION 8. GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN. Appendix A (“Salt Lake City
Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) is hereby amended to reflect the correct pay
rates and rectify rounding error.
SECTION 9. APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT. Appendix B
(“Appointed Employees by Department”) is hereby amended to reflect changes to certain job
titles and grades and to add the new appointed position of “Safety & Security Director” in the
Public Services Department.
4
SECTION 10. ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARY SCHEDULE. Appendix C (“Elected
Officials Salary Schedule”) is hereby amended to reflect the correct annual salary amount.
SECTION 11. UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. Appendix D (“Utah
State Retirement Contributions FY 2022-2023”) is hereby amended to reflect required changes.
SECTION 12. OTHER REVISIONS. The FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan
for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation is hereby amended to reflect
other technical and conforming changes.
SECTION 13. APPLICATION. The attached amended FY 2023-2024 Annual
Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation shall not
apply to non-represented employees of Salt Lake City Corporation whose employment
terminated prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________,
2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _____Approved. _____Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
5
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _____ of 2023.
Published: ____________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved as to Form
Date: _______________
By: ____________________
Jonathan Pappasideris
Division Chief
Senior City Attorney
August 29, 2023
Jonathan Pappasideris
ANNUAL COMPENSATON PLAN
FOR NON-REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES
FY2023-2024
i
FY 2024 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Table of Contents
EFFECTIVE DATE ....................................................................................................................................... 1
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN ................................................................................................ 1
AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR ................................................................................................................. 1
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS .................................................................................................................... 1
MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF PROVISIONS ........................................... 1
SECTION I: DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 2
SUBSECTION I - DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................. 2
SECTION II: EMPLOYEE WAGES, SALARIES & BENEFITS ............................................................ 2
SUBSECTION I - COMPENSATION PROGRAM & SALARY SCHEDULES ....................................... 2
A. Determination ................................................................................................................................... 2
B. Salary Schedules ............................................................................................................................... 2
C. Other Compensation ......................................................................................................................... 3
SUBSECTION II - EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 ..................................... 3
SUBSECTION III - EMPLOYEE INSURANCE ........................................................................................ 3
SUBSECTION IV - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ................................................................................ 3
SUBSECTION V - SOCIAL SECURITY EXCEPTION FOR POLICE & FIRE ....................................... 4
SUBSECTION VI - RETIREMENT ............................................................................................................ 4
SECTION III: WORK HOURS, OVERTIME & OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES ................................. 4
SUBSECTION I – WORK HOURS ............................................................................................................. 4
SUBSECTION II- OVERTIME COMPENSATION ................................................................................... 4
SUBSECTION III - LONGEVITY PAY ..................................................................................................... 5
SUBSECTION IV - WAGE DIFFERENTIALS & ADDITIONAL PAY ................................................... 6
SUBSECTION V - EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY ........................................................................ 9
SUBSECTION VI – OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES .................................................................................. 9
SUBSECTION VII - SEVERANCE BENEFIT ......................................................................................... 11
SECTION IV: HOLIDAY, VACATION & LEAVE ACCRUAL ............................................................ 13
SUBSECTION I – HOLIDAYS ................................................................................................................. 13
SUBSECTION II - VACATION LEAVE .................................................................................................. 14
SUBSECTION III - SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE ....................... 17
A. Plan “A ” ............................................................................................................................................ 17
1. Sick Leave .......................................................................................................................................... 17
ii
2. Hospitalization Leave ......................................................................................................................... 19
3. Dependent Leave ................................................................................................................................ 20
4. Career Incentive Leave, Plan “A” ........................................................................................................... 21
5. Retirement Benefit, Plan “A” ................................................................................................................. 21
B. Plan “B” .................................................................................................................................................. 21
SUBSECTION IV - PARENTAL LEAVE ................................................................................................ 24
SUBSECTION V - BEREAVEMENT LEAVE ......................................................................................... 25
SUBSECTION VI - MILITARY LEAVE .................................................................................................. 26
SUBSECTION VII - JURY LEAVE & COURT APPEARANCES .......................................................... 26
SUBSECTION VIII - INJURY LEAVE (SWORN POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES ONLY)............ 27
SUBSECTION IX - ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE ................................................................. 28
SUBSECTION X - EMERGENCY LEAVE .............................................................................................. 28
APPENDIX A – GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN (GEPP) ............................................................. 29
APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT ....................................................... 31
APPENDIX C – ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE .......................................................... 34
APPENDIX D- UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2021-2022 ............................. 35
DISCLAIMER
City employment is subject to City ordinances, policies, practices and
procedures as well as state law, federal law, and constitutional limitations on
the City as a governmental entity. The policies, procedures, and practices of
the City and its departments and workgroups do not limit, affect, or alter any
legal or constitutional rights the City or its employees may have.
The City’s policies, procedures, and practices do not create any contractual
rights, either express or implied, or any other obligation or liability on the
City. The City also expressly reserves the right to amend or change its
policies, procedures, and practices at any time, with or without notice, and to
amend or change its ordinances, with the notice required by law.
1
FY 2024 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES
of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this plan shall be effective commencing June 25, 2023, unless otherwise noted.
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN
This plan applies to all full -time city employees. This plan does not apply to employees classified
as: seasonal, hourly, temporary, part-time or those covered by a memorandum of understanding.
AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR
Employees covered by this compensation plan may be appointed, classified, and advanced under
rules and regulations promulgated by the mayor within budget limitations established by the city
council.
Furthermore, the mayor may authorize leave not specified in this compensation plan to provide
for operational flexibility, so long as the additional leave does not exceed the equivalent of eight
hours of leave per employee, per year. However, with the exception of a benefit created or
expanded pursuant to Section IV, Subsection X (“Emergency Leave”), the mayor may not
otherwise create a new benefit or expand an existing benefit for employees covered by this
compensation plan if doing so will result in a direct, measurable cost. A direct, measurable cost
includes a circumstance where the total cost of the new benefit or expansion of an existing benefit
exceeds appropriated funds. Further, city council input and approval is required if the creation of
a new benefit has policy implications or is already addressed in this compensation plan.
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
All provisions in this compensation plan are subject to the appropriation of funds by the city
council.
MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF PROVISIONS
If a local emergency is declared, any provision in this compensation plan may be temporarily
modified, suspended, or revoked for the duration (or any portion thereof) of the period of local
emergency, if so authorized by the mayor and/or city council .
2
SECTION I: DEFINITIONS
SECTION II: EMPLOYEE WAGES, SALARIES & BENEFITS
SUBSECTION I - COMPENSATION PROGRAM & SALARY SCHEDULES
The city’s compensation system and program, in conjunction with this plan, is intended to
attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel necessary to effectively meet public service
demands.
A. Determination
1. The mayor shall develop policies and guidelines for the administration of the
pay plans.
2. To the degree that funds permit, employees shall be paid compensation that:
a. Is commensurate with the skills and abilities required of the position;
b. Achieves equal pay for equal work;
c. Attains comparability and is competitive with the compensation paid
by other public and/or private employers with whom the city compares
and/or competes for personnel recruitment and retention.
3. To the extent possible, market surveys shall be used to assess and evaluate the
city’s competitiveness with a cross section of organizations with whom the city
competes for personnel recruitment and retention. This may include one or more of
the following:
a. Compensation surveys, including actual pay and other cash
allowances paid to employees.
b. Benefits surveys, including paid leave, group insurance plans,
retirement, and other employer-provided and voluntary benefits.
c. Regular review of the city’s compensation plans and pay structures to
ensure salary ranges and regular pay practices provide for job growth and
encourage employee productivity.
B. Salary Schedules
1. All Employees covered under this plan (except for those designated as
“Elected Officials”) shall be paid base wages or salaries according to the General
Employee Pay Plan attached as Appendix “A.” Wages and salaries shall not be less
than the established range minimum or higher than the range maximum, unless
otherwise approved by the mayor or mayor’s designee.
3
2. Appointed Employees: The specific pay level assignments for Appointed
Employees are shown in Appendix “B.”
3. Elected Officials: Elected officials shall be paid annual compensation according
to schedule attached as Appendix "C."
C. Other Compensation
The mayor or the city council may distribute appropriated monies to city employees as
discretionary retention incentives or retirement contributions, or special lump sum
supplemental payments. Retention incentives or special lump sum payments are subject
to the mayor’s or city council’s approval.
SUBSECTION II - EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024
For employees covered under this plan, the city will increase each employee’s base pay by five
percent. Salaries for elected officials will, also, be increased by five percent.
The city’s living wage for regular, full-time employees is set and shall be no less than $15.11 per
hour.
SUBSECTION III - EMPLOYEE INSURANCE
The city will make available group medical, health and flex savings plans, dental, life, accidental
death & dismemberment, long-term disability insurance, voluntary benefits and an employee
assistance program (EAP) to all eligible employees and their eligible spouse, adult designee,
dependents and dependents of adult designee pursuant to city policy.
A. Employer-Paid Contributions. Effective July 1, 2023, the city’s contribution toward
the total premium for group medical will be 95% for the high -deductible Summit Star
Plan. For employees enrolled in the high-deductible Summit Star Plan, the city will also
contribute a one-time total of $750 into a qualified health savings account (HSA) or a
Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) for those enrolled for single coverage and
$1,500 for those enrolled for double or family coverage per plan year. Health savings
account or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) contributions will be pro-rated for
any employee hired after July 1, 2023.
B. 501(c) (9) Post-Employment Health Reimbursement Account. The city will
contribute $24.30 per bi-weekly pay period into each employee’s Post Employment
Health Reimbursement Account. For any year in which there are 27 pay periods, no
such contribution will be made in the 27th pay period.
SUBSECTION IV - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
The city will provide workers’ compensation coverage to employees as required by applicable
law.
4
SUBSECTION V - SOCIAL SECURITY EXCEPTION FOR POLICE & FIRE
All sworn employees in the Police and Fire departments covered under this plan are exempt from the
provisions of the federal Social Security System unless determined otherwise by the city or
required by applicable law.
SUBSECTION VI - RETIREMENT
A. Retirement Programs. The city hereby adopts the Utah State Retirement System for
providing retirement benefits to employees covered by the plan. The city may permit or
require the participation of employees in its retirement program(s) under terms and
conditions established by the mayor and consistent with applicable law. Such programs
may include:
1. The Utah State Public Employees (Contributory and Non-Contributory);
Public Safety Retirement Systems; or, the Utah Firefighters Retirement System; or,
2. Deferred compensation programs.
B. The 2023-2024 fiscal year retirement contribution rates for employees, including
elected officials, are shown in Appendix “D.”
SECTION III: WORK HOURS, OVERTIME & OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES
SUBSECTION I – WORK HOURS
A. The city’s standard work week begins Sunday at 12:00am and ends the following
Saturday at 11:59pm. Alternatives to the standard work week may be authorized and
adopted for specific work groups, such as:
1. The standard work schedule for combat Fire Battalion Chiefs, which
includes two consecutive 24-hour shifts immediately followed by 96 hours off.
SUBSECTION II- OVERTIME COMPENSATION
A. Overtime Compensation. The city will pay non-exempt employees overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA. The city will pay overtime hours at 1 ½ times
the employee’s regular hourly rate or, at the employee’s request and with their
department director’s approval, provide compensatory time off at a rate of 1½ hours for
each overtime hour in lieu of overtime compensation.
1. Employees may accrue compensatory time up to a maximum amount as
determined by their department director.
5
2. The city may elect at any time to pay an employee for any or all accrued
compensatory hours.
3. The city will includ e only actual hours worked and holiday leave hours when
calculating overtime.
4. When used, personal leave and compensatory time will not be included in
the calculation of overtime.
5. The city will pay out all accrued compensatory hours whenever an
employee’s status or position changes from FLSA non-exempt to exempt.
B. Labor Costs— Declared Emergency— Overtime Compensation for FLSA Exempt
Employees. The city may pay exempt employees overtime pay for any hours worked
over forty (40) hours in a workweek at a rate equivalent to their regular base hourly rate
of pay during periods of emergency. The city shall only make such payment when all of
the following conditions occur:
1. The mayor or the city council has issued a “Proclamation of Local Emergency”
or the city responds to an extraordinary emergency; and,
2. Exempt employees are required to work over forty (40) hours for one or more
workweek(s) during the emergency period: and,
3. The mayor and/or the city council approve the use of available funds to cover
the overtime payments.
The city shall distribute any overtime payments consistently with a pre-defined standard
that treats all exempt employees equitably. Hours worked under a declared or
extraordinary emergency must be paid hours and cannot be accrued as compensatory
time.
SUBSECTION III - LONGEVITY PAY
A. Eligibility. With the exception of elected officials, the city will pay a monthly
longevity benefit to full-time employees based on the most recent date an employee
began full -time employment as follows:
1. Employees who have completed six (6) consecutive years of employment with
the city will receive $50;
2. Employees who have completed ten (10) consecutive years of employment with
the city will receive $75;
3. Employees who have completed sixteen (16) full years of employment wit h the
city will receive $100; and,
6
4. Employees who have completed twenty (20) full years of employment with the
city will receive $125.
B. Pension Base Pay. Longevity pay will be included in base pay for purposes of
pension contributions.
C. Longevity While on an Unpaid Leave of Absence. Employees do not earn or receive
longevity payments while on an unpaid leave of absence. When an employee returns
from an approved unpaid leave of absence, longevity payments will resume.
SUBSECTION IV - WAGE DIFFERENTIALS & ADDITIONAL PAY
Eligible employees receive certain wage differentials as follows:
A. Call Back and Call Out Pay. Non-exempt employees will be paid Call Back or Call
Out pay based upon department director approval and the following guidelines:
1. Call Back Pay: Non-sworn, non-exempt employees who have been released
from normally scheduled work and standby periods, and who are directed by an
appropriate department head or designated representative to return to work prior to
their next scheduled normal duty shift, will be paid for a minimum of three (3)
hours straight-time pay and, in addition, will be guaranteed a minimum four (4)
hours work at straight-time pay.
2. Call Out Pay for Police Sergeants. Sergeants who have been released from their
scheduled work shifts and have been directed by an appropriate division head or
designated representative to perform work without at least 24 hours advance notice
or scheduling, shall be compensated as follows:
a. Sergeants who are directed to report to work shall receive a minimum of
four (4) hours compensation at one and one -half times their hourly wage
rate, or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours
worked, whichever is greater.
b. Sergeants who are assigned to day shift, and who are directed to perform
work within eight (8) hours prior to the beginning of their regularly
scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours compensation at
one and one-half times their hourly wage rate, or one and one-half times
their hourly wage rate for actual hours worked, whichever is greater.
c. Sergeants who are assigned to afternoon or graveyard shifts, and who are
directed to perform work within eight (8) hours following the end of their
regularly scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours
compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate, or one and
one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual
hours worked, whichever is greater.
7
B. Standby Pay : Non-exempt employees are eligible to receive Standby pay based
upon the following guidelines.
1. Standby for Non-Sworn Employees: Non-exempt, non-sworn employees
who have been released from normally scheduled work but have not been released
from standby status will be paid either two (2) hours of straight time pay for each 24
hour period of limited standby status; or two (2) hours straight time pay for each 12-
hour period of standby status if they are Department of Airports or Public Utilities
Department employees.
a. First Call to Work. An eligible employee who is directed to return to his
or her normal work site during an assigned Standby period by a department
head or designated representative without advanced notice or scheduling will
be paid a guaranteed minimum of four (4) hours, which may include any
combination of hours worked and/or non-worked straight-time pay.
b. Additional Calls to Work. An eligible employee will be paid an
additional guaranteed minimum of two (2) hours, which may include any
combination of hours worked and/or non-worked straight-time pay, for each
additional occasion he or she is called to work during the same twenty-four
(24) or twelve (12) hour standby period.
c. Exclusion for Snow Fighters. Any employee on standby as a member of
the Snow Fighter Corps shall not receive standby/on-call pay or shift
differential when on standby or called back to fight snow.
2. Standby for Police Sergeants: Police Sergeants directed by their division
commander or designee to keep themselves available for city service during
otherwise off-duty hours shall be compensated 30 minutes of straight time for each
12-hour period of standby status. This compensation shall be in addition to any
callout pay or pay for time worked the employee may receive during the standby
period.
C. Extra-Duty Shifts for Police Sergeants. "Extra-duty shifts" are defined as scheduled
or unscheduled hours worked other than the sergeant's normally scheduled work shifts.
"Extra-duty shifts" do not include extension or carry over of the sergeant's normally
scheduled work shift.
1. Any sergeant required by the city to work extra-duty shifts shall receive a
minimum of three (3) hours compensation at one and one -half times their regular
base hourly rate, or time worked paid at one and one-half times their regular hourly
base wage rate, whichever is greater.
D. Shift Allowance, not including Police Sergeants & Lieutenants. Only non- exempt
employees who perform afternoon/ swing or evening shift work are eligible to receive a
shift allowance.
8
1. The city will include all shift allowance when computing overtime. An
employee who receives Snow Fighter Corps differential pay is not eligible to also
receive shift allowance.
2. Day Shift: No allowance will be paid for work hours which are part of a regular
day shift.
3. Eligible Hours: For each non-day shift hour worked between the hours of 6:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the city will pay an eligible non-exempt employee a differential
of $1.00 per hour.
E. Shift Differential for Police Sergeants & Lieutenants: The city will pay Police
sergeants & lieutenants shift differentials according to the shift actually worked. Actual
shift differential rates are determined as follows:
1. Day Shift: No differential pay for hours worked during day shift, which begins
at 0500 hours until 1159 hours.
2. Swing Shift: A differential of 2.5% in addition to the regular day rate shall be
paid for swing shift, which begins at 1200 hours until 1759 hours.
3. Graveyard Shift: A differential of 5.0% in addition to the regular day rate shall
be paid for graveyard shift, which begins at 1800 hours until 0459 hours.
F. K-9 Squad Allowance: Police sergeants assigned to the K-9 squad will be
compensated as follows:
1. Police sergeants shall be allowed ten (10) hours per month to care for the
police service dog. Such hours shall be counted as part of the Police sergeant's
regular work shift(s).
2. Police sergeants shall be provided ten (10) hours per month while off duty,
at the rate of one-and-one-half (1 ½) times their wage rate, to care for the police
service dog. No more than ten (10) hours per month shall be spent off duty to
care for the police service dog unless authorized by the Police Chief or designee.
G. Acting/Working out of Classification. A department head may elect to grant
additional compensation to an employee for work performed on a temporary basis,
whether in an acting capacity or otherwise, beyond the employee’s regular job
classification for any period lasting 20 or more working days. Unless approved by the
mayor or mayor’s designee, acting pay shall be limited to no more than 90 calendar days
from the start date and paid separately from regular earnings on each employee’s wage
statement. Compensation adjustments may be retroactive to the start date of the
temporary job assignmen t. Exceptions may be approved by the mayor or mayor’s
designee.
1. Acting pay shall be excluded when calculating any leave payouts, including
vacation, holiday, and personal leave.
9
H. Snowfighter Pay. The city will pay employees designated by the department head,
or designee, as members of the Snow Fighter Corps a pay differential equal to 15% of
an eligible employee’s regular weekly base pay for work related to snow removal. This
pay shall be separate from regular earnings on each employee’s wage statement.
SUBSECTION V - EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY
A. Education Incentives. The mayor may adopt programs to promote employee
education and training, provided that all compensation incentives are authorized within
appropriate budget limitations established by the city council.
1. Police Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains are eligible for a $500 per year job-
related training allowance.
2. Fire Battalion/Division Chiefs are eligible for incentive pay following
completion of degree requirements at a fully accredited college or university and
submission of evidence of a diploma. The city will pay monthly allowances
according to the educational degree held, as follows:
Doctorate………….. $100.00
Masters………..…... $75.00
SUBSECTION VI – OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES
A. Meal Allowance. When approved by management, employees may receive meal
allowances in the amount of $15.00 when an employee works two or more hours
consecutive to their normally scheduled shift. Employees may also be eligible to
receive $15.00 for each additional four-hour consecutive period of work which is in
addition to the normally scheduled work shift.
1. Fire and police department employees shall be provided with adequate food
and drink to maintain safety and performance during emergencies or extraordinary
circumstances.
B. Business Expenses. City policy shall govern the authorization of employee
advancement or reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred while
performing city business. Advance payment or reimbursement for expenses shall be
approved only when the amounts are documen ted and within the budget limitations
established by the city council.
C. Automobiles
1. The mayor may authorize, subject to the conditions provided in city policy, an
employee to utilize a city vehicle on a take-home basis and may require an
employee to reimburse the city for a portion of the take -home vehicle cost as
provided in city ordinance.
10
2. Employees who are authorized to use privately-owned automobiles for
official city business will be reimbursed for the operation expenses at the rate
specif ied in city policy.
3. The city will provide a car allowance to department directors, the mayor’s
chief of staff, the mayor’s chief administrative officer, up to three additional employees
in the mayor’s office, and the city council Executive Director at a rate not to exceed
$400 per month. A car allowance may be paid to specific appointed employees at a
rate not to exceed $400 per month as recommended by the mayor and approved by
the city council.
D. Uniform Allowance. The city will provide employees who are required to wear
uniforms in the performance of their duties a monthly uniform allowance as follows:
1. Non-sworn Police and Fire Department employees—$65.00
2. Watershed Management Division employees—$65.00
3. Fire: Battalion Chiefs will be provided with uniforms and other job -related
safety equipment, as needed. Employees may select uniforms and related
equipment from an approved list. The total allowance provided shall be $600 per
year, or the amount received by firefighter employees, whichever is greater.
Appointed employees shall be provided uniforms or uniform allowances to the
extent stated in Fire department policy.
a. Dangerous or contaminated safety equipment shall be cleaned,
repaired, or replaced by the Fire department.
4. Police: Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in uniform assignments,
as determined by their bureau commander, will be enrolled in the department’s
quartermaster system.
a. The quartermaster system will operate as follows:
i. Necessary uniform and equipment items, including patrol uniforms,
detective uniforms, duty gear, footwear, cold- weather gear, headwear,
etc. will be provided to Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains by the
department’s quartermaster pursuant to department policy.
ii. A full inventory of items that the quartermaster will provide to Police
sergeants, lieutenants and captains within the quartermaster system and
the manner in which they will be distributed will be stated in department
policy.
iii. Police sergeants, lieutenants and captains in the quartermaster system
will be paid the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100) each fiscal year for
the purpose of independently purchasing any incidental uniform item or
11
equipment not provided by the quartermaster system. Payment will be
made each year on the first day of the pay-period that includes August
15.
b. The city will provide for the cleaning of uniforms as described in Police
department policy.
c. Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in plainclothes assignments,
as determined by their bureau commander, are provided a clothing and
cleaning allowance totaling $39.00 per pay period. Sergeants, lieutenants,
and captains who are transferred back to a uniform assignment will return to
the quartermaster system upon transfer.
d. Uniforms or uniform allowances for appointed Police employees will be
provided to the extent stated in Police department policy.
E. Allowances for Certified Golf Teaching Professionals. The mayor may, within
budgeted appropriations and as business needs indicate, authorize golf lesson revenue
sharing between the city and employees recognized as Certified Golf Teaching
Professionals as defined in the Golf Division’s Golf Lesson Revenue Policy. Payment
to an employee for lesson revenue generated shall be reduced by: 1) a ten (10%) percent
administrative fee to be retained by the Golf division, and 2) the employee’s payroll tax
withholding requirements in accordance with applicable law.
F. Other Allowances. The mayor or the city council may, within budgeted
appropriations, authorize the payment of other allowances in extraordinary
circumstances (as determined by the mayor or the city council).
SUBSECTION VII - SEVERANCE BENEFIT
Subject to availability of funds, any current appointed employee who is not retained, not
terminated for cause and who is separated from city employment involuntarily shall receive
severance benefits based upon their respective appointment date.
A. Severance benefits shall be calculated using the employee’s salary rate in effect on
the employee’s date of termination. Receipt of severance benefits is contingent upon
execution of a release of all claims approved by the city attorney’s office.
1. Employees appointed on or after January 1, 1989 and before January 1, 2000
shall receive a severance benefit equal to one months’ base salary for each
continuous year of city employment in an appointed status before January 1, 2000.
Severance shall be calculat ed on a pro-rata basis for a total benefit of up to a
maximum of six m onths.
2. Current department heads, along with the mayor’s chief of staff and the
executive director of the city council office, appointed on or after January 1, 2000
shall receive a severance benefit equal to two month’s base salary after one full year
of continuous city employment in an appointed status; four months’ base salary
12
after two full years of continuous city employment in an appointed status; or, six
months’ base salary after three full years or more of continuous city employment in
an appointed status.
3. Current appointed employees who are not department heads, and who were
appointed on or after January 1, 2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to one
week’s base salary for each year of continuous city employment in an appointed
status, calculated on a pro-rata basis, for a total benefit of up to a maximum of six
weeks.
B. Leave Payout: Appointed employees with leave hour account balances under Plan A
or Plan B shall, in addition to the severance benefit provided, receive a severance
benefit equal to the “retirement benefit” value provided under the leave plan of which
they are a participant (either Plan A or Plan B), if separation is involuntary and not for
cause.
C. Not Eligible for Benefit. An appointed employee is ineligible to be paid severance
benefits under the following circumstances:
1. An employee who, at the time of termination of employment, has been
convicted, indicted, charged or is under active criminal investigation concerning a
public offense involving a felony or moral turpitude. This provision shall not
restrict the award of full severance benefits should such employee subsequently be
found not guilty of such charge or if the charges are otherwise dismissed.
2. An employee who has been terminated or asked for a resignation by the
mayor or department director under bona fide charges of nonfeasance, misfeasance
or malfeasance in office.
3. An employee who fails to execute a Release of All Claims approved by the
city attorney’s office, where required as stipulated above.
4. An employee who is hired into another position in the city prior to their
separation date.
In the event an employee is hired into another position in the city after their
separation date and prior to the expiration of the period of time for which the
severance benefit was provided, the employee is required to reimburse the City (on
a pro-rata basis) for that portion of the severance benefit covering the period of time
between the date of rehire and the expiration of the period of time for which the
severance benefit was provided.
13
SECTION IV: HOLIDAY, VACATION & LEAVE ACCRUAL
Benefits-eligible employees shall receive pay for holidays, vacation and other leave as provided in
this section. Employees do not earn or receive holiday and vacation benefits while on unpaid
leave of absence. However, employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to
the restoration of such leave benefits, as r equired by applicable law.
SUBSECTION I – HOLIDAYS
A. The following days are recognized and observed as holidays for covered employees.
Eligible employees will receive pay for non-worked holidays equal to their regular rate
of pay times the total number of hours which make a regularly scheduled shift. Except
as otherwise noted in this subsection, an employee may not bank a worked holiday.
1. New Year's Day, the first day of January.
2. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Human Rights Day), the third Monday of
January.
3. President's Day, the third Monday in February.
4. Memorial Day, the last Monday of May.
5. Juneteenth National Freedom Day, June 19
a. If June 19 is on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the
holiday will be observed on the immediately preceding Monday. If June 19
is on a Saturday or Sunday, the holiday will be observed on the immediately
following Monday.
6. Independence Day, July 4.
7. Pioneer Day, July 24.
8. Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
9. Veteran's Day, November 11.
10. Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
11. The Friday after Thanksgiving Day
12. Christmas Day, December 25.
13. One personal holiday per calendar year, taken upon request of an employee
and as approved by a supervisor.
14
B. When any holiday listed above falls on a Sunday, the following business day is
considered a holiday. When any holiday listed above falls on a Saturday, the preceding
business day is considered a holiday. In addition to the above, any day may be
designated as a holiday by proclamation of the mayor or the city council.
C. All holiday hours, including personal holidays, must be used in no less than regular
full day or shift increments.
1. A Fire battalion/division chief may be allowed to use a holiday in less than a
full shift increment only when converting from a “support” to “operations” work
schedule results in the creation of a half-shift.
D. No employee will receive more than the equivalent of one workday or a regular
scheduled shift as holiday pay for a single holiday. Employees must either work or be in
an authorized paid leave status a working day before and a working day after the
holiday to qualify for holiday pay.
1. An employee who is off work and in a paid status covered by short-term
disability or parental leave receives regular pay as a benefit and, therefore, is not
entitled to bank a holiday while off work.
E. Police Sergeant, Lieutenant, & Captain Holiday Hours Worked: When a day
designated as a holiday falls on a scheduled workday, a Police sergeant, lieutenant, or
captain may elect to take the day off work, subject to the approval of their supervisor, or
receive their regular wages for such days worked and designate an alternate day off
work to celebrate the holiday. For a Police sergeant whose assignment requires staffing
on either the graveyard shift prior to, or the day and afternoon shift on Thanksgiving
Day or Christmas Day, all hours worked will be compensated at a rate of one-and-one-
half (1 ½) times the employee’s regular base wage rate.
F. Police Sergeant, Lieutenant, & Captain Accrued Holiday Leave Payout: Police
sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who retire or separate from city employment for any
reason shall be compensated for any holiday time accrued and unused during the
preceding 12 months. Employees will not be compensated for any unused holiday time
accrued before the 12 months preceding the employee’s retirement or separation.
1. Any Police sergeant, lieutenant, or captain who is transferred or promoted to
a higher-level position within the department, including Deputy Chief, Assistant
Chief, or Police Chief, or to a position in another city department will be paid out at
their current base pay rate for any holiday time accrued and unused during the
preceding 12 months.
SUBSECTION II - VACATION LEAVE
The city will pay eligible employees their regular salaries during vacation periods earned and
taken in accordance with the following provisions. Except as provided for expressly in either city
policy or this plan, vacation leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the total
15
number of hours for which an employee is regularly compensated during a work week or a pay
period.
Vacation hours may be used on the first day of the pay period following the period in which the
vacation hours are accrued.
A. Full-Time employees and appointed employees (except for those noted in
paragraphs B and C of this subsection) accrue vacation leave based upon years of city
service as follows:
Years of Hours of Vacation Accrued
City Service Per Bi-Weekly Pay Period
0 to end of year 3 3.73
4 to end of year 6 4.42
7 to end of year 9 4.81
10 to end of year 12 5.54
13 to end of year 15 6.15
16 to end of year 19 6.77
20 or more 7.69
B. Department directors, the mayor’s chief of staff, the mayor’s chief administrative
officer, up to two additional senior positions in the mayor’s office as specified by the
mayor, the executive director of the city council, and justice court judges will accrue
7.69 hours each bi-weekly pay period.
C. Fire battalion chiefs in the Operations division of the Fire department will accrue
vacation leave according to the following schedule:
Years of Accrued Hours of Vacation
City Service Per Pay Period
0 to end of year 3 5.54
4 to end of year 6 6.46
7 to end of year 9 7.38
10 to end of year 12 8.31
16
13 to end of year 14 9.23
15 to end of year 19 10.15
20 or more 11.54
D. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods, no vacation leave hours will be
awarded in the 27th pay period.
E. Years of city service are based on the most recent date the person became a full-
time salaried employee.
F. Full-time employees re-hired by the city are eligible to receive prior service credit
for previous full-time city employment and time worked with other public jurisdictions
without a break in service. Prior service credit is applicable for vacation accrual, personal
leave accrual, short-term disability benefits, layoff, and awarding of employee service
awards and service certificates only. Prior service credit does not apply to longevity
pay.
G. Full-time and appointed employees (except those listed in Paragraph B of this
subsection) may accumulate vacations, according to the length of their full-time years
of city Service, up to the following maximum limits:
Up to and including 9 years Up to 30 days/ 15 shifts/ 240 hours
After 9 years Up to 35 days/ 17.5 shifts/ 280 hours
After 14 years Up to 40 days/ 20 shifts/ 320 hours
For purposes of this subsection, "days" means "8-hour" days and “shifts” means
“24-hour” combat shifts.
H. Department directors and those included in Paragraph B of this subsection may
accumulate up to 320 hours of vacation without regard to their years of employment
with the city.
I. Any vacation accrued beyond the allowable maximums, including any Plan A sick
leave hours converted to vacation, will be deemed forfeited unless used before the end
of the pay period in which an employee’s designated longevity date occurs. However,
in the case of an employee’s return from an unpaid military leave of absence, leave
hours may be restored according to requirements under applicable law.
J. Vacation Payout at Termination: An employee separating from employment may not
exhaust more than 80 hours of any combination of accrued vacation, personal leave, or banked
(holiday or vacation) leave prior to their last day of employment. Employees shall be paid at
their base hourly rate for any unused accrued vacation leave time following termination
of employment, including retirement.
17
K. Vacation Allowance: As a recruiting incentive, the mayor or t he city council may
provide a one-time allowance of up to 120 hours of vacation leave.
SUBSECTION III - SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE
Benefits in this section are for the purpose of income replacement for employees during
absence from work due to illness, accident, or personal reasons. Some of these absences
may qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Although the city
requires use of accrued paid leave prior to taking unpaid FMLA leave, employees will be
allowed to reserve up to 80 hours of non-lapsing leave as a contingency for future use by
submitting a written request to Human Resources. Employees are not eligible to earn or
receive leave benefits while on an unpaid leave of absence.
However, employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to the
restoration of such leave benefits, as provided by applicable law.
Employees hired on or after November 16, 1997 receive personal leave benefits under Plan
B. All other employees receive personal leave benefits pursuant to the plan they participated
in as of November 15, 1998. Employees hired before November 16, 1997 shall receive
personal leave benefits under Plan B if they elected to do so during any city - established
election period occurring in 1998 or later.
A. Plan “A ”
1. Sick Leave
a. Sick leave is provided for full-time employees under Plan “A” as
insurance against loss of income when an employee is unable to perform
assigned duties because of illness or injury. The mayor may e stablish rules
governing the interfacing of sick leave and workers’ compensation benefits
and avoiding, to the extent allowable by law, duplicative payments.
b. Each full-time employee accrues sick leave at a rate of 4.62 hours per
pay period. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods, no sick
leave hours will be awarded in the 27th pay period. Authorized and unused
sick leave may be accumulated from year to year, subject to the limitations
of this plan.
1. Sick Leave Accrual for Fire Battalion Chiefs – Each covered
employee shall be entitled to 15 days of sick leave each calendar year,
except for members of the Operations division who shall be entitled to
7.5 shifts of sick leave each calendar year. The City shall credit a
covered employee’s sick leave account in a lump sum (either 15 days
or7.5 shifts) during the first month of each calendar year. Authorized
and unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year subject to
the limitations of this plan.
c. Under this Plan “A,” Full-Time employees who have accumulated
18
240 hours of sick leave may choose to convert up to 64 hours of the sick
leave earned and unused during any given year to vacation. Any sick leave
used during the calendar year reduces the allowable conversion by an equal
amount.
1. Sick Leave Conversion for Fire Battalion Chiefs – Fire Battalion
Chiefs who have accumulated 15 shifts (for Operations employees), or
240 hours (for non-Operations employees) may choose to convert a
portion of the year sick leave grant from any given year to vacation, as
follows—
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Used During Previous Calendar
Year (Operations Only)
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Available for Conversion
(Operations Only)
No shifts used 5 shifts
One shift used 4 shifts
Two shifts used 3 shifts
Three shifts used 2 shifts
Four shifts used 1 shift
Five or more shifts used No shifts
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Used During Previous Calendar
Year (Support Only)
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Available for Conversion
(Support Only)
No days used 9 days
One day used 8 days
Two days used 7 days
Three days used 6 days
Four days used 5 days
Five or more days used 0 days
d. Conversion at the maximum allowable hours will be made unless the
employee elects otherwise. Any election by an employee for no conversion,
or to convert less than the maximum allowable sick leave hours to vacation
time, must be made by notifying the employee’s department timekeeper or
the city payroll administrator, in writing, not later than the second pay period
of the new calendar year (or the November vacation draw for Fire Battalion
Chiefs). Otherwise, the opportunity to waive conversion or elect conversion
other than the maximum allowable amount will be deemed waived for that
calendar year. In no event may sick leave days be converted from other than
the current year's sick leave allocation.
e. Any sick leave hours, properly converted to vacation benefits as
above described, must be taken before any other vacation hours to which the
employee is entitled; however, in no event is an employee, upon the
employee’s separation from employment, entitled to any pay or
compensation for any sick leave converted to vacation. An employee
19
forfeits any sick leave converted to vacation remaining unused at the date of
separation from employment.
f. Sick Leave Benefits Upon Layoff. Employees who are subject to
layoff because of lack of work or lack of funds will be paid at 100% of their
hourly base wage rate as of the date of termination for each accumulated
unused sick leave hour.
2. Hospitalization Leave
a. Hospitalization leave is provided for full-time employees under Plan
“A,” in addition to sick leave authorized hereunder, as insuran ce against loss
of income when an employee is unable to perform assigned duties because of
scheduled surgical procedures, urgent medical treatment, or hospital
inpatient admission.
b. Employees are entitled to 30 days of hospitalization leave each
calendar year. Hospitalization leave does not accumulate from year to year.
Employees may not convert hospitalization leave to vacation or any other
leave, nor may they convert hospitalization leave to any additional benefit at
time of retirement.
c. Employees who are unable to perform their duties during a shift due
to preparations (such as fasting, rest, or ingestion of medicine), for a
scheduled surgical procedure, may report the absence from the affected shift
as hospitalization leave, with the prior approval of their division head or
supervisor.
d. An employee who must receive urgent medical treatment at a
hospital, emergency room, or acute care facility, and who is regularly
scheduled for work or unable to perform their duties during a shift (or work
day) due to urgent medical treatment, may re port the absence from the
affected shift as hospitalization leave. Similarly, an employee who is absent
from work while on approved leave is also allowed to claim hospitalization
leave.
1. An employee who wishes to claim hospitalization leave is responsible
to report the receipt of urgent medical treatment to the employee’s
division head or supervisor as soon as practical.
2. For purposes of use of hospitalization leave, urgent medical
treatment includes at-home care directed by a physician immediately
after the urgent medical treatment and within the affected shift.
e. Employees who, because they are admitted as an inpatient to a
hospital for medical treatment, are unable to perform their duties, may report
the absence from duty while in the hospital as hospitalization leave.